States and the PPA Prepared to Challenge Gaming Laws - BY HARTLEY HENDERSON

[clevfan]

States and the PPA Prepared to Challenge Gaming Laws as UIGEA Deadline and Midterm Elections Near

It appears 2010 could be the year of the pro-gambling movement.

Earlier this week New Jersey officially announced their intentions to seek legalized online gambling and sports betting in the state with the introductions of Bill 490 and Bill 492.

Bill 490 is designed to supersede the Casino Control Act of 1977, and if passed, would allow citizens of New Jersey to wager on poker, roulette, baccarat, blackjack, craps and various other games of chance on the internet. The state plans to place servers inside existing New Jersey casinos which would be subject to stringent controls and regulations. The state believes the UIGEA would not apply to this bill since the casinos and betting would be intrastate and the UIGEA only applies to cross border wagering.

The DOJ may not agree, however, since they expressed an opinion when Alberto Gonzalez was AG that as far as they were concerned any activity on the internet is interstate by nature. Whether the current DOJ has the same opinion is uncertain, but to date, Eric Holder has given no indication that the current Department of Justice feels any different about online gambling than Alberto Gonzales and the Republicans did. However, it seems pretty evident that the New Jersey government is prepared to fight for their right to offer forms of gambling which they believe to be legal in the federal courts if necessary.

Along with Bill 490, New Jersey introduced Bill 492 which would permit sports wagering in the State. The Bill, also introduced by Lesniak, seeks to legalize all wagering on professional and amateur contests by various means of communication within the state including telephone and the Internet. There is also a provision to allow sports betting lounges within existing casinos where patrons can wager on sports pools. The bill would require a state constitutional amendment but polls to date have shown New Jersey residents to be very much in favor of sports betting. New Jersey residents are able to bet on horse racing currently via 4njbets.com so the extension to sports betting wouldn't be difficult. Of course the state currently has two big hurdles to overcome, namely the 1992 federal legislation (PASPA) which prohibits them from offering sports wagering and the sports leagues who have vowed to fight states as far as they have to in an effort to prohibit legalized sports wagering beyond Nevada. The leagues still have a lawsuit in effect trying to stop the Delaware lottery, which was initiated this year, from continuing.

When introduced it appeared very unlikely that New Jersey would have much success in getting the bills passed at the Federal level since they were seeking the change unilaterally. But that changed this week as other states have come forward calling for changes to the sports betting laws.

Delaware governor Jack Markell announced that they will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court restrictions placed on them by the Federal Court of Appeal earlier this year which limited the offerings they could provide to NFL parlays of 3 games or more and the states of Missouri and Rhode Island passed joint resolutions urging Congress to lift its ban on sports wagering. There is every indication other states will follow. The wording of the resolutions makes it clear that the states find it unfair and unconstitutional that PASPA allows sports betting in 4 states to the exclusion of the other 46 and they seek to have the law changed whether they choose to offers sports wagering in the state or not.

Asked to comment on the surge of interest by states to overturn PASPA and consequently enhances state's rights in the area of gambling, iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. stated the following:

"We're happy that the states have taken this issue into their hands. The efforts to resolve the Internet gambling issue have stalled in Washington DC. If states assert their right to regulate gambling within their borders and start to take a serious look at permitting Internet gambling, one side affect might be a breaking of the deadlock in Congress.

Regarding Delaware's appeal, everything Delaware does in their suit helps our suit. If Delaware is successful in the US Supreme Court and benefits from the special status PASPA confers on it, it amplifies the unconstitutional restraint placed on the other states preventing them from regulating sports wagering. If Delaware loses, that itself is an example of how unfair the law is, permitting Nevada the freedom to offer any sports-based wagering product they wish, while Delaware is specifically limited to 3-team minimum parlay bets only on the NFL."

The truth is that Delaware really has no option but to appeal the ruling because the law, as it stands now, limits the state to 4 months of betting. By all accounts the NFL lottery in Delaware was a success this year but trifles in comparison to what could have been made with single game sports wagering and once the NFL season ends in 2 weeks the state isn't allowed to offer anything else until the season starts up again next September. Furthermore, the decision given by the Court of Appeals was based solely on an interpretation of PASPA by judges there that may not be warranted. There was nothing in the wording of the law that said the states were limited to a specific type of sports wager offering so it's uncertain why the courts restricted Delaware to NFL parlays.

