The third version of legislation would eliminate public disclosure of a person or group that advocates for or against the casino, and would increase donation limits.

01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, May 4, 2005

BY SCOTT MAYEROWITZ and KATHERINE GREGG
Journal State House Bureau

With the House expected to vote today on seeking a Supreme Court opinion on the constitutionality of this year's casino bill, the lead sponsor yesterday demanded an apology from the governor for attacking him with "slanderous" remarks.

Rep. Timothy A. Williamson also spent part of the day explaining why he just introduced a new, third version of the legislation, which now fills 100 pages.

Most significantly, there would be less public disclosure about who bankrolls campaigns for and against the proposed Harrah's-Narragansett Indian casino in Williamson's hometown of West Warwick.

But those changes were overshadowed yesterday by Williamson's call for vindication during the House session.

"When the chief executive of the state of Rhode Island states in a newspaper article that I am being paid by Harrah's . . . because I filed legislation on behalf of the townspeople of West Warwick, justice demands that he apologize. The truth demands that he apologize," Williamson said.

"This governor basically accused me of being corrupt," Williamson said.

On Thursday, after Democrat Williamson had called him a "hypocrite" for opposing the bid for a Supreme Court opinion, Republican Carcieri lashed back. He linked the $163,386 that Williamson's law firm was paid last year by West Warwick with the payments totalling $157,694 that Harrah's had made to the town to conduct impact studies. Only some have been made public.

Since March 2002, Williamson said, another law firm, Poore & Rosenbaum, has handled the town's casino-related legal work. He also denied that he or his firm had anything to gain from a proposed development agreement with the town that committed Harrah's to paying any legal expenses that arose out of future challenges to that agreement.

But Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said: "Governor Carcieri has nothing to apologize for. The governor stands by his statement."

"West Warwick employs Representative Williamson. Harrah's reimburses the town of West Warwick for legal expenses . . . Representative Williamson is the primary supporter of legislation that would directly benefit Harrah's and West Warwick.

"In other words, Representative Williamson has repeatedly introduced legislation designed to benefit his employer," Neal said. "If a legislator who happened to be a CVS employee introduced legislation designed to help CVS, that would be called a conflict of interest, so the governor stands by his statement."

The latest version of the casino bill is largely similar to the previous version. However, Williamson, the tribe and Harrah's made several tweaks as well as the major change regarding the financial reporting of advocates for and against the casino.

State law already governs how groups may lobby for the approval or rejection of a referendum. However, last year lawmakers set up a special set of rules solely for the casino question. [The rules were part of last year's casino bill, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional. However, since it was just an advisory opinion, the legislation remains law.]

Williamson is now proposing to amend those special rules.

Current law requires any person or group that advocates for or against the casino to register with the secretary of state and the Board of Elections. Groups must disclose the name and address of any director, partner, officer or member of its board.

That provision would be eliminated under Williamson's third -- and latest -- version of the bill this session.

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was happy with that particular change. Brown said that under existing law, someone who wrote a letter to the editor about the casino -- but never donated money -- will still be required to register. Williamson is now proposing groups and individuals to file with the board once they spend $2,000.

Another major change to the bill also pares down the public reporting of donors.

Currently, groups would have to report the name and address of anyone who gives $500 or more to an organization taking sides in a casino-referendum fight. Williamson wants to increase that threshold to $2,000.

He said that $500 is not a significant amount of money when considering the multimillion dollar campaigns that could surface.

The new $2,000 threshold, however, poses a problem: current law places a $1,000 limit on donations to political action committees advocating for or against a casino. So, theoretically, no one could legally donate the $2,000 needed for public disclosure.

Williamson said the $1,000 limit applies only to PACs but could not say who or what would be considered a PAC. The ACLU's Brown said that any group accepting donations would be considered a PAC.

Brown is opposed to any type of spending limit and is upset that the casino proponents are seeking one.

Such limits exist for donation to candidates, but Brown said the U.S. Supreme Court "has made a bright distinction" between referendum questions and the election of officials.

With ballot questions, people are "debating issues" and using money to get their message heard.

"You're not putting a candidate in office who might be corrupted, you're addressing an issue, up or down," Brown said.

"The limit on contributions hurts those who are opposed to casino," he added. "Harrah's, for example, can spend as much as it wants."

When Maine voters considered a casino in November 2003 -- they rejected the proposal by a 2-to-1 ratio -- advocates for and against the measure spent nearly $10 million combined to get their points across. Companies such as L.L. Bean and Tom's of Maine donated to the anticasino campaign.

Brown said under the current law and the proposed amendment, similar companies would be limited to $1,000 donations to a coordinated anticasino effort. However, he noted, they could spend an unlimited amount on their own.

The other change in the casino bill involves how the Narragansetts are described in the preamble.

The last version of the bill characterized the tribe in a manner that has been disputed. It referred to the Narragansetts as "the only federally recognized tribe involuntarily denied the right to operate its own gambling facility, all of which create a unique obligation of the State to the Tribe."

The new version says that the tribe "is the only federally recognized tribe involuntarily denied rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act."

Williamson said the tribe's lawyer, Jack Killoy, requested the change so this bill would not in any way affect the tribe's ongoing cases in federal court regarding land claims and also its attempt to operate a smoke shop.

Joseph S. Larisa, the lawyer who successfully argued against the constitutionality of last year's bill, said the change in wording is not legally significant.