MGM, which is nearing a groundbreaking for its 0 million MGM Springfield casino in Massachusetts, has sued to try to prevent the tribes that own Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun from taking defensive measures to prevent their casinos from hemorrhaging millions of dollars to the Bay State.
As Ross Perot once warned about the “big sucking noise” of money flowing towards Mexico, so the tribes are trying to open a third, satellite casino under joint management to try to stop some of the money from crossing the border.
The tribes recently entered into a partnership called MM4CT and hired a real estate firm to manage requests for proposals, as authorized by the state law that MGM has now filed suit against in federal court.
According to Rodney Butler, chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, “This agreement marks a new chapter in the history between our sovereign nations. While our past may have been marked by conflict and competition, our present and future will be defined by cooperation. With a united front, we can and will defend the thousands of jobs that are under attack.”
The partnership was authorized by legislation that Governor Dannel Malloy signed in June. It brought together two jobs that have been archrivals for nearly 20 years. Now, however, they are making common cause against Massachusetts.
Without such a casino both tribes warn that they could lose millions of dollars and over 9,000 jobs. The $300 million satellite casino, they believe, will save 40 percent of the lost revenue.
MM4CT is now in the process of vetting possible casino sites. Several communities are interested in hosting a casino, including East Hartford, where there is a proposal revamping the existing Showcase Cinemas into a casino. East Windsor and Windsor have also shown an interest.
Last month MGM took the state to court. MGM argues that the Connecticut law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and also the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
It argues that the Equal Protection Clause is violated because only the two tribes are allowed to participate in siting a casino. It violates the Commerce Clause by excluding out-of-state vendors.
Shortly after the tribes signed their partnership agreement, MGM issued a statement calling the move, “a continuation of an unconstitutional process that does not allow anyone else to make proposals that could result in greater benefits for the state of Connecticut, its residents and consumers,” adding, “This is the result of a flawed, closed-door deal that shuts out voters in the approval process, eliminates all competition and doesn’t provide any protections for workers.”
Andrew Doba, a spokesman for the two tribes, said that MGM, “either wasn’t paying attention to the Connecticut General Assembly last session or is deliberately trying to mislead people. Either way, he’s just wrong. This bill was the subject of numerous public hearings and countless hours of public testimony.”
He added, “It passed multiple committees, was approved with bipartisan legislative support from across the state in both the House and the Senate and has the support of organized labor. Why? Because it takes the steps we need to protect the good paying jobs and revenue that come along with this crucial part of Connecticut’s economy.”
Connecticut lawmaker Stephen Dargan waggishly suggested last week that instead of taking the state to court that it should offer to pay it a few hundred million dollars to make up for the loss of revenue that the tribes will suffer.
“If MGM wants to give us a letter of credit of $297 million we would lose from the tribes if we would in fact open it up, I’m sure we’d be more than happy to listen to MGM’s proposal,” he said.
