The Sacramento Bee reports that Senator Dianne Fienstein (from San Francisco), wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, asking him to support a bill to ban online gambling. This is the same politician that thinks the Second Amendment should be stripped away, so your right to keep and bear arms would be removed, although she would still be able to keep hers.
Somehow in her weird view of the world, internet gambling is a huge threat to the US, but all those hundreds of thousands of invaders streaming in to the southern US, with their gang members and diseases aren't.
What is wrong with these people? Oh, that's right, she's from San Francisco. Never mind.
California - truly the land of fruits and nuts...
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Friday, August 23, 2013
Late Legislation To Legalize Online Gambling in California
A couple of bills in the California legislature are still hanging around even though there are only a few weeks left in this year's legislative session. Stranger things have happened than having bills that haven't gone through the full legislative review process get passed in the mad rush to get the end of session work completed.
In this case, although it is possible one or both of these bills are approved, I am not overly enthusiastic about their chances. Personally, I am in favor of online gambling, but I much prefer the bills to be fully vetted and edited, with all stakeholders and opinion-holders having their full say in the matter.
Here's an editorial from a local newspaper that shares the same sentiment. I agree. In California, the tribes have huge leverage and influence. And the tribes are not monolithic in their perspectives. The tribes do compete against each other, which extends to the political arena. In general, if all the tribes are not in consensus, the likely and easiest answer is no.
In this case, although it is possible one or both of these bills are approved, I am not overly enthusiastic about their chances. Personally, I am in favor of online gambling, but I much prefer the bills to be fully vetted and edited, with all stakeholders and opinion-holders having their full say in the matter.
Here's an editorial from a local newspaper that shares the same sentiment. I agree. In California, the tribes have huge leverage and influence. And the tribes are not monolithic in their perspectives. The tribes do compete against each other, which extends to the political arena. In general, if all the tribes are not in consensus, the likely and easiest answer is no.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Federal Online Poker Legislation Reintroduced
New York Representative Peter King has reintroduced legislation attempting to federally regulate online poker. This version is likely different than the version pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. His preference is to have federal regulation and licensing, but biased toward the large Nevada casino companies being the only companies to be able to provide the games.
My view is that if the legislation can't be crafted to lock in the big Nevada casino companies as being the only online poker operators nationally, no federal bill will pass. The fallback for the large operators will be a state by state approach, where the size of their checkbook will buy the licenses, keeping out competition, particularly foreign operators.
Foreign operators would be better served by trying to enter the US market by finding unique US-based opportunities to be their beachhead and not take on the large Nevada gaming companies head on.
The renewed efforts do show that online gaming and gambling is becoming more mainstream and as governments look for more sources of revenue, gambling suddenly becomes palatable.
The story can be found here.
My view is that if the legislation can't be crafted to lock in the big Nevada casino companies as being the only online poker operators nationally, no federal bill will pass. The fallback for the large operators will be a state by state approach, where the size of their checkbook will buy the licenses, keeping out competition, particularly foreign operators.
Foreign operators would be better served by trying to enter the US market by finding unique US-based opportunities to be their beachhead and not take on the large Nevada gaming companies head on.
The renewed efforts do show that online gaming and gambling is becoming more mainstream and as governments look for more sources of revenue, gambling suddenly becomes palatable.
The story can be found here.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Nevada Making Preemptive Move to Solidify Sports Betting Competitive Advantage
Nevada Senate Bill 346 is moving through the initial legislative processes. What this bill will allow is for the expansion of sports betting in that groups of people could form an entity and bet as a group. Currently, only individuals can make sports bets in Nevada.
According to the AP story, the bill sponsor, Senator Greg Brower, a Republican, explained that the bill would add entities could be formed and authorized to make sports bets. The groups could act as a type of hedge fund and wager big dollars on football, basketball, baseball and other sports. In turn, they could seek out investors to put up money and allow an expert to make the bet.
