Are Pennsylvanians who want to see the recently passed slot-machine legislation revised - to prohibit lawmakers and other public officials from owning any part of a gambling-related business - being overly suspicious or cynical? Probably not, if public officials' behavior in other states is representative. Probably not, given the fact that billions of dollars in gambling money will be floating around Pennsylvania once gamblers begin losing money at slot machines.

Consider that a former governor of Louisiana is serving time in federal prison for trying to extort money from casino operators seeking licenses. Also note that in Illinois a proposed gambling license is on hold amid accusations of ties between the mayor of a community where the casino would be located and organized crime.

Clearly, there are many opportunities for ill-gotten gain and corruption when it comes to connections between gambling interests and politicians. This is the territory that Pennsylvania is now entering, all in the name of marginal property tax relief.

One glaring problem is that the slots bill passed this summer would permit lawmakers to own up to a 1 percent interest in a gambling enterprise. An early version of the bill allowed up to 5 percent ownership, but the limit was rolled back to 1 percent.

Supporters of the 1 percent limit say it was included so that a lawmaker with an investment in a mutual fund that has a small interest in a gambling company would not be breaking the law. These same supporters object to an outright ban on ownership in any gambling-related companies as being overly restrictive and point out that lawmakers aren't prohibited from investing in companies in other industries, such as banking, manufacturing or telecommunications.

Critics of the 1 percent limit want a zero-percent rule because, they point out, even 1 percent of a billion-dollar company represents a multimillion-dollar value.

Pennsylvania's lawmakers have created a multibillion-dollar industry in the state with the introduction of legalized slot machine gambling. When licenses for slots casinos are awarded, it will be a license not only to install slot machines - but to essentially print money. Slot machines are programmed to ensure that the casino wins; profits are guaranteed.

While lawmakers are not prohibited from owning shares in a financial company or a steel company, they did not create those companies - as they are doing with gambling in Pennsylvania. Nor did lawmakers craft legislation that would give those companies quasi-monopolies, as they have done with the slots bill by limiting the number of slots locations and licenses.

The relationship between lawmakers and legalized gambling poses so many opportunities for payoffs and corruption that a strict ban should be passed to replace the 1 percent rule.

As with many other controversial bills, the slots legislation was passed in the wee hours of the morning, after many hours of heated negotiations. Such a rushed and pressured environment does not allow for careful consideration or full understanding of the issues being approved. The 1 percent rule is a result of that environment, but now that the dust has settled and people have thought about the legislation's implications and apparent flaws, the need for change is clear.

Another flaw deserving review and change is the slots legislation's prohibition against the state's attorney general's office investigating any suspected gambling illegalities unless it is invited to investigate by a unanimous vote of the state's gambling commission. What possible motive could lawmakers have in wanting to erect any barriers to keep the state's top law enforcement officer away from gambling operations?

The slots bill was rushed through the legislature and clearly needs to be improved. Voters should question the rationale of any lawmaker resisting such re-examination.