The Massachusetts Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation to establish slot machine gambling at the state's four struggling racetracks yesterday, marking the first time in Beacon Hill history that such a measure has passed either branch of the Legislature.
The 26-9 vote in favor of allowing up to 2,000 slot machines at each facility would be just enough to overcome a threatened veto by Governor Mitt Romney, if the measure ever reaches his desk. But House leaders said yesterday that they are in no hurry to take up the controversial proposal, which critics blast as a give-away to a dying industry that will spawn a host of social ills, such as increased personal bankruptcy and compulsive gambling.
''I don't get a sense right now that this is on the front burner, as far as the members are concerned," said Representative Thomas M. Petrolati, when asked if the House would take up the Senate bill.
Backers say the bill would generate roughly $350 million in tax revenue a year, or roughly 1.5 percent of state spending, by taxing 60 percent of the earnings on slot machines at Suffolk Downs, Wonderland Greyhound Park, Raynham Park, and Plainridge Racecourse.
That money, as well as $100 million in start-up license fees, would bolster municipal budgets, build up the state's ''rainy day" reserve fund, and augment the Legislature's general appropriations fund, said Senator Michael W. Morrissey, the measure's chief architect.
If the bill becomes law, Massachusetts would be the tenth state in the nation to sanction racinos, or gambling facilities sited at dog or horse tracks. Industry analysts say Bay State residents already spend upwards of $700 million a year at Connecticut casinos alone and millions more at establishments in Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Nevada. Backers are eager to bring the industry into Massachusetts to keep that revenue in the Bay State.
''Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have been subsidized in no small part by Massachusetts," said Sebastian Sinclair, a gambling industry analyst for Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC, an independent consulting firm.
Yesterday's Senate vote was watched closely by gaming and racetrack lobbyists, who milled nervously around the door of the Senate chamber as the members debated.
A Globe review of records kept by the secretary of state's office found that lobbyists for the four racetracks, as well as for gambling companies and Indian tribes that stand to benefit from the bill, gave more than $27,000 in contributions to senators' campaigns in the first six months of the year.
Among the lobbyists outside the chamber yesterday was Charles F. Flaherty, the former House speaker and now lobbyist for Suffolk Downs, who has given $2,400 to senators so far this year. He dismissed the suggestion that contributions would curry favor on the slots legislation. Lobbyists like him, Flaherty said, represent several clients with a wide range of bills on their agenda.
''Look at all the lobbyists' clients, and divide the contributions by the number of clients," Flaherty said. ''So you have a $200 cap on contributions and there's 10 clients, so that's $20 for the racetracks. I don't think that's buying any votes."
Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat who has received $2,100 so far this year from industry lobbyists, echoed Flaherty's comments.
''The real issue was . . . saving jobs in those communities," Morrissey said. ''People like me, I get tired of seeing the money going south."
The Globe reported last month that Romney, who is testing the waters for a possible presidential run, was under pressure from conservative activists in key primary states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, to oppose expanded gaming. He threatened a veto of any bill to propose such a move.
To override a veto, the 40-member Senate would require 27 votes, or a two-thirds majority. But two lawmakers are recusing themselves on the gambling issue because of potential conflicts of interest: Jarrett T. Barrios, whose law firm represents Suffolk Downs, and James E. Timilty, whose father lobbies for Wonderland. As a result, only 26 votes would be needed to override the bill that passed yesterday.
