By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer

Monday, April 30, 2007 11:44 AM CDT

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri Republican Party platform is clear: Republicans oppose the expansion of gambling. And they support Missouri’s one-of-a-kind law that limits how much gamblers can lose.

So how is it, then, that the Republican majority leader of the Missouri Senate is taking the opposite position? And why are almost half the Senate Republicans going along with him?

That’s the question simmering among some anti-gambling Republicans, who have long been a majority in the party but now find themselves on the legislative defensive.

The Senate last week gave narrow first-round approval to a bill by Majority Leader Charlie Shields, of St. Joseph, that would repeal Missouri’s loss limits, raise casino taxes and cap the number of casinos at five more than are operating today. The new tax revenues would go to college scholarships.

Shields touts the positive benefits of the scholarships. But he also argues it is essential to abolish the loss limit — which prohibits gamblers from buying more than $500 of tokens or chips every two hours — for Missouri’s casinos to compete with newly approved Kansas casinos.

“Based on my research, loss limits is a vestige of the past that has no impact on problem gaming,” Shields said. “At some point, you have to look at the issue and say, ‘Does this make any sense? Is it changing behavior? Is it changing the number of problem gamblers in the state?’ And the answer is no. What it does do is put us at a competitive disadvantage with other states.”

That’s not the official Republican position.

The state party platform declares support for “enforcing those limits upon gambling established by the citizens of this state in the Missouri State Constitution and prohibit(ing) the further expansion of gambling within Missouri beyond that already authorized in the Constitution.”

During the 2004 state Republican convention, the last time the platform was updated, delegates adopted a resolution specifically endorsing gambling loss limits by connecting them to President Bush’s homeland security and anti-terrorism efforts.

“The Missouri Republican Party supports the maintenance of Missouri’s visionary casino loss limits to protect all citizens from terrorist and other criminal elements, (and the) laundering of cash capital used to fund their activities,” the resolution states.

Casino Watch, a Chesterfield-based group that supports loss limits, insists they help deter gambling addictions and make Missouri casinos less likely to be targeted by organized crime.

The $500 loss limit was included in the original casino measure passed by lawmakers in 1991 and referred to the November 1992 statewide ballot. In fact, the loss limit was specifically mentioned in the brief ballot language read by voters.

Although the Legislature was controlled by Democrats at the time, the casino measure would have never made it to the ballot if not for Republicans. Twenty-one of the 65 Republican House members, including Shields, voted for the final version. It passed the House with just three votes more than the minimum.

Missourians than approved casinos — with the loss limits — by 63 percent of the vote.

If Shields’ bill is successful, loss limits would be abolished without a statewide vote.

That’s particularly troubling to President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, of Kirkwood, the only Republican to outrank Shields in the Senate.

Asked how Shields’ legislation meshed with the Republican Party platform, Gibbons replied simply: “Well, it doesn’t.”

“I’m just opposed to repealing the loss limits without a vote of the people,” Gibbons said.

Some Republicans are trying to avoid taking a public position on Shields’ bill. Asked twice about it last week, Gov. Matt Blunt said he would have to review the final version.

“I’m not for expanding gambling,” Blunt said. “There has to be some significant restrictions on gambling for me to think it’s a good deal.”

House Speaker Rod Jetton said the bill likely “would have trouble” in the House.

“I’ve always supported loss limits and continue to have real reservations about taking them off,” said Jetton, R-Marble Hill. “I’m with that platform, I like it.”

But Jetton acknowledges the scholarship program, the new threat of casino competition from Kansas and the bill’s cap on the number Missouri casinos could combine to make some reluctant Republicans willing to support the legislation.

Jetton doesn’t believe the party’s overall position on gambling is shifting. But Gibbons believes more elected Republicans are supportive of the gambling industry than when he entered the Legislature in 1993.

Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, an opponent of Shields’ bill, angrily asserted during Senate debate last month that some Republicans seemed to be selling out to the casino industry for campaign contributions.

According to Missouri Ethics Commission records, the casino industry has contributed more than $40,000 this past year to elected state officials, primarily Republicans.

State party spokesman Paul Sloca said the majority of Republicans still agree with the platform against expanded gambling. But “we’re a big party, and we have a lot of different ideas,” Sloca said.

When it comes to casinos, those ideas are clashing. And picking the winner is a tough bet.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Capitol Correspondent David A. Lieb covers Missouri government and politics for The Associated Press.

Archives Web Site Marketplace Obits Babies Jobs