This expansion of sports betting would further distance Nevada from other gaming states and could bring some of the estimated $380 billion per year wagered illegally on sports into the open, where it can be regulated and taxed, which in addition to assisting the Nevada gaming industry, is of keen interest to State of Nevada. If this bill does pass, gaming industry estimates sports betting handle would triple to $10 billion per year within 5 years.
The bill hasn't yet moved past the committee, so this is still in its infancy, but stay tuned.
According to the AP story, the bill sponsor, Senator Greg Brower, a Republican, explained that the bill would add entities could be formed and authorized to make sports bets. The groups could act as a type of hedge fund and wager big dollars on football, basketball, baseball and other sports. In turn, they could seek out investors to put up money and allow an expert to make the bet.
This expansion of sports betting would further distance Nevada from other gaming states and could bring some of the estimated $380 billion per year wagered illegally on sports into the open, where it can be regulated and taxed, which in addition to assisting the Nevada gaming industry, is of keen interest to State of Nevada. If this bill does pass, gaming industry estimates sports betting handle would triple to $10 billion per year within 5 years.
The bill hasn't yet moved past the committee, so this is still in its infancy, but stay tuned.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
No Chance for Federal Poker Bill in 2012
The Las Vegas Review Journal recently reported that the attempt by Congress to legalize online poker won't happen this year. The AGA as well as those that wanted to have centralized control of iGaming in the US have been pushing for Washington to create a one size fits all approach. That plan was thwarted for a couple of reasons, mostly due to politics.
First, this was an election year. Not much was going to happen this year anyway. The normal partisan environment was even more so. Due to the even more partisan contest, any chance at a bipartisan approach to this issue was squelched. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, was very keen for this legislation. No way were the Republicans going to do any favors for Harry Reid. I would be surprised if this acrimony doesn't carry over into next year.
Second, with the fiscal cliff issue top of mind, that's what's going to be worked on as the primary topic, not online poker.
For now, online poker will move forward on a state by state basis. A few more states implement on their own, and the window for any federal-level approach will be permanently lost. That may likely happen as soon as 2013.
First, this was an election year. Not much was going to happen this year anyway. The normal partisan environment was even more so. Due to the even more partisan contest, any chance at a bipartisan approach to this issue was squelched. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader from Nevada, was very keen for this legislation. No way were the Republicans going to do any favors for Harry Reid. I would be surprised if this acrimony doesn't carry over into next year.
Second, with the fiscal cliff issue top of mind, that's what's going to be worked on as the primary topic, not online poker.
For now, online poker will move forward on a state by state basis. A few more states implement on their own, and the window for any federal-level approach will be permanently lost. That may likely happen as soon as 2013.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Assembly Committee Shelves Sports Betting Bill
Rather suddenly, the California sports betting bill sailing through the legislature was shelved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A quick article reporting the event is here. The easy explanation was that California did what it intended and helped goad the opponents of expanded legal sports betting, the sports leagues and NCAA, to file suit to stop the lead state, New Jersey. According to the California bill's sponsor, they were in consultation with New Jersey to form a "bi-coastal" effort. Once the sports leagues and NCAA filed the lawsuit against New Jersey, California could stop the bill without having to incur the expense of defending a lawsuit, letting New Jersey bear that burden. Of course California can support New Jersey by way of amicus briefs, a less costly legal support option.
Although some legal experts feel the federal PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) law, only letting a few states have sports betting will stand, other legal experts feel the PASPA will be found unconstitutional. Those experts use the analogy of the government stating that only four states could have theaters that show movies with sound, while all others could only have silent movies. Another example would be that only one or two states could grow apples, and all other states would be prohibited, being forced to buy apples from those limited sources.
The arguments the sports leagues and NCAA are trying to make is that legal sports betting impacts the integrity of their games. They don't seem to be able to explain how legal sports betting in states like Nevada don't impact integrity of their games. Also, they seem to have been unable to articulate how illegal sports betting (which is most definitely occurring) that would be curtailed and be brought into the open if legalized, is somehow superior in their minds to legal sports betting. Finally, experts note how states have always had the authority to set the parameters regarding gambling within their states. The Washington Times has an article that discusses New Jersey's approach.