The timing of the state resolutions is ideal because Congress is set to address Barney Frank's bill HR2267 which aims to overturn the UIGEA. The treasury agreed to extend mandatory compliance of UIGEA regulations until June 2010 and those close to Congress have indicated that Frank and the Poker Player's Alliance will likely make a huge push to make some headway in changing the regulations within the next month. There is indication that the treasury will allow a further extension only if some progress has been made. Consequently Frank will likely try and ensure that the next meeting will be significant. To date Frank has called hearings to discuss the merits of UIGEA regulation and promised HR2267 will be brought before the Financial Services Committee again in 2010. PPA Executive Director John Pappas indicated to a writer at Bluff Magazine that he expects the meeting to take place in February but this time it will be a markup where committee members make amendments to the bill and vote on the legislation.

The PPA's biggest obstacle to date is that only 4 Republicans are co-sponsors of Frank's bill and if it has any chance of passing a full house vote they need more Republican support. They believe they can get this support if they can convince fence sitting Republicans like Chris Lee (NY) to come aboard along with influential Congressman like Peter King (NY). The other ace in the hole (pardon the pun) that the PPA and Frank have is the success the PPA has in influencing voters. In the 2006 midterm elections, Jim Leach of Iowa was defeated in a shocker to Dave Loebsack by 6,000 votes almost exclusively as a result of the efforts by the gambling industry. Leach was instrumental in the passing of HR4411 to the anger of the industry which claimed it was passed without a hearing. Leach gave the typical Republican argument that it harmed the economy and the family but the PPA decided to make it personal and were able to convince gamblers who were usually Leach supporters to change their votes. This ultimately led to his defeat. Needless to say there are likely many other candidates who are in close races for the 2010 midterm elections that could use the support of PPA and other gambling lobbyist groups to help put them over the top.

HR2267 has an exclusion on sports betting but Frank only included it because he believed the bill couldn't pass without the ban on sports betting. Frank doesn't seem to agree with the leagues, however, which was evident following a committee meeting in May where Frank stated

""The expression by the professional leagues of shock at the notion that people would actually bet on games was one of the least persuasive emotional outbursts I have encountered, but we acknowledged the reality of it, no one will be betting on professional sports games."

With all the states coming forward now urging Congress to legalize sports betting, Frank may view sports betting as an opportunity instead of a threat which could convince the committee to alter the bill in the end. After all, betting sites are very integrated now and to try and prevent wagering for sports while allowing it for casinos and poker could be a very difficult task. There may actually be more support for the bill if all forms of gambling were included rather than picking and choosing.

To sum it up, sports betting activists could be looking at the perfect storm. To date the gambling antagonists were winning the battle but with the UIGEA deadline delayed until June and a Financial Subcommittee meeting with teeth to take place in the first quarter of this year; with states coming forward now to ask for changes to federal sports betting laws; and with candidates with midterm election aspirations that could be aided with support by the PPA, iMEGA and other gambling lobbyists this appears to be the time for the industry to take the offensive and start winning the battle. For the first time in quite a while the future of the gambling industry in the U.S. is looking brighter.

01-17-2010
Hartley Henderson
MajorWager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

[Myron]

too bad the ppa didn't exist in 1999. if the industry had organized and been more influential then i doubt the situation would be like it is today.

[Juice]

THE BRADLEY BILL IS THE PROBLEM.

To qoute David Stern:

"So we have morphed considerably in our corporate view where we say, Look, Las Vegas is not evil. Las Vegas is a vacation and destination resort, and they have sports gambling and, in fact, there's a federal statute that gives them a monopoly of types [on sports betting]. And we actually supported that statute back in '92."




Times are at a point now where breaking Nevada's "monopoly" on sports wagering, which is (really now?) supported by the 4 major sports leauges, a "look" at.

EXACTLY WHO GAVE THE BIG 4 THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT CAN BE BET ON AND WHERE? Its time for this lunacy to stop!!!



THIS COULD BE A POSSIBLE "ANTI TRUST" ISSUE. Are the various teams in city and states better off making their own decisions along with local and state officials as to whether bets can be accepted on them? Why should the big 5 sports drivers recieve all the income on things and have all the say. How did it become to be that they decided what was best for us and we never get to have a say. WHY SHOULD WE BE CONSTANTLY ECONOMICALY BLACKMAILED OR THREATENED WITH PERSECUTION IF WE DARE "DEFY" THE WILL OF GOD WAYS OF THE BIG 5???






Mr Ground Zero himself would like to know.

[Juice]

US online gaming is on the way


You just never know what you will find in the MW archives. I was just poking around in he treasure chest that is the 2006 year at MW and ran acroos this old thread that goes with what I am saying. Especially the state opt in piece.

[Hartley]

Doesn't really matter Juice. PASPA has never really been challenged in the courts and it's hard to see any Supreme Court justice saying it's ok to have a law that gives special powers to one state at the exclusion of others. That breaks numerous areas of the constitution as iMEGA has pointed out.

