Your point is well-taken and I agree with the need to point things like that out to put things in perspective. Thanks for providing some informed commentary on that.
Incidentally another thing about Lady Luck I'd mention is the fact that it was doing business outside Las Vegas as well, so the economics and politics of other regions where it was doing business are also factors to consider. Lady Luck's venture into Mississippi was part of a broader expansion of the casino industry into that region in the 1990s. This hasn't gotten as much attention as the expansion of the Indian casino business during that period but I find it equally interesting, and I wonder what state and national politics were involved in that.
The answer to your question as to how extensive the state and national politics are involved in the granting of casino licenses is--it depends according to the jurisdiction. In Nevada, for instance, it's very little. Anyone who applies for a license, can pass the background check and can prove to the Gaming Control Board theirs would be a viable business, would be able to get the license. However, in certain states, particularly the Midwestern gaming jurisdictions like Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, etc., there are a limited number of gaming licenses available--often this is because the restriction was legislated in order to address the social concerns over even legalizing gaming in the state in the first place. Therefore, there is certainly the greater likelihood of politics playing a role in who gets the license.
In the case of Lady Luck, fortunately the entrance into Mississippi is relatively easy--i.e. the licensing process (and entire internal control structure for that matter) generally follows Nevada's system as it was modeled after it. The only really messy part of MS licensing is that currently a casino must be a "riverboat"--which has generally restricted the number of licensees just by sheer geographical constraints. However, in the wake of the effects of Hurricane Katrina, recently there have been rumblings about even changing that restriction. Still, I personally would tend to believe that in Mississippi, names mean more than anything else. In other words, the government would likely grant a license to a well-established casino company than to just an ordinary little upstart casino.
In these other markets where the licensing is a bit more selective, I guess the best answer as to whether politics play a role is to follow the money.