It will be several months before this issue is settled, but it is fair to assume that the losing party will keep the issue alive on appeal and escalate to as high a court as possible. Would this case eventually make it to the Supreme Court? Perhaps.
Although some legal experts feel the federal PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) law, only letting a few states have sports betting will stand, other legal experts feel the PASPA will be found unconstitutional. Those experts use the analogy of the government stating that only four states could have theaters that show movies with sound, while all others could only have silent movies. Another example would be that only one or two states could grow apples, and all other states would be prohibited, being forced to buy apples from those limited sources.
The arguments the sports leagues and NCAA are trying to make is that legal sports betting impacts the integrity of their games. They don't seem to be able to explain how legal sports betting in states like Nevada don't impact integrity of their games. Also, they seem to have been unable to articulate how illegal sports betting (which is most definitely occurring) that would be curtailed and be brought into the open if legalized, is somehow superior in their minds to legal sports betting. Finally, experts note how states have always had the authority to set the parameters regarding gambling within their states. The Washington Times has an article that discusses New Jersey's approach.
It will be several months before this issue is settled, but it is fair to assume that the losing party will keep the issue alive on appeal and escalate to as high a court as possible. Would this case eventually make it to the Supreme Court? Perhaps.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
California Sports Betting Bill Update
On August 8th, the Assembly Appropriations Committee moved the sports betting bill, SB 1390, into its suspense file, moving the bill to the next step. Although the term "suspense file" seems like bad news, it isn't.
Bills that impact the budget go to the budget committee, while other bills with financial impact are reviewed by the appropriations committee. This bill falls into the latter category. Under the committee rules (both Senate and Assembly), bills that have a financial impact over a certain amount have to pass through the suspense file. The bill has to be voted to be moved in to and out of the suspense file. Moving this bill into the file is a necessary step. The next step would be a future hearing where the bill will have to be voted out of the suspense file (and thereby out of the committee). At that point, the bill is then back on the Assembly floor for final vote.
The bill has already completely passed the Senate and passed the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. If this bill does pass the Assembly, the bill in its current form does need to go back to the Senate for revote so that the Senate can approve the changes made in the Assembly. Since the Senate previously passed the bill by a 33-2 vote, this revote would be a formality, in my view.
At that point, the bill would go to the governor for signature, with the bill coming into force January 1st of next year.
Bills that impact the budget go to the budget committee, while other bills with financial impact are reviewed by the appropriations committee. This bill falls into the latter category. Under the committee rules (both Senate and Assembly), bills that have a financial impact over a certain amount have to pass through the suspense file. The bill has to be voted to be moved in to and out of the suspense file. Moving this bill into the file is a necessary step. The next step would be a future hearing where the bill will have to be voted out of the suspense file (and thereby out of the committee). At that point, the bill is then back on the Assembly floor for final vote.
The bill has already completely passed the Senate and passed the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee. If this bill does pass the Assembly, the bill in its current form does need to go back to the Senate for revote so that the Senate can approve the changes made in the Assembly. Since the Senate previously passed the bill by a 33-2 vote, this revote would be a formality, in my view.
At that point, the bill would go to the governor for signature, with the bill coming into force January 1st of next year.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
California Sports Betting Bill Moves Forward
The California Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB 1390, a bill authorizing sports betting in California, out of committee to the Senate floor for vote. This is a big step, following on the heels of New Jersey's passing of a sports betting law in January. As explained by the bill's author, California needs to have a sports betting law on the books so when the anticipated legal battle between New Jersey and the US Department of Justice is fought over the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), California will also have an interest in the outcome.
What has been unexpected has been the bi-partisan support for this measure. The bill had to pass through both the Governmental Organization and Appropriations Committees, with votes required to move them out (Appropriations actually needed votes to move in and to move out). All three votes were unanimous, with no abstentions. Both Republicans and Democrats are in support. This bill has a real chance of getting through. To track the bill's progress, you can use this link.
