There’s not a hint that the legislation would make Florida home to some of the world’s largest casinos, or that the bill — as amended in the Florida Senate — would allow 11 casinos, and another 20 sites for slot machines throughout the state. Also left out was that the bill would provide amnesty to unauthorized Internet-gambling houses, rather than reining them in or shutting them down.

My Word: By any other name, it’s still gambling

By John Sowinski
Orlando Sentinel

Imagine that you are a member of the Florida Legislature.

Representatives of a powerful special-interest group want you to vote for an idea that would allow them to make billions. They hire economists to say their idea will be great for Florida’s economy. They run ads that claim the idea will create jobs. They hire lobbyists and make eye-popping political contributions. But curiously, when they promote their idea to the public, they don’t say what the bill they want you to vote for actually does.

They want you to vote for something that is apparently so controversial, that they often try to characterize the bill as having the exact opposite effect as what, in reality, it has. Wouldn’t you wonder, “If those who stand to make billions refuse to associate themselves with their idea — why should Florida leaders?”

John LaBruzzo’s guest column, “I-Drive shows how destination resorts can help S. Fla. thrive,” in Sunday’s Sentinel is full of references to destination resorts, but doesn’t mention that the bill he is endorsing would be the single biggest expansion of gambling in Florida history.

There’s not a hint that the legislation would make Florida home to some of the world’s largest casinos, or that the bill — as amended in the Florida Senate — would allow 11 casinos, and another 20 sites for slot machines throughout the state. Also left out was that the bill would provide amnesty to unauthorized Internet-gambling houses, rather than reining them in or shutting them down.

For full article, click here.