Taking a page from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker‘s playbook, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) is trying to have it both ways: oppose “expansion” of gambling but refuse 
to define aforesaid expansion. With riverboat casinos pressing to come ashore, Pence has been mixed signals. Sounding mildly frustrated, House Public Policy Chairman Tom Dermody (R) outlined the tightrope act he and his colleagues must walk: “I believe the goal has to be to recommend something leading into session and be able to justify why it is not an expansion of gaming.”
In a fit of unhelpfulness, Pence stated his policy as follows: “I’ve made it very clear from the beginning that gaming is a reality in the state of Indiana. It’s never been the intention of my administration to promote policies that either expand or contract gaming in our state. But I’m going to make it very clear to legislators that our administration will not support any expansion of gaming in the state of Indiana.”
So, if riverboat operations want to come ashore, where it’s safer, how is that an expansion? Besides, Indiana has redrawn the line in the sand many times, eliminating cruising requirements, permitting a land-based casino, approving racinos … what is Pence’s metaphorical Rubicon, the point beyond which he will not go? Besides, he’s got a Legislature hungry for new tax money and we all know where legislatures look first for that. What will they give the gaming industry in return for a higher levy? And how do they reconcile that with falling casino revenues in the Hoosier State? Pence’s juking and jiving on this difficult issue is the opposite of leadership.
* Under the guise of “Let NY Play,” stealthy MGM Resorts International is pushing for online gambling in the Empire State. The company believes that New Yorkers are wagering up to $110 million online. At the risk of giving away the store, it has suggested that taxation of legalized play could yield New York State as much as $80 a year … to say nothing of the one-shot cash jolt of selling licenses at $80 million apiece. With numbers like those, it’s no wonder the MGM is preferring the small footprint of online gaming to the donnybrook for a brick-and-mortar casino.
Legislators who back MGM’s proposal so far aren’t finding that it raises much of a buzz with their constituents. Although i-gaming has been a disappointment in New Jersey, an MGM spokesman insists “over time it’s going to be exactly what they did expect and more” — more likely if PokerStars receives state absolution. (He’s right that “the reality is that poker is the one whose business model is already established and the one that would be the most acceptable and appropriate, certainly from a political point of view.”) At this point, with New York in the middle of one form of gaming expansion, it’s doubtful that 5K “likes” on a Facebook page constitute a groundswell.
* Dan Lee has turned up again, this time leading a shareholder insurgency at Full House Resorts. It’s rattled management sufficiently that the latter is talking about a merger or outright sale of the company, whose flagship Rising Sun 
property is being strangulated by new competition from Cincinnati. Lee, unfortunately, only controls 6% of Full House shares and needs 40% to force a vote. His group has been dissed by management as “the wrong people, with the wrong agenda at the wrong time.” It specifically singled out Lee, citing his abortive tenure at the Palms and his ignominious departure from Pinnacle Entertainment.
However, Full House shareholders who have seen their stock lose half its value might be susceptible to Lee’s call to battle. Although the company calls the proxy fight “disruptive,” as such things tend to be, Full House’s sudden willingness to sell out suggests Lee has upper management rattled. Lee, who’s made some bad calls in her career, castigated top brass for “a reckless buying binge, overpaying for three shrinking casinos and pursuing two hotel additions that have marginal returns.” His allies include Aliante Casino prexy Ellis Landau. They point to Full House’s loss of over $2 million in forfeited escrow money and associated fees as evidence of delinquent leadership.
Stockholders can be grateful for one thing: Their shares are worth two cents more now that Lee is on the attack. Excepting a takeover, there’s nothing like a proxy fight to chum the market.