Nevada, currently the state with the de facto monopoly on sports betting, has got to be concerned. If New Jersey implemented sports betting, yes, that would have some impact on Nevada. If California implemented sports betting, what does Nevada have left as an attractant to California customers, still a major source of gaming revenue? There was a previous post that posited an idea to help the northern Nevada casinos deal with increased gaming competition from California. If sports betting comes to California, all of Nevada may need to consider this.
What has been unexpected has been the bi-partisan support for this measure. The bill had to pass through both the Governmental Organization and Appropriations Committees, with votes required to move them out (Appropriations actually needed votes to move in and to move out). All three votes were unanimous, with no abstentions. Both Republicans and Democrats are in support. This bill has a real chance of getting through. To track the bill's progress, you can use this link.
Nevada, currently the state with the de facto monopoly on sports betting, has got to be concerned. If New Jersey implemented sports betting, yes, that would have some impact on Nevada. If California implemented sports betting, what does Nevada have left as an attractant to California customers, still a major source of gaming revenue? There was a previous post that posited an idea to help the northern Nevada casinos deal with increased gaming competition from California. If sports betting comes to California, all of Nevada may need to consider this.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Internet Gambling Bill Reintroduced In Congress
The blog at Onlinepoker.org posted that Barney Frank has teamed up with a REPUBLICAN representative from California, John Campbell, to reintroduce the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. I'll give it to Barney for persistence, but the chance to get this bill through was last year, when Democrats controlled the House. With Republicans now in charge of the House power structure, this seems like a longshot.
It will be easy to predict that this bill goes nowhere and likely that will be the outcome. But not so fast. With the economy in horrible shape, and the federal budget in even worse shape, a strange thing may happen: economics will trump "morality." If Congress needs the cash, they'll grab at anything (usually they grab at our wallets - quite well I might add). Maybe they latch onto this as it might be easier to pass this initially than a tax hike. Congress likes raising taxes too but I digress...
A recent post highlighted some of the advantages of internet gambling. You can read that post here. Maybe you can get your Representative to read it and admit that internet gambling is here to stay, so why not regulate like the UK?
A very tough hurdle for the bill will be getting past the House Financial Services Committee, which has a staunch anti-internet gambling person now at the helm, Rep. Bachus. Will budget needs outweigh personal bias? Who knows?
It will be easy to predict that this bill goes nowhere and likely that will be the outcome. But not so fast. With the economy in horrible shape, and the federal budget in even worse shape, a strange thing may happen: economics will trump "morality." If Congress needs the cash, they'll grab at anything (usually they grab at our wallets - quite well I might add). Maybe they latch onto this as it might be easier to pass this initially than a tax hike. Congress likes raising taxes too but I digress...
A recent post highlighted some of the advantages of internet gambling. You can read that post here. Maybe you can get your Representative to read it and admit that internet gambling is here to stay, so why not regulate like the UK?
A very tough hurdle for the bill will be getting past the House Financial Services Committee, which has a staunch anti-internet gambling person now at the helm, Rep. Bachus. Will budget needs outweigh personal bias? Who knows?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Internet Gambling Bill Has Dim Prospects
Pokernews.com is reporting that the internet gambling and taxation legislation proposed by Rep. Jim McDermott is not likely to move forward before the November election. Historically, not much legislation gets done in "lame duck" sessions, so the prospects for federal legislation to allow internet gambling are pretty dim.
In addition, I'm not aware that the Senate has any sponsors for the bill on their side. Both houses of Congress need to pass the legislation before heading to the White House for signature. With the election and not enough traction, I think we're not going to see a legalized and regulated internet gambling structure from the federal level anytime soon. If it happens, it will have to be at the state level or from the Indian tribes.
