Public Gaming's Political News

Opponents of Indian gambling and local California officials are pushing back against a proposed federal rule that would simplify the recognition of American Indian tribes. At stake is a potential surge of new casinos in the state, which critics of the federal changes argue would damage local communities.  The Stand Up for California report estimated that the proposed rule change could lead to the rapid recognition of 34 more Indian tribes in California, resulting in another 22 casinos. Those newly recognized tribal governments would also be able to assert ownership over state lands, it added, removing them from land-use rules and local laws.
Specifically, the bill (A-3476) repeals all prohibitions against wagering on the results of any professional, college, or amateur sport or athletic event at casinos or gambling houses in Atlantic City or at current running and harness horse racetracks in the state.  Today’s vote comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court declining on Monday to take up New Jersey’s appeal to overturn a 22-year old federal ban on sports betting in most states throughout the country.The bill is inspired by the September 2013 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of the NCAA vs the State of New Jersey wherein the court interpreted the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 to “not read PASPA to prohibit New Jersey from repealing its ban on sports wagering.  It is left up to each state to decide how much of a law enforcement priority it wants to make of sports gambling, or what the exact contours of the prohibition will be.  PASPA does not even obligate New Jersey to leave in place the state-law prohibitions against sports gambling that it had chosen to adopt prior to PASPA’s enactment.  To the contrary, New Jersey is free to repeal those prohibitions in whole or in part.”
"As a member of the convenience store industry, I'm most concerned with the impact that the DOJ decision has had on the sale of lottery products," Lyle Beckwith, NACS senior vice president of government relations, told the online political news source. "Lottery tickets should not be sold interstate on the Internet. Those sales risk letting kids buy them, letting people gamble in states that don't want gambling, and pulling money and sales out of some states into others. … If Congress does not act to pass this legislation, states will open the floodgates to Internet gambling and it will become difficult or impossible to turn it back."   
PGRI Note:
Of course, NACS needs to resort to these ridiculous assertions and scare tactics.    Notice that none of the claims they make is true, that these are social issues that NACS members are not actually concerned about anyway, and that the actual concern of NACS members is not even stated here. NACS just wants to protect their distribution monopoly over lottery products.  Of course, they can’t say that because the U.S. Congress is not supposed to take legislative action to protect monopolies.  The U.S. Congress is not tasked with the job of denying the rights of consumers to buy online, they are not supposed to take legislative action to require that a product be made available only in retail stores because store-owners want to protect their distribution monopoly - The notion that NACS’ actual agenda is to pressure the U.S. Congress to intervene to prevent the natural disruptions in a dynamic market-place by protecting their monopoly and denying consumers the right to choose is not a political platform that would work.





Public Gaming /Paul Jason - pjason@publicgaming.com   / Susan Jason - sjason@publicgaming.com  /Office Phone - + 425-449-3000  
feed-image Feed Entries