THE YEAR THAT COULD HAVE ENDED PINBALL

THE YEAR THAT COULD HAVE ENDED PINBALL

by Russ Jensen

     The pinball machine has been attacked a multitude of times

in its sixty year lifetime but has still survived. These attacks

were generally based on the use (either real or imagined) of the

pingame as a "gambling device" and were carried out using court

actions and city, county, state, and federal legislation.

     These attacks resulted in pingames eventually being banned

in many jurisdictions, most notably in the nation's three largest

cities (New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles). The bans in these

cities only having been overturned in the courts in the 1970's.

     Paralleling these legal harassments have been numerous

attacks by the "crusading press" and national magazines. Probably

the three strongest 'anti-pinball' articles to appear in major

magazines over the years were: "Ten Billion Nickels", Saturday

Evening Post, 1939; "Pin Money Plungers", Reader's Digest, 1941;

and "The Pinball Business Isn't Child's Play", Better Homes and

Gardens", 1957.

     The attacks on pingames began in the 1930's and continued

into the Forties and even into the Fifties. However, their

frequency decreased with the years as did the actual use of

pingames for gambling. By the mid 1960's you would have thought

that the pressure would have been off. But was it? In the Spring

of 1967 something occurred in the Illinois state legislature

which, had it completely succeeded, could have resulted in the

almost total annihilation of the pinball, and for that matter,

the slot machine industry.

     An editorial in the April 5, 1967 issue of CASH BOX

magazine, titled "Illinois Alert", told of a bill introduced in

the Illinois Senate, SB376, which would remove an existing

exemption of pingames from the definition of gambling devices in

the 1961 Illinois Criminal Code. This proposed bill had just been

passed UNANIMOUSLY by the State Senate Legislative Committee.

     The CASH BOX editorial made a strong plea for the operators

and industry people in the state of Illinois to ban together to

help defeat this legislation and urged Illinois coinmen to attend

a special meeting of the Illinois Coin Machine Operators

Association (ICMOA) on April 22 and 23 in the state capitol.

Action was considered urgent since the Illinois State House

Legislative Committee had scheduled a hearing on this legislation

for May 10th.

     The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code replaced the

section that excluded pingames from the definition of gambling

devices with a new section which would explicitly prohibit the

operation and possession of "pinball, bagatelle, or pigeon-hole

games". It was obviously the inclusion of the term 'pinball' that

worried the coinmen even though the further definition of these

devices seemed to be aimed primarily at 'bingo pinballs'. The

people in the industry who had analyzed this proposed legislation

had come to the conclusion that it could very likely result in

the outlawing of 'flipper pinball games' as well as the 'bingos'.

     The ICMOA held their special meeting, although attendance by

Illinois coinmen was somewhat less than expected; apparently the

gravity of the situation was not appreciated by many. The meeting

was highlighted by a talk by Representative Zeke Giorgi a member

of the Illinois House who also was connected with a coin machine

distributorship. He told the coinmen that even though "they are

battling in a 'rough sea' all was not lost if they joined in the

melee now". He then urged all to contact their state legislators

to inform them of the true facts concerning amusement machines

and the effect of banning them on their livelihood and the

state's economy.

     The major results of the two day meeting were: 1, A plan for

all members to contact their appropriate state legislators (a

list of these was provided to meeting attenders); 2, A committee

was appointed to engage legal assistance; and 3, the membership

voted a mandatory assessment of $3 per machine to help defray the

cost of the undertaking.

     A law firm in the state capitol was hired to represent

ICMOA. These lawyers also worked in close association with

attorney Rufus King of Washington D.C. who had been retained by

game manufacturers Gottlieb, Midway, and Williams.  Mr. King,

incidentally, was later involved in the court cases to

re-legalize pingames in the nation's three largest cities.)

     With the cooperation of sympathetic state representatives,

it was decided to introduce a bill, which became HB2410, which

would outlaw gambling type machines in the state while allowing

non-gambling flipper games. The plan was to push for approval of

this hill and the defeat of HR688 which was the House version of

the Senate "total ban bill". The Senate bill had finally passed

the full Senate by a vote of 45 to 3.

     The next round in the 'Pinball bill war' was conducted at

the two day meeting of the Judiciary Committee of the Illinois

General Assembly held on May 10 and 11. This meeting was quite

hectic due to the large number of proposed bills which had to be

considered prior to a scheduled adjournment of the legislature.

Debate on the pinball related bills began late in the afternoon

and continued into the late evening session. At that lime the

chairman appointed a special committee to hear the debate and

make recommendations to the full committee the following morning.

     The proponents of the industry backed bill, HB2410, argued

eloquently that forty states and the federal government easily

distinguished between amusement and gambling machines, outlawing

the latter, and in the case of the federal government taxing only

the gambling devices. A vote on this bill was finally taken. The

results were 16 in favor of passing the bill to the full House, 3

against, and 2 abstentions. A vote on the anti-pinball bills was

not taken and was postponed until the next committee meeting

scheduled for May 22 and 23.

     The final defeat for the anti-pinball forces occurred during

a late night session of the Judiciary Committee on May 23. At

that time the two anti-pinball bills, SB376 and its House

counterpart HB688, were killed by a vote of only 13 to 11. This

ended the 1967 assault on the pinball machine in the state of

Illinois.

     How, you are probably asking, could this move to outlaw

pinball machines in Illinois have possibly resulted in the end of

pinball altogether? The answer to this question can be found in

an editorial in the May 27, 1967 issue of CASH BOX.

     That article, titled "The Specter on Annihilation", told of

another proposed bill in the Illinois House, HB691, which was

"quietly at play in committee" at the time the pinball ban bills

were being debated. That bill, if passed into law, would have

totally banned the manufacture and interstate shipment of

gambling equipment in and from the state of Illinois. This bill,

however, was also voted down during the Judiciary Committee

meeting of May 11 and fortunately was voted down by a vote of 19

to 5.

     The CASH BOX editorial pointed out that had this bill and

the 'total pingame ban' bill both passed into law the manufacture

and distribution of all "gambling equipment" (which would have by

legal definition included flipper pinballs) would have been

totally banned in Illinois which, of course, was where all the

major manufacturers were located; an effective end to the

industry! We are all fortunate that this never occurred, or even

came close, but had it not been for the united attack by the

coinmen of Illinois things might have turned out differently.

Return to HOME