As is expected, Republicans will take over control of the House of Representatives. Historically, Republicans aren't in favor of internet gambling. That should put the prospect of federally regulated internet gambling on the back burner for several more years, or until the budget situation is so bad, that the money will just be too attractive to resist.
In addition, I'm not aware that the Senate has any sponsors for the bill on their side. Both houses of Congress need to pass the legislation before heading to the White House for signature. With the election and not enough traction, I think we're not going to see a legalized and regulated internet gambling structure from the federal level anytime soon. If it happens, it will have to be at the state level or from the Indian tribes.
As is expected, Republicans will take over control of the House of Representatives. Historically, Republicans aren't in favor of internet gambling. That should put the prospect of federally regulated internet gambling on the back burner for several more years, or until the budget situation is so bad, that the money will just be too attractive to resist.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
UIGEA Hearing Held
The House Financial Services Committee held an informational hearing on HR 2267, a bill that would partially repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act (UIGEA), and would license and regulate some forms of internet gambling. The report from Information Week on the hearing discussed testimony that stated both pro an con positions. What is important to note is the difference in the stature and quality of the opposing testimony. I'll give two examples of each.
On the pro side, there was the executive chairman of Youbet.com, a leading online gambling company based here in the US. Yes, you read correctly, there are companies engaged in online gambling right here, right now, in the US. Youbet.com handles online betting on horse racing, which is LEGAL in the US. This executive, Michael Broadsky, explained that technology that can properly regulate online wagering in the US exists today. That is obvious because how could this company process hundreds of millions of dollars per year in online wagers if the technology was insufficient?
The other cited example of pro testimony was the presentation of Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard. He states, "combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling," and "consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now."
As opposed to the fact-based information provided by the pro-regulated internet gambling witnesses, the information provided by the anti-internet gambling witnesses was non-evidence based opinion and hyperbole.
The first example of this was provided by the head of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin. Martin testified, "the legislation will do nothing but legalize off-shore gaming.” He further testified that this legalization would be at the expense of the "thousands of people" employed by tribal casinos. That sounds fine, at first, but his statement is false. You see, although offshore gambling firms may want to be licensed, the proposed legislation would mandate US-based facilities. US-based facilities imply US-based jobs, so Martin's opinion is only important if you care only about tribes, and not America as a whole.
There is more to the Morongo's position that you should know about. His tribe recently tried themselves to get ONLINE POKER LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. So, within a few months, this tribe tries to get online poker legalized and then turns around and claims that online gambling should not be legalized and regulated. How does that make sense? It does if you are focused only on protecting your monopoly and not wanting competition.
At the Global Gaming Expo, some panel discussions regarding the online poker legislation in California implied that the proponents may have had a bill not well thought out...or was crafted too much to benefit a particular tribe or tribes. If that is the case, then the testimony is self-serving, not providing good data to provide informed decisions. I don't think tribes have a problem wanting legislative advantages at the expense of non-tribal casinos... Overall, this testimony isn't very helpful or credible. The story describing this in more detail is here.
The other anti-online gambling testimony of note was from the FBI. It is of note because of its stupidity. Quoting from the Bloomberg story:
"'There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal,' Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBI’s cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama."
"'Technology exists to manipulate online poker games in that it would only take two or three players working in unison to defeat the other players who are not part of the team,' Henry wrote. 'The online poker vendors could detect this activity and put in place safeguards to discourage cheating, although it is unclear what the incentive would be for the vendor.'"
Think about the genius that said this. There are ways to cheat at online poker and none of these ways are legal. As if there were LEGAL ways to cheat at online poker? You would think the word "cheat" would be a tipoff to the FBI? With mental giants like this fighting crime, I know I can sleep well at night. The FBI stated right after this that there were technology solutions that could detect and defeat cheating, so what's their point? However, they then claimed that they didn't know what the incentive for operators to implement these safeguards. They REALLY can't be this stupid, can they? Obviously, they are.
