Former rep reflects on career, reputation lost to gambling addiction
BOSTON (SHNS) – When he was 17 years old, David Nangle found himself $800 in debt to a bookie. Reflecting on the situation as a 64-year-old, the former representative wishes he had not managed to get out of that jam.
'Well, didn't smarten me up. I was able to bail out of it, as we say, and I got through that. But I just wish I could go back in time to that time and have changed my life at that point, but I didn't,' he said Wednesday. 'I just couldn't stop and addiction literally cost me everything. It cost my marriage, my career and my reputation.'
The Lowell Democrat was indicted by federal prosecutors and arrested in February 2020, charged with illegally using campaign funds to fund a lifestyle that included golf club memberships and casino trips to Connecticut, and lying to banks about his debt to obtain mortgages and other loans. Nangle lost his reelection bid in a September 2020 primary.
He pleaded guilty to charges against him and in September 2021 was sentenced to 15 months in prison. He was released from federal prison in November 2022.
Nangle was back at to the State House on Wednesday to speak at a briefing on problem gambling and ways the state can attempt to identify and offer assistance to people affected. He said he hid his gambling addiction from everyone at work and at home, but it ultimately cost him his 22-year career in the House.
Nangle said he vowed in federal court to dedicate some of his time going forward to helping people, especially young people, 'not to go down the life suffering that I endured for so many years.' Today, he said he works full-time at the Bridge Club of Greater Lowell, which works with people dealing with addiction, and serves as a part-time peer specialist for the Massachusetts Council on Gaming and Health.
'I thank God that online gambling wasn't around when I was betting with the bookies in the city of Lowell and running up to Rockingham Racetrack and Suffolk Downs. I don't know what would have become of me had that been around at that time,' Nangle said. 'However, today is a whole different era. As I say, 38 states now allow individuals, via their cellphones, to place bets. And who do you think is placing all these bets on these cellphones? The old dinosaurs like me? No. There are some. But I'm telling you, it's the kids. It's the youth.'
Massachusetts requires that people be at least 21 years old to bet on sports and sports betting companies are supposed to have mechanisms in place to know who is betting and to identify when someone may be exhibiting signs of dangerous behavior.
Among monthly gamblers who participated in online surveys conducted in 2014, 2022 and 2023, the percentage experiencing gambling problems jumped from 12.7% in 2014 to 20.9% in 2022 and to 25.6% in 2023, the Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Massachusetts (SEIGMA) research team reported to the Gaming Commission last year. The Massachusetts Legislature and former Gov. Charlie Baker, now president of the NCAA, legalized sports betting in August 2022 and it went live in early 2023.
Researchers stressed that the online panels of monthly gamblers were not representative of the general state population, which has held steady at a 2% prevalence of problem gambling in surveys conducted before and after casinos were introduced in Massachusetts. The SEIGMA team also said its research found that 8.4% of the Massachusetts general population was at risk of developing a gambling problem.
Nangle said the people who show up for the Gamblers Anonymous meetings he attends have been trending younger, including some teenagers who are brought to the meetings by their parents. He said he sees the boom of legal gambling and its particular appeal to young people as 'a health crisis coming down the road.'
'Think of it this way: imagine if we lowered the drinking age to 14. Can you imagine the outrage that would take place if the consumption of alcohol was allowed at the age of 14? Now, I'm not saying gambling is allowed at the age of 14, but folks, the kids are doing it. They're doing it, unfortunately,' he said. 'And I bet everybody in this room — I hate to use the word bet — I am sure that, I predict, that everybody in this room has somebody, or they're going to know somebody that's addicted to gambling — not just like myself, but the younger ones.'
Nangle added, 'It's coming, and it's unfortunate. I'm really concerned where we are heading.'
The lawmakers who hosted Wednesday's briefing, Sen. John Keenan of Quincy and Reps. Carole Fiola of Fall River and Adam Scanlon of North Attleborough, are similarly concerned about the social impacts of the activity they voted in favor of legalizing almost three years ago. Each highlighted legislation they have or plan to file this session to address problem gambling.
Keenan pitched his 'Bettor Health Act' (S 302), which would increase the tax rate on online betting platforms, ban sports betting advertising during game broadcasts, require online sports betting companies to double their financial contributions to the state's Public Health Trust Fund, and more. He likened the rise of online betting to the emergence of the opioid crisis.
'If we don't see the similarities, we're going to find ourselves again so far behind trying so hard to create an infrastructure to address it,' he said about the need to start addressing the problem before it gets out of hand.
Fiola, who this session chairs the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee, spoke about a bill she filed (H 2416) that aims to study the current resources available to people with gambling problems and identify ways to improve coordination and promotion of those programs.
'We know that there are several organizations and facilitators working very hard in this space to increase access to these treatment areas, problem gambling treatment, and it's imperative that these organizations work together to provide the best services for those in need,' she said. 'This legislation also wants to expand physician screening coverage for annual physicals to create another touch point for individuals to reach out. I'm proposing adding a screening question for problem gambling, the same way physicians already asked about alcohol consumption and drug use at a physical.'
Scanlon said he plans to soon file a bill to address problem gambling.
