Columnist Jeff German: By any name, casino action becoming a national issue

THE ENDLESS debate over the best way to refer to the casino industry has reached new heights.

Industry leaders long have preferred the term "gaming," which creates a softer, positive image in keeping with today's Wall Street casino companies.

Casino critics, however, like using "gambling," a more negative connotation that reminds us of old-time street bookies and mob-dominated numbers games.

The words are interchangeable in the dictionary.

But in Nevada, the preference is obvious, where lawmakers created the state Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission to regulate the casino industry.

Some say the term "gaming" dates back to the 16th century, when it was used to describe games of chance that involved personal skill. If that's true, someone forgot to explain the definition to the industry's critics.

Outside Nevada, the debate over the use of the two words lives on.

It has spread to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which has been conducting a two-year examination of casinos in America. The nine-member panel must decide how to use the two terms when it delivers its report to Congress in June.

For a long time, pro-casino commissioners wouldn't be caught dead uttering the word gambling, and likewise anti-casino members had a hard time spitting out gaming. In recent weeks, however, as the commission has begun writing its report, both sides have interchanged the words. They've even joked about how they've come together.

But now the religious right wing of the Republican Party is trying to spoil everything.

The religious conservatives, who include members of the Christian Coalition, want to know which term the GOP presidential candidates in 2000 prefer when describing games of chance.

Is it gaming or gambling, George W. Bush?

Earlier this month, several candidates eyeing the presidency actually were asked to submit their thoughts on the subject in writing on a lengthy questionnaire put together by the religious right, which is spearheading a nationwide moral crusade against casinos.

Industry lobbyists who've had to beat back challenges from Republican conservatives the past several years find the question laughable, but disturbing.

Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the Washington-based American Gaming Association, calls it a "cheap shot" at the industry.

"For them to come up with some silly litmus test over how you spell something shows that they're out of step with the American people," Fahrenkopf says.

The religious right, a driving force behind the Republican Party, steadily has been losing its political influence, he adds.

"The American people," he says, resent other people trying to force their view of morality on them,"

Wayne Mehl, Washington lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, also doesn't think much of the conservative efforts.

"It's an indicator of what we're up against," he says. "It shows the absurdness of how they judge people. We're talking about jobs and social and economic benefits, and they're talking about gaming vs. gambling."

Though Fahrenkopf disagrees, Mehl says the questionnaire is a clear sign that the casino industry could become a factor in the 2000 presidential race.

"You just can't avoid dealing with the gambling issue now," Mehl says.

Casino critics, such as Tom Grey, executive director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, already have predicted that gambling will figure in the 2000 election.

Last month, a rift over industry's growing role in politics surfaced within the GOP in Washington. Conservative Republicans lost a fight to ban the Republican National Committee from accepting campaign contributions from the casino industry. But they vowed to renew the battle at the party's convention in Philadelphia in 2000.

Both Fahrenkopf and Mehl also are expecting more fallout after the Impact Study Commission delivers its report in June. The debate over the merits of the casino industry, it seems, will heat up just as the presidential race becomes more defined.

And now it seems that debate will include a discussion on the proper way to describe the industry.

Will it ever end?

archive