news-record.com

BLOGS

Capital Beat

Earl Jones video poker contributions

Rep. Earl Jones has been one of the most vocal (and at times, the only) voice in the General Assembly calling out for the legalization of some form of video poker. So, as you might expect, his campaign committee has gotten some donations from video poker interests.

For those who haven’t tuned in to the topic, legislators have been doing their best to get rid of video poker – and its kissing cousin, video sweepstakes – since 2005. Video poker played a role in the downfall of former House Speaker Jim Black, and lawmakers decided to outlaw it after all 100 of the state’s sheriffs (among others) basically said it was impossible to police.

After video poker was outlawed, video sweepstakes machines started creeping into the state. They sort of look like the old video poker machines, but their operators argue that they’re sweepstakes, whose outcomes are predetermined and players are only finding out if they won through a “fun” interface. (Background here, here, here and here.)

Jones has sponsored legislation to legalize the sweepstakes machines, arguing that the state should tax them and use the revenue to fill budget gaps. He has closely allied himself with the Entertainment Group of N.C., which is essentially the trade association for video poker/sweepstakes operators and a scion of the N.C. Amusement Machines PAC, the group that fought video poker’s legislative demise.

So it’s worth noting that four names associated with video poker/sweepstakes show up on Jones’ end-of-year campaign finance report (PDF):

Fred Ayers, owner of Colonial Vending in Greensboro. At one time, Ayers was the president of the N.C. Amusement Machine Association, a group that represented video poker interests at the legislature. ($500)
Donald Young, Young Amusement in Huntersville. He shows up as the registered agent of a company that deals with “recreation-video games” in N.C. Secretary of State records, although “Young Amusement” itself seems to be a DBA since it doesn’t seem to be listed. Donald Young at the same address was also a donor to the old N.C. Amusement Machine PAC. ($400)
Ryan Douglas Kimrey of Charlotte, owner of Alamance Coin, cited in this story from the Gaston Gazette on whether video slots skirt the law. ($300)
Steven Lee Henderson of Operators Distributing in Archdale. His company was also a player that fought the demise of the old-style video poker machines. ($500)

Neither the $1,700 in video poker/sweepstakes-related money nor the $3,000 in total fundraising Jones reported for the last six months of 2009 are a whole lot by General Assembly standards. And this report is pretty typical for Jones, who has never earned the “prolific fundraiser” appellation, as some of his colleagues have. Still, the connection between his fundraising and this particular set of industry interests bears watching.

Permalink
Tags: General Assembly, House, Earl Jones, video poker, Jim Black, video slots, Entertainment Group of N.C.

Posted by Mark Binker on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 4:58 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

DonMoore

February 3, 2010 - 6:12 pm EST

Could it be that Earl is setting the path for Skip and Deanna's hotel to become a casino?

Interested

February 4, 2010 - 6:09 am EST

As you are playing loose with the facts, lets clarify again. While the forces looking to outlaw video poker looked for a connection, that was not what brought Jim down. Chiropractors were the downfall of Jim Black. Of course, using that information would not add anything to your story.

If you are going to tell us about Mr. Jones's contributors, tell us about all of them. How many contributors did he have? What were his other contributors connected to? What were the total contributions collected, not just six months worth. And by the way, who are chiropractors donating to these days?

Your piece reads more like something of a smear on Mr. Jones - stop pushing for this legislation or risk being painted with Jim Black's paintbrush. If he is usually the LONE voice calling for the legalization of this industry, how far will he get?

Mark Binker

February 4, 2010 - 7:59 am EST

Interested:

The money involving chiropractors was indeed central to the charges that were filed in federal court. But the activity that first drew federal investigators' attention and opened Jim Black's campaign finances to scrutiny involved video poker interests.

As for his other contributors, if you were really interested, you could click on the link I provided and see he got donations from a few PACS during the cycle, but all his individual contributors had video poker connections.

I'm following this closely for two reasons:

* video poker interests did play a role in the downfall of a major political leader in the state
* Rep. Jones is a Greensboro legislator who has engaged in a quixotic kind of legislative quest and for whatever reason that is showing up on his campaign finance reports. He has picked up some support along the way, although I don't think the current edition of legislative leadership is ever going to buy into video poker, but I've been wrong before.

Finally, without making a value judgment myself, if it is a "smear" to report someone has taken campaign contributions from someone, might it behoove that legislator to rethink taking those contributions in the first place?

Interested

February 4, 2010 - 8:26 am EST

A quest? Is that how you refer to all legislators who introduce bills?

What makes this read like a smear to me is that you mention individual contributors to Mr. Jones campaign as though he should not be taking their money. Have these individuals you mention been convicted of something? You single these men out as though they have done something wrong.

Have you done the same follow up on the chiropractors who were involved in the situation that led to the charges against Mr. Black?

Mark Binker

February 4, 2010 - 9:00 am EST

A few points:

* Chiropractors aren't giving campaign donations to a member of the General Assembly whom I closely follow for my readership area. Folks with an interest in video poker are.
* To answer your question, yes, I wrote quite a bit about chiropractors when they were in the news and active givers to candidates I covered.
*re: Quest: I've used it before, particularly for lawmakers pushing quirky legislation. If I remember right (I've been down here five years) I've described various bills John Blust and Pricey Harrison have been involved with that way.

I think you're trying to read something into this post other than what was intended or you simply don't like the way it's written. That's fine. But here's what I'd like you to take away even if we still disagree on this particular point:

The intersection of money and politics has been at the heart of a number of scandals in recent years, an intersection that in many cases went unknown or unnoticed. Here I have a lawmaker from my paper's circulation area for whom I can draw a clear line between his actions as a state official and money coming into his bank account. I'm going to note that and (I hope) help people understand the connection. It's up to readers/voters to decide for themselves whether the information is relevant.

Doug

February 4, 2010 - 10:19 am EST

This post illustrates exactly why campaign financial disclosure is important to the issue of election integrity. Voters have the right to know, and ought to know, what special interests are supporting their elected representatives. Is "Interested" really so uninterested? Should this information not be reported? Should voters really not care? That attitude is what lets special interests hold sway in our legislative chambers.

Good work, Mark.

Interested

February 4, 2010 - 10:57 am EST

Certainly there should be transparency. The ongoing investigation into the Easley campaign demonstrates this need to the n-th degree.

But we are talking about a legislator who received $1700 for his campaign, not the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that were discussed in relation to some of our more notorious past representatives. Of course, maybe Mr. Binker is merely firing a warning shot, a "we're watching you" message.

So should we expect to see detailed investigations into each legislator's campaign? Will we be given detailed information telling us who supported legislation benefitting their supporters? My guess is this will be a mighty long list. Particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision.

Mark Binker

February 4, 2010 - 11:07 am EST

I just posted something I've been working on regarding contributions to other House members and I'm working on a post re: Greensboro-area Senators. At this point, I'm unsure what's going to find its way into the paper, but a few things have piqued my interest.

Re: the SCOTUS decision: that stuff won't even show up on campaign finance reports. You'll simply see the commercials appear and then have to go digging about in dozens of different filings to see who is bankrolling them.