Let me help state the incentive since the FBI isn't bright enough to figure it out. Gambling operators can't survive if customers don't think the games are fair. Gamblers may win or lose, but they require fairly-run games. An online poker operator that is viewed as having unfair and manipulated games won't have customers and will be out of business. For the FBI to make this kind of statement is so vacant of logic that it is hard to believe that they have fallen this far with regard to talent.
Overall, the trend is that online gambling will be legalized and regulated in the next few years, with the exception of sports betting. My opinion is that all gambling should be legalized, but that will not happen. Poker will likely be legalized first, then other casino games. Sports betting will be legalized last. With the estimates of illegal sports betting being as high as $380 billion per year, it makes no sense to benefit offshore sportsbooks and illegal bookies by keeping this illegal. Now if the Morongo tribe wanted to make a cogent point, they could claim that keeping sports betting illegal benefits offshore operators. That would make sense.
For those interested in the topic, another article on the fallacy of prohibition can be found here.
On the pro side, there was the executive chairman of Youbet.com, a leading online gambling company based here in the US. Yes, you read correctly, there are companies engaged in online gambling right here, right now, in the US. Youbet.com handles online betting on horse racing, which is LEGAL in the US. This executive, Michael Broadsky, explained that technology that can properly regulate online wagering in the US exists today. That is obvious because how could this company process hundreds of millions of dollars per year in online wagers if the technology was insufficient?
The other cited example of pro testimony was the presentation of Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard. He states, "combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling," and "consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now."
As opposed to the fact-based information provided by the pro-regulated internet gambling witnesses, the information provided by the anti-internet gambling witnesses was non-evidence based opinion and hyperbole.
The first example of this was provided by the head of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin. Martin testified, "the legislation will do nothing but legalize off-shore gaming.” He further testified that this legalization would be at the expense of the "thousands of people" employed by tribal casinos. That sounds fine, at first, but his statement is false. You see, although offshore gambling firms may want to be licensed, the proposed legislation would mandate US-based facilities. US-based facilities imply US-based jobs, so Martin's opinion is only important if you care only about tribes, and not America as a whole.
There is more to the Morongo's position that you should know about. His tribe recently tried themselves to get ONLINE POKER LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. So, within a few months, this tribe tries to get online poker legalized and then turns around and claims that online gambling should not be legalized and regulated. How does that make sense? It does if you are focused only on protecting your monopoly and not wanting competition.
At the Global Gaming Expo, some panel discussions regarding the online poker legislation in California implied that the proponents may have had a bill not well thought out...or was crafted too much to benefit a particular tribe or tribes. If that is the case, then the testimony is self-serving, not providing good data to provide informed decisions. I don't think tribes have a problem wanting legislative advantages at the expense of non-tribal casinos... Overall, this testimony isn't very helpful or credible. The story describing this in more detail is here.
The other anti-online gambling testimony of note was from the FBI. It is of note because of its stupidity. Quoting from the Bloomberg story:
"'There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal,' Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBI’s cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama."
"'Technology exists to manipulate online poker games in that it would only take two or three players working in unison to defeat the other players who are not part of the team,' Henry wrote. 'The online poker vendors could detect this activity and put in place safeguards to discourage cheating, although it is unclear what the incentive would be for the vendor.'"
Think about the genius that said this. There are ways to cheat at online poker and none of these ways are legal. As if there were LEGAL ways to cheat at online poker? You would think the word "cheat" would be a tipoff to the FBI? With mental giants like this fighting crime, I know I can sleep well at night. The FBI stated right after this that there were technology solutions that could detect and defeat cheating, so what's their point? However, they then claimed that they didn't know what the incentive for operators to implement these safeguards. They REALLY can't be this stupid, can they? Obviously, they are.
Let me help state the incentive since the FBI isn't bright enough to figure it out. Gambling operators can't survive if customers don't think the games are fair. Gamblers may win or lose, but they require fairly-run games. An online poker operator that is viewed as having unfair and manipulated games won't have customers and will be out of business. For the FBI to make this kind of statement is so vacant of logic that it is hard to believe that they have fallen this far with regard to talent.
