A recent Associated Press story reported that gambling and horse racing interests spent $575,000 on lobbyists to help the Senate write historic slot machine legislation passed by the legislature on July 4. Just how much influence those lobbying efforts had in crafting the final version of the law is not known - yet.

Lawmakers certainly benefited from the expertise and experience of gambling, horse racing and slot machine interests. But voters have to wonder if the lobbyists exercised extraordinary influence in convincing lawmakers to write a bill that suited their interests, above those of the average citizens of the state.

It's widely known that lobbyists assist lawmakers in crafting legislation, in state capitals and Washington, D.C. Among the limited methods of determining the type and degree of lobbyist influence are registration and reporting requirements. But in Pennsylvania, those tools are extremely limited.

The $575,000 figure reported by the AP represents lobbying activity only in the Senate. Since the state House of Representatives and executive branch do not require lobbyists to register or to report expenditures, the actual total for lobbying expenditures on gambling can only assumed to be close to $1 million, with most of it spent on lobbyists representing 34 gambling-related businesses in a three month period leading up to the passage of the slots machine bill.

Separately, the AP reported that gambling interests pumped about $2 million into state election campaign fund raising in three years leading up to the passage of the slots bill, with nearly half going to Rendell.

How exactly the lobbying on the slots bill worked is not exactly clear. Lawmakers, not being experts at gambling, slot machines or horse racing, needed some guidance and advice provided by industry experts. But how much influence the lobbyists had is known only by the lawmakers and lobbyists involved.

Even one lobbyist, former Lt. Gov. Mark Singel, suggests the legislation was skewed to mostly benefit track owners. "It's probably best to say that it's past," said Singel, who also compared the process to a "sausage" situation - referring to the famous quote that says "laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

Further criticism of the process, particularly bias toward track owners, is coming from Butler-based attorney Thomas King III, who is representing a Pittsburgh developer suing the legislature and the governor for allegedly preventing him from competing for a racetrack license.

King suggests the lobbyists' influence is obvious in the final version of legislation.

The fact that lobbyists representing racetrack interests appear to have had special influence is disturbing - even if not surprising.

If $1 million or so was spent by racetrack, slot machine and other gambling interests to influence lawmakers, did the state's citizens and taxpayers, who had no high-priced lobbyists in the proverbial smoke-filled-room, get shortchanged?

How, exactly, the lobbying efforts dictated the details the slot machine legislation is known only to the key lawmakers involved and the lobbyists themselves. And neither group is talking.

That might change if, or when, the lawsuit filed by King moves into the discovery phase. At that point, lawmakers and lobbyists could be asked to describe, under oath, how various aspects of the law were developed and which lobbyists talked which lawmakers on what topics.

The testimony in the discovery phase might be the next best thing to being in the room when the details of the law were written.

Regardless of the final outcome of the case, the advancement of the lawsuit could serve a valuable public service - a sort of civics lesson - shining a light on just how much influence lobbyists have with Pennsylvania's lawmakers.

The details of the slots legislation are beyond the interest or concern of most average citizens. The courts will decide if the law violates the state constitution, but the discovery process will offer the press and average citizens valuable insight into the final version of the law was produced.

It is quite possible it will be as disturbing as sausage making to observe, but also important to know about.