ShareThis Page

Kane made the right call

| Friday, March 1, 2013, 8:57 p.m.

On Feb. 14, Attorney General Kathleen Kane rejected Gov. Tom Corbett's attempt to sell the Pennsylvania Lottery. In rebuffing the proposed lottery contract with British-based Camelot Global Services, Kane exercised her office's statutory authority to review all state contracts on constitutionality, legality and form.

The AG determined that the contract infringes on the Legislature's power to make policy decisions regarding the lottery, allows for keno games in violation of the lottery act and usurps the authority of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.

Her reasoning is clear, concise and — in my opinion — correct. There is absolutely no valid reason to sell the lottery.

The contract offer promises a growth rate of 3 percent to 4 percent annually over the next 10 years. But here's what the governor doesn't care to tell you: We're exceeding that growth already without privatization. Lottery sales grew a record 8.5 percent last year, increasing profits by more than $100 million under the current public system.

Every penny of that profit goes to programs benefiting our seniors. Every dollar funneled to a private company is pulled out of those programs. So, in effect, the commonwealth would be paying a British company to decrease lottery revenues.

The lottery is a successful and lucrative resource — owned by the people of Pennsylvania. If Gov. Corbett thought that privatizing the Pennsylvania Lottery was a worthy goal, he should have made his case to the people of Pennsylvania. It's clear from his actions that the governor did not want to follow constitutionally mandated procedure, let alone allow a full public vetting of his attempted sale.

Kane said, “It is important that my office perform its role in the system of checks and balances that our government desperately needs and that our citizens deserve.”

I couldn't agree more.

Deberah Kula


The writer, a Democrat, is a state representative for 52nd District.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.