Overall, the trend is that online gambling will be legalized and regulated in the next few years, with the exception of sports betting. My opinion is that all gambling should be legalized, but that will not happen. Poker will likely be legalized first, then other casino games. Sports betting will be legalized last. With the estimates of illegal sports betting being as high as $380 billion per year, it makes no sense to benefit offshore sportsbooks and illegal bookies by keeping this illegal. Now if the Morongo tribe wanted to make a cogent point, they could claim that keeping sports betting illegal benefits offshore operators. That would make sense.
For those interested in the topic, another article on the fallacy of prohibition can be found here.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Gaming Companies Cautious About Internet Gambling Legislation in the US
Rep. Barney Frank is proceeding with moving HR 2267 forward, hoping to replace the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) with a licensing and regulatory structure for online gambling. However, companies that would benefit are keeping a cautious stance and avoiding becoming too public in the discussion.
A Wall Street Journal report discusses the public positions and opinions of three gaming companies that would benefit from liberalization of internet gambling within the US. The consensus opinion is that if this moves forward, it is likely to happen no sooner than a year from now, near the end of this congressional session.
From discussion panels at the Global Gaming Expo, their consensus is that if any game is legalized online, it would be poker, followed by traditional casino games. No one is foreseeing the expanded legalization of sports betting online in the US anytime soon. However, given the estimates that only 1% of sports betting in the US is legal ($2.5B in Nevada casinos), that implies that $250B in illegal sports betting occurs each year. That's a lot of money not being regulated and taxed. I don't think many can make the logical argument that keeping something illegal is somehow going to make that $250 billion of illegal sports wagers disappear. It's still going to occur.
As a trend, the approach to legalize poker and other games of skill, then move to legalize other traditional casino games and slots makes sense. Don't make too much of a change at one time. Start with these games, learn how the regulatory structure responds, improve the process and then consider expanding the available games. Ultimately, people should be able to spend their money for the entertainment they desire, as long as it doesn't impact others. The US the last I checked was supposed to still be a free country, with a constitution that recognized the people's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Should regulations be instituted to keep minors from wagering? Absolutely. Should programs be in place to help problem gamblers? Sure. Reputable online gambling firms in other countries have been doing this for years. There isn't a reason that the same kind of protections wouldn't be effective here. There has been online wagering on horse racing in the US for almost 10 years and they don't seem to have an issue with gambling from minors or from problem gamblers.
A Wall Street Journal report discusses the public positions and opinions of three gaming companies that would benefit from liberalization of internet gambling within the US. The consensus opinion is that if this moves forward, it is likely to happen no sooner than a year from now, near the end of this congressional session.
From discussion panels at the Global Gaming Expo, their consensus is that if any game is legalized online, it would be poker, followed by traditional casino games. No one is foreseeing the expanded legalization of sports betting online in the US anytime soon. However, given the estimates that only 1% of sports betting in the US is legal ($2.5B in Nevada casinos), that implies that $250B in illegal sports betting occurs each year. That's a lot of money not being regulated and taxed. I don't think many can make the logical argument that keeping something illegal is somehow going to make that $250 billion of illegal sports wagers disappear. It's still going to occur.
As a trend, the approach to legalize poker and other games of skill, then move to legalize other traditional casino games and slots makes sense. Don't make too much of a change at one time. Start with these games, learn how the regulatory structure responds, improve the process and then consider expanding the available games. Ultimately, people should be able to spend their money for the entertainment they desire, as long as it doesn't impact others. The US the last I checked was supposed to still be a free country, with a constitution that recognized the people's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Should regulations be instituted to keep minors from wagering? Absolutely. Should programs be in place to help problem gamblers? Sure. Reputable online gambling firms in other countries have been doing this for years. There isn't a reason that the same kind of protections wouldn't be effective here. There has been online wagering on horse racing in the US for almost 10 years and they don't seem to have an issue with gambling from minors or from problem gamblers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
