Tougher gaming oversight makes sense

The long and strange year in Springfield yielded another surprise this week as House Speaker Michael Madigan presented -- out of the blue -- a plan to radically restructure and strengthen the state's gambling oversight.

Madigan's proposal surprises not because he's reluctant to break new ground, but because he has not been much interested in gambling. He balked earlier this year when other legislators wanted to turn to expanded gambling as a means of paying for badly needed capital projects across the state.

Madigan's proposal now for more stringent oversight suggests that this is either the prerequisite for his support of casino expansion or his way of making expansion so unpalatable to other state leaders that expansion efforts collapse.

Madigan uses tough language -- calling his proposal "non-negotiable" -- that suggests there will be no approval of new casinos in his chamber if other leaders do not go along.

One can complain about the speaker's take-it-or-leave-it framing of a significant change that has barely been on anyone's radar screen until now.

But the fundamental changes Madigan suggests represent sound ideas that, if implemented, should further inoculate an expanded gambling industry against any infection by crime, corruption or, less dramatically, by mundane political influence.

Madigan would reconstitute the state gaming board, granting it authority to write its own budget and requiring that the department have a director of gaming enforcement with deep investigative experience. The governor would still appoint members, but the governor's choices would be narrowed by a process in which a nine-member panel, selected by the state supreme court, would draw up a list of possible appointees. The board would be authorized to examine and approve all casino contracts -- not just those dealing directly with gambling operations.

While the state's existing casinos have been remarkably free, by all appearances, of corruption or undue outside influence, the possible addition of a large Chicago casino raises those concerns anew. And the saga of the ill-fated Rosemont casino proposal, complete with allegations of mob connections, pointed out the need for strong regulatory safeguards.

Whether or not Madigan has every detail right, his call for lawmakers to upgrade state oversight before any casino expansion is largely on the mark. This is hardly the most important development during a year marked and marred by state leaders' failure to resolve the state's most pressing issues. It does, though, represent an effort to stop potential trouble before it starts as lawmakers consider giving gambling a much larger role in Illinois.