Gambling Advocates Hedging Their Bets
Pro-Slots Donors Giving to O'Malley As Well as Ehrlich

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006

Maryland supporters of legalizing slot machines have had an outspoken champion in Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., but some key gambling enthusiasts are now putting their money behind his Democratic opponent in the race for governor.

Campaign records show that donations have started going to Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, who has pledged to support a limited gambling plan that would allow slot machines at Maryland racetracks. Slot supporters say O'Malley might have better luck persuading gambling opponents in the Democrat-controlled House of Delegates to ease their resistance.

"It's my view that, from a political standpoint, anyone in the governor's office that's a Democrat may have a better chance to deliver on slots," said Tom Bowman, a veterinarian and horse breeder who served as president of the Maryland Horse Breeders Association during the years when Ehrlich pushed hardest to expand legalized gambling.

Although Bowman said he has held back from giving to either candidate so far this year, as have many of the largest gambling donors, he confirmed that several high-profile advocates who backed Ehrlich four years ago have turned up at O'Malley fundraisers.

Several key players have started hedging their bets. The Thoroughbred Breeders and Horsemen's political action committee, for instance, has given $3,000 to each candidate. Joseph A. DeFrancis, who owns shares of Pimlico Race Course and Laurel Park, was a major supporter of Ehrlich's in the aftermath of the 2002 campaign. He donated $2,000 to O'Malley in August and attended a fundraiser for him last week.

Ehrlich raised more than $60,000 from gambling interests from 2002 to 2004 while he was pushing the General Assembly to approve his sweeping slots plan. During the past two years, though, O'Malley started closing the gap, raising more than $12,000 as Ehrlich took in $30,000.

Ehrlich said that he has seen evidence of the change and that it bothers him.

"They're playing both sides," he said. "I've been saying it for four years: Left-leaning groups don't play that way. We shouldn't either. People should be supporting those who agree with their platform."

Asked whether he understood their reasoning -- that a Democratic governor might be more successful working with the legislature to pass slots -- Ehrlich said he did not.

"If you took that approach, you'd never elect a Republican governor," he said.

Ehrlich's closest advisers have tried to fight back.

In phone calls and handwritten notes, Richard E. Hug, Ehrlich's chief fundraiser, made clear to several O'Malley donors that he was keeping track of their giving. One slots advocate, who asked not to be identified to avoid angering Ehrlich, said Hug called the day after being seen at an O'Malley fundraiser.

Another slots advocate, also speaking anonymously, said Hug might not appreciate that it might be ill-advised for donors to snub O'Malley's requests for contributions.

"O'Malley will continue to be mayor of Baltimore if Ehrlich wins. So a lot of people in the business community can't be in the position of declaring open war on the mayor," the advocate said.

Hug confirmed that he has penned notes to some O'Malley donors and called others. "I do remind people how important this election is," Hug said in an interview.

Although plenty of issues divide the two candidates, slots does not much. Ehrlich made expanding gambling a central component of his legislative agenda in the first three years of his term. He devoted his bully pulpit and budgetary muscle to the cause but was stymied each time by House leaders.

O'Malley has talked disparagingly about slot machines but has said he recognizes the boost they could give to Maryland's ailing horse racing industry. He has said he would allow a limited number of machines at racetracks to save jobs but would not make slots a central focus.

The scant differences between the two candidates might help explain why the money invested so far in this gubernatorial race is paltry compared with the totals from 2002. A study by Common Cause Maryland released in 2003 found that gambling interests had donated $500,000 to Maryland candidates during the 2002 election cycle. A review by The Washington Post shows gambling donations in the past year amount to little more than $38,000.

"I think both candidates have expressed an understanding of the problem, a desire to help the horse industry and the feeling that the issue needs to be addressed in the legislature," said Alan Rifkin, whose Annapolis lobbying firm represents several businesses that stand to reap windfalls if slot machines are legalized.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), an ardent advocate for slots, said the absence of gambling money might be temporary. Bulk donations from national gaming interests and local advocates typically arrive late in the campaign, after the final preelection campaign finance reports are filed later this month, he said.

"I think we're going to have to wait until people have filed their [post-election] disclosures to see who gave to what party," Miller said.

One reason the money comes in late is that candidates don't particularly enjoy being linked to gambling interests, said Minor Carter, an Annapolis lobbyist who helped fend off slots initiatives in the legislature.

Gambling figured into a series of indictments of high-profile political figures in Maryland over the past four decades. When then-Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) announced that he opposed slots, the state went a long stretch without gambling intrigue. Ehrlich's election brought a renewed push for slots -- and renewed scrutiny.

In 2003, the influence of gambling money prompted a long FBI investigation into campaign donations solicited by Miller. That review was eventually dropped, and the Senate president was cleared.

On June 2 and 16, 2004, the U.S. attorney's office in Baltimore issued subpoenas to Ehrlich's communications director, Paul S. Schurick, as part of a wide-reaching probe into contacts between the governor's administration and an array of gambling interests. That investigation never progressed and was closed when U.S. Attorney Thomas M. DiBiagio left office in December 2004. The governor's press office has declined to comment on the matter.

"These guys just have too much influence," House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) said of gambling interests. "If you think big oil or big tobacco are bad, they pale in comparison to big gambling. I don't see why any of them would want to lower themselves back into that debate."

Busch, incidentally, does not think O'Malley would be any better served by a slots debate than Ehrlich was. He said he has told as much to O'Malley's running mate, Del. Anthony G. Brown (D-Prince George's).

"From my standpoint, our elected leader, whomever it is, should aim higher than that," Busch said.