OTHER BOATS IN MOATS STILL OPERATING

When a circuit judge in Jefferson City ruled at year end that he could not order the Missouri Gaming Commission to license a riverboat in St. Joseph even though the owners had complied with every step of the licensing process, other questions about gambling oversight in the state were raised.

The issue, of course, is the so-called boat-in-a-moat situation that has developed. Riverboats that were supposed to be on the Missouri River or the Mississippi River and were supposed to be capable of excursions up and down the rivers have been allowed to become permanently docked casinos that are, in some cases, quite a ways from either river.

This did not happen in secrecy or behind closed doors. The state's gaming commission -- the folks who are supposed to look out after Missouri's best interests as far as gambling is concerned -- openly and boldly chose to acquiesce to just about every request made by casino operators. When the casinos said they couldn't afford to operate excursion boats -- using the argument that cruising on the rivers is dangerous -- the gaming commission said OK and even licensed boats that were in ponds, not on the river at all.

But the Missouri Supreme Court was unequivocal in its ruling last year that said the Constitution clearly mandates the boats to be on the river, in spite of the gaming commission's interpretation of a state law that was a direct contradiction to the Constitution.

All of this has left the St. Joseph casino in a no-man's land between compliance with licensing regulations before and after the Supreme Court's action. Now the gaming commission says it must have new hearings on the licensing request that will have to take into account the Supreme Court ruling.

The owners of the St. Joseph casino are crying foul. They did everything they were told to do, and then the rules changed. They blame Attorney General Jay Nixon for arguing on behalf of the state against the casino's request to have the judge order the gaming commission to give it a license anyway. Nixon isn't the culprit in this shambles of a scenario. Instead, the trail leads directly to the gaming commission and its zeal to let the gambling outfits do whatever they want.

One big question for the gaming commission is a fairly simple one: If no new licenses can be granted for boats in moats, why haven't the licenses of other boats in moats been suspended? They are as much in violation of the Constitution as the new casino in St. Joseph.

The answer if fairly obvious, and it shows how much influence gambling companies have managed to achieve in just a few short years. Shutting down other boats in moats would likely put some casinos out of business, and the gaming commission is more interested in the welfare of the casino operators than it is in sticking to the Constitution.

All of this comes as the casinos -- with no objection from the gaming commission -- are pushing again to do away with the $500 loss limit for gamblers and lower taxes. The rest of Missouri's taxpayers will be watching closely to see how all of this turns out.