A study released last week by Common Cause, a good-government group, said that the gaming industry gave more than $4.4 million in campaign contributions to political candidates and committees in the state from 2001 to 2008. An additional $12.3 million in contributions came from lawyers and lobbyists licensed to represent the state's 14 slots parlors.

The study makes another compelling argument for limits on campaign contributions similar to the federal law. Pennsylvania is one of only a handful of states that have no limits.

Of course, elected officials will say the millions of dollars pumped into their political coffers played no role in their support for gambling. Surely, it was just a coincidence that the hand-picked gaming board happened to award the 14 lucrative slots licenses largely to investors without much gaming experience, but plenty of political juice.

The biggest political contributors included Ira Lubert and Lubert-Adler Management, an investor in slots parlors planned for Valley Forge and Pittsburgh, who gave more than $450,000; followed by Peter DePaul, an investor in the Foxwoods slots parlor in Philadelphia, who gave more than $425,000; and Louis DeNaples, of the Mount Airy Resort in the Poconos, who gave more than $400,000, the study said.

The biggest recipient of the political largess has been Gov. Rendell, who led the push to legalize gambling. Rendell has taken more than $1 million from gaming interests.

Next on the list is former State Sen. Vincent Fumo, who received more than $400,000 from the gaming industry. That was before Fumo was convicted earlier this year on 137 counts related to his rampant corruption and a cover-up.

Fumo was the main author of the gaming law, which the legislature passed in the dark of night in 2004, with little public review or input.

That may help explain why the law is littered with so many loopholes. Those gaping pits need fixing before there can be any confidence that the state's sloppy handling of gambling so far will be corrected, or that the effort to add table games should proceed.

The flawed law did include a ban on political campaign contributions from gambling interests, but the state Supreme Court recently overturned that provision.

The Supreme Court has acted more like a check-off than a check-and-balance to the gaming law. Hey, what do you know, some current and former justices also received campaign donations from the gaming industry.

Look for the campaign donations to really start to flow as state lawmakers consider whether to expand gaming to include table games. All the more reason why the state needs to first put limits on campaign contributions.