'Like most of you, I do not oppose all gambling,' he said at Wednesday's briefing. 'But like many of you, I do want to make sure that all of these benefits we see do not come at the expense of those who are most vulnerable to addiction.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials threaten, arrest and charge them
WASHINGTON — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents, wrestled to the ground and held while attempting to ask a question at a news conference of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely criticized Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on-site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers — one of them fatal — and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.). As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. To amplify their concerns, Democrats have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and used digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who added that she believed the public inquiries have '100%' resonated with voters. Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A few Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to President Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until the Department of Homeland Security in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said that 'real oversight power and muscle' only comes 'when you have a gavel.' 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,' Veasey said. 'Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.' Brown writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats howling over Iran forced to defend own party's history
Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history: Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades. From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to (most recently) Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed U.S. military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it. That history has muddled the Democrats' current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress. The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump's powers to launch them unilaterally. Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments. 'Since [World War II] we've had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters after the strikes. 'Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.' Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 'Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,' Johnson said. That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn't stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions. 'Just because it was wrong then doesn't mean it's not wrong now,' said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), a former Air Force attorney who's now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. 'The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it's been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress's appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 'That part is unfortunate. Maybe we've missed a few opportunities,' Aguilar said. 'But that doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye right now,' he quickly added. 'It doesn't mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.' The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is 'Commander and Chief' of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century: The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him). The law requires presidents to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,' but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch. As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit U.S. involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran. One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Jim Himes (Conn.) and Adam Smith (Wash.). Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there's no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump's strikes. 'Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or U.S. facilities. That's the standard,' said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 'As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to U.S. facilities to meet that threshold.' Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. 'If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,' she said. 'That didn't exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.' Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent. In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn't agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. In the same vein, Biden used U.S. forces to target terrorist cells in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama's use of force without Congress giving the OK. 'I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,' he said. 'My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.' Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events. 'We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We'll save that for other days,' Aguilar said. 'But what is in front of us today is: are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?' A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won't force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues. Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the U.S. will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons. Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn't hesitate. 'Without question,' he said. 'Absolutely.'
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
By stooping to conquer, Sacramento Democrats show their pettiness and arrogance
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Carl DeMaio, if you so choose. The first-term San Diego assembly member is MAGA to his marrow, bringing Donald Trump's noxious politics and personal approach to Sacramento. For Democrats, the mere mention of his name has the same effect as nails applied to a chalkboard. Fellow Republicans aren't too fond of DeMaio, either. Party leaders worked strenuously — and far from successfully — to keep DeMaio from being elected last fall. They accused him of criminal wrongdoing. Allies spent millions of dollars to boost his GOP rival. Republican foes 'cite his relentless self-promotion, his criticism of his party and his tendency to take credit for victories he played little or no part in to help him fundraise and elevate his political brand,' CalMatters wrote in a harsh January profile. None of that, however, excuses the silly and juvenile behavior of the Assembly's majority Democrats last week when the chamber took up a resolution commemorating Pride month. DeMaio, the Assembly's first openly gay Republican member, rose on the floor to voice his objections. Usually lawmakers have around five minutes to offer their remarks without interruption. Not this time. DeMaio complained that the resolution — larded with more than three dozen whereas-es — strayed far afield from a straightforward commendation, endorsing some 'very controversial and extremist positions' opposed even by members of the LGBQT+ community. 'This is not about affirming the LGBT community,' DeMaio said. 'It's about using them as a political pawn to divide us.' You can agree or disagree with DeMaio. You can embrace the resolution and its myriad clauses with all your heart, or not. That's beside the point. About 90 seconds into his remarks, DeMaio was interrupted by the Assembly member presiding over the debate, Democrat Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, who said he had a 'very important announcement' to make. And what was the pressing matter that couldn't possibly wait a second longer? Wishing another Assembly Democrat a happy birthday. Cheers and applause filled the chamber. DeMaio resumed, only to be interrupted a short time later. Lowenthal deadpanned that he'd forgotten: It had been another Democratic lawmaker's birthday just a few days earlier. More cheers and applause. DeMaio resumed and then was interrupted a third time, so Lowenthal could wish 'a very, very happy birthday' to a third Democratic Assembly member, who was marking the occasion the next day. The response in the chamber, laughter mixed with more whoops and cheers, suggested the hazing by Lowenthal and fellow Democrats was great good fun and oh-so-clever. It wasn't. It was petty. It was stupid. And it bespoke the arrogance of a super-majority party too used to having its way and bulldozing Sacramento's greatly outnumbered Republicans. A few things are worth noting here, seeing as how California is supposed to be governed by a representative democracy. DeMaio's political peers may not be terribly enamored of the freshman lawmaker. But he was the clear-cut favorite of voters in San Diego, who sent him to the Assembly by a whopping 57% to 43% margin. Their views and voices deserve to be heard. Democrats may be California's majority party, enjoying a sizable registration advantage. They hold 60 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 30 of 40 in the state Senate. But the state has nearly 6 million registered Republicans. There are doubtless many more in California who support the party, or at least its policies and broad philosophy, but choose not to formally affiliate with the GOP. They, too, deserve to be heard. A not-insignificant number of California residents feel overlooked, ignored and unrepresented by Democrats and their hegemonic rule over Sacramento. The frustration helped spawn the fruitless and wasteful 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — which cost taxpayers more than $200 million — and fuels the perennial fantasy of a breakaway rural state called Jefferson. To a larger point: One-party rule is not good for California. 'When you're competing, you've got to be sort of on your toes,' said Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who's researched the difference between states with two vibrant political parties and those ruled by one or the other. 'When you're solidly in control, you don't feel like you need to prove it to voters,' Kousser went on. 'You can write off certain areas of the state. You can ignore legislators in the other party, because you don't think the shoe will ever be on the other foot. 'None of that,' Kousser concluded, 'is good for democracy.' It's been well over a decade since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office and Republicans wielded meaningful clout in Sacramento. The last time the GOP controlled the Assembly was when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Gerald Ford was president the last time Republicans had a majority in the state Senate. That's not likely to change anytime soon. In the meantime, Democrats don't have to love their fellow lawmakers. They don't even have to like them. But at the very least, Republicans elected to serve in Sacramento should be treated with respect. Their constituents deserve as much.