As I see it the government will have the same problem in defending this law as they did defending the policy at the WTO. The WTO courts said to the U.S. that they can have the online exclusion for gambling if they make all remote gambling illegal including horse racing. And the horse racing industry freaked out with the phrase "over our dead bodies" causing the government to back down. No doubt here the courts will say that all sports gambling can be declared illegal in the U.S. if the right is taken away from Nevada who will say the same thing that the horse racing industry said.

[Juice]

Let me clarify things for you Hartley.

1. The Bradley Bill does not give Nevada a "monopoly" on sportsbetting. It simply prevents other states from "adopting" a similar format that "allows" sports wagering in the casino plans of the times. In early 1900's america it was a concept still mostly being "explored" by states as a source of income and they the usual suspects on both sides of the fence moved to cut that off. (Remind me to tell a strange BB story later HH.) And of course for all the usual reasons. To me its a logicical extension of Rico.


So now, while not a true monopoly "per say" in order for states to gain leverage they have to make Nevada look like the "BAD GUY" and say why do the get to have a "monopoly" on the action. The anti trust "like" sounding argument gives them an advantage.


Keep in mind sports wagering has always been legal in Nevada. It was still legal after the bill. AND OF COURSE NEVADA IN ORDER TO KEEP ITS FAVORED STATUS HAD TO HELP GET IT PASSED. Exactly 5 years later....


Opps we changed our minds. Cleaning up your act out there in the late 80's has given sportsbetting a clean image and america thinks its ok if they send a few dollars out of the country to bet on a few games. So sports betting in Vegas must be banned.

Good thing we passed that Bradley Bill to protect them and all. I wonder what we will think of next.


Well as you know they lost horribly to Nevada in there pursuit of but, they did come up with that UIGEA thingy majiggy along the way. In fact senator Kyl Hitler is still at it. Held up some meeting or something the other day over STIILL TRYING to get it enforced.


In any event we are well ensconed with one another now a days and they will never come "our way" again.


Of course the natural response from Nevada regarding a states rights or non rights regarding the Bradley Bill is just that, a states right.


Who is Nevada to tell a state they cant offer sports betting or allow it in some fashion? Why would we care? More power to you one and all.


So it does matter Hartly because the leauges have no leverage. They are in dire financial straits, they can't "scare" or "threaten" Nevada into doing thier bidding, congress is not on their side as long as Barney Frank stands in the way, and if the dare try to "assert" ther will on enforcement on this issue, there will be a huge outcry by the states.


Add it all up. And it certainly matters. Way more sports bettors than horsebettors out there. Sportsbettors up until this brand new age of the intergrated gaming world for all movement have been oppressed and surpressed, but those days are gone. LONG GONE.

[Hartley]

Interesting last point Juice. I read an article earlier that the horse racing industry in the U.S. had its worst year ever.

BTW, I don't think we disagree - just saying the same thing in a different way.

[Juice]

Originally Posted by Hartley

Interesting last point Juice. I read an article earlier that the horse racing industry in the U.S. had its worst year ever.

BTW, I don't think we disagree - just saying the same thing in a different way.

Your right we are saying it different ways.

Keep in mind all the vegas pros read in mw and certainly read what I post.
I made an EXTREMLY BOLD statement that was "couched and written" in the understand the "lingo" of the day and incorparate it into answers you may give or have to give in the future. Very much like you brillant piece on "SOCIAL CLUBS" that got by just about everyone.



It amounts to trying to turn Nevada against the 4 major sports leauges in a passive, hands off, who are we to debate a states rights type of way.

This is unacceptable in american politics. When the big 4 have cracked the whip before, those whom depend on their good graces to stay in buisness and survive jumps right in line. Which means everyone doing gaming buisness of any sort or related/connected to in anyway in the US.


Not anymore. Like I have been saying the big 4 + the ncaa's are under a finaincial collaspse. We own these bitches and we own these hoes and I know it. They need our money not oly in the US but worldwide in order to survive.



Amid recession, many longtime advertisers pass on Super Bowl XLIV




When you know it like I know, I know, I know. you can stick you neck out and make non approved proclimations like this is a possible "anti trust" issue and get away with it. Maybe.


It amounts to planning evil things against the big 4 so we can dance on thier graves and ask them "HOW YOU LIKE US NOW HUH?" WHILE WE CONTINUE TO SEND OUR MONEY TO THE UNAAPROVED PLACES AS ALWAYS WHILE WE ARE AT IT. AT THAT.


Insert a million evil laughs here.