On Monday, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway said he would remove his father from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission “because of the appearance it would create.”
However, when it came to expanded gambling, Conway didn’t feel so conflicted. As Attorney General, he was asked to issue an advisory opinion to determine whether a constitutional amendment was needed to expand gambling at racetracks. Although his father was on the commission at that time, Conway determined the expanded gambling did not need a constitutional amendment.
Previous attorneys general in the Commonwealth had opined that such a measure would require an amendment, including former Congressman Ben Chandler (D).
If Conway didn’t feel conflicted that his father was on the commission then, why does he feel conflicted now?