William Bennett considering lawsuits against casinos

The Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | Tuesday, July 29, 2003 | ROD SMITH

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Morals czar William Bennett is considering filing lawsuits against Las Vegas casino companies that may have leaked documents detailing his gambling habits.

Bennett, the architect and leading advocate of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign, was outed in the May issue of The Washington Monthly magazine as a gambler who has wagered -- and lost -- millions over the past decade at Bellagio and Caesars Atlantic City.

During a 60-minute interview with Tim Russert on CNCB this weekend, the former education secretary complained his privacy rights had been "deliberately damaged" while also mocking Las Vegas' latest national marketing campaigns.

"By the way, there's a commercial on that people may have seen about Las Vegas, that 'What happens here stays here.' Well, not in my case. Some people there were trying to do me great harm," Bennett said.

The "What happens here" ad campaign is part of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority's latest marketing campaign to boost tourism to the city.

He argued the magazine report stemmed from the release of "some documents" by the casinos themselves which was not legal and violated his privacy rights.

He alleges documents were selectively leaked to create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.

While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents and said he had no problem with the reporters who have written stories on his gambling, he told Russert the release of the information was not legal and he is looking into the possibility of legal action against the casinos.

On Monday, Bennett declined to comment further on the possibility of legal action against the casino companies.

Spokesmen for Park Place Entertainment Corp. , owner of the Caesars Atlantic City, and MGM Mirage, which operates Bellagio, declined comment.

Industry insiders have said details in The Washington Monthly article suggest the data about Bennett's gambling habits might actually have come from documents produced by Central Credit, a subsidiary of First Data Corp. of Greenwood Village, Colo.

Central Credit, which has denied being a source of the documents, is the gaming industry equivalent of credit reporting agency TRW. It allows member casinos to run credit checks on debts, marker activity and repayment habits of casino customers.

Industry experts and civil liberties attorneys doubt Bennett has a cause of action.

Las Vegas professor and casino gambling expert Bill Thompson said Bennett's privacy rights "were violated. I think he has a beef, but I don't know if he has a legal argument."

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the Nevada chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said "It might be good policy, but in the absence of some policy or contract, it does not appear there is a cause of action," he said.

[lelio]

Or he could offer to be the voice on the loudspeaker outside of Bally's. "Man these slots are loose! That's Vegas action baby!"

[gcruse]

He alleges documents were selectively leaked to
create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.

While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents

A false impression  of a legitimate problem.  This isn't
making a lot of sense.  Of course, he also said,

"Did I fall short of my standards by doing too much,
by engaging in this at an excessive level? Yes, but that
doesn't make my arguments any less good or not."

Quit while you're behind, Bill. Language is not your forte.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Release of the information was not legal...but you have no problem with its release?

[Lockbar]

I do agree that he should go on the offensive for leaking his personal info if it will make him feel better. But he no longer can make any case that he is a spokesperson for people living more responsible lives, even if it was his own money to do with what he pleased. That much gambling is too stupid for words. Bill, shut up and go away.

[ilgipper]

Way to go, Bill! The release of this information is a clear violation of his privacy, and is illegal. This was the biggest issue related to the Bennett gambling saga.

[tracer]

There is a world of difference between a multi-millionaire losing a large chunk of change without jeopardizing his family's financial security and a $25,000/year Joe-Six-Pack who loses his still-doubly-mortgaged house and his kids' college fund at the craps table.

And the truth of his writings in the area of morality remains, the rearing, both here and elsewhere, of the ugly head of class envy notwithstanding.

Regardless of who wins or loses in court, market forces will exact a price from the casino in question. As they should....

[N. Theknow]

'What happens here stays here.'

What happened?

I lost my money and it stayed there.

[Bluntpoint]

Linda Tripp taping Monica was not legal either.

But it did educate me a great deal about the characters involved.

[kellynla]

"What happens here does not stay here." I agree. Whoever was responsible for releasing that information was totally out of line and probably libel. The casinos had no business releasing that information. It was his money, legal, his business and certainly none of anybody else's business. We all have a right to privacy.

[tracer]

"Language is not your forte(' needed here).

And how many best sellers have you written and thereby become a multi-millionaire?

[MagnusMat]

Overall my respect for him has gone down, but I hope he does sue the Casinoes for releasing this information. Someone had it in for him and they need to pay.

[rellimpank]

--enlignten me--of what was Linda Tripp convicted?

[lelio]

There is a world of difference between a multi-millionaire losing a large chunk of change without jeopardizing his family's financial security and a $25,000/year Joe-Six-Pack who loses his still-doubly-mortgaged house and his kids' college fund at the craps table.

Speaking from a purely financial look at the situation, yes. But if you're loosing millions on something it can hardly be called "entertainment" any more and should be looked at as an addiction.

[gcruse]

No, no. He didn't write the virtues, remember?
How many times did we hear that? Heh.

And this...

"Yes, but that
doesn't make my arguments any less good or not."

...is not the mark of a language maven.

[Bluntpoint]

She was indicted on Maryland state charges of wire-tapping.

She said she did it to protect herself.

I'm not sure what ever happened to that aspect of the case.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Linda Tripp taped Monica Lewinsky because she was being asked to break the law. She did it to protect herself.

Why did the casino release Bennett's information illegally, do you suppose? Certainly not for any reason so lofty as that.

And what is the character problem with gambling, exactly?

[onedoug]

Oh, so he moves his games of chance from the casino to the courts.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

How is addiction defined, in this case?

Does anyone know what Bennett's net worth is, so that we can put his loses into perspective?

[Owen]

There was a problem with this story from day 1. Consider the numbers. The claim was $8 million lost. For an average casino house advantage of . . . oh, say, 5% (roulette), he'd have had to bet $160 million to lose that much.

He is apparently a blackjack player, and skilled players of blackjack who do not count cards give the house an advantage of < 1%. This would require even larger betting totals.

My suspicion is the guy plays a lot of blackjack. He probably lost $8 million in so doing, but *not net*. He probably won $7.9 million over that time too. For such a big hitter, over who knows how many years, losing 100K isn't that big a deal. If it was . . . oh, 15 years, that would be 8K/yr, which is not a bad price if he was comped all his rooms and evenings at shows and was in Vegas once a month.

[Acolyte]

Bennett must have had a ghost writer/editor for his "Book of Virtues" series...