Online Gambling A Popular Topic At G2E
Published: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 Online-Casinos.com
ONLINE GAMBLING A POPULAR TOPIC AT G2E
Most top online gambling execs were not present, but the industry was certainly a talking point.
The recent Global Gaming Expo (G2E) in Las Vegas saw a marked absence of online gaming companies and executives discouraged from travel to the USA by the recent passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, but the industry nevertheless generated an abundance of media comment.
Aside from the widely reported comments of top land gaming executives like Terri Lanni of MGM Mirage and Frank Fahrenkopf of the AGA who now favour a study of online gambling's impact in the USA, other personalities were giving their views on everything from the unorthodox manner in which the UIGEA was rammed through Congress to the likely efficacy in the enforcement of the legislation.
Describing the Act as "cumbersome, confusing and potentially ineffective," the Las Vegas Sun newspaper opined that while the bill is unlikely to curb the public's appetite for online gambling, the legislation will make it more difficult for Americans to find reputable sites that will accept their money.
The real purpose of the bill, convention goers said, was to pander to religious conservatives. The House had earlier passed legislation authored by Rep. Jim Leach, but passage of a Senate compromise Leach-Goodlatte bill had appeared unlikely after senators objected to a move by anti-gambling advocate Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to fast-track the Leach bill to a floor vote in the Senate. That led to the involvement of Majority Leader Sen Bill Frist and the deployment of political manouevres that involved a late-night, last minute attachment to an unrelated "must pass" security Bill.
"No meeting, no reading, no debate - no problem. Many members of the Homeland Security Committee - not to mention most senators - hadn't read the bill," the Vegas newspaper reported.
Hopeful views that a change in political power in Washington could bring about a reversal of the UIGEA inevitably resulted in contrary opinions, notably from one David Stewart, a legal eagle who counsels the American Gaming Association. He felt that it could be many years before there was a legislative change.
The Sun reported that Stewart said: "If it comes up again, they're going to say, 'We've already dealt with that issue.' They were exhausted by this latest effort."
The newspaper claims that although the association's two largest members, Harrah's Entertainment and MGM Mirage, want to legalise Internet gambling in the USA, other members may not be as comfortable with the idea. The group expects to decide at a board meeting next month whether to push for legislation that would study legalising Internet gambling. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., introduced such a bill in the last session of Congress that gained support from more than 40 co-sponsors.
Among a slew of Democrats perceived as friendly to the industry is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an outspoken liberal who will head the Financial Services Committee and who voted against the Internet gambling prohibition bill that originated in his committee.
Even if more libertarian minds prevail in the online gambling debate, Stewart told the Las Vegas Sun that it could take at least a decade for Congress to legalise Internet betting: "They don't have the appetite for it," he said of members' desire to pursue a debate. Online gamblers are growing in number but don't yet have the political clout to influence legislation, Stewart told the newspaper.
Respected legal personality Professor I Nelson Rose presented an interesting alternative to nationwide legalisation, suggesting that Congress may eventually pass a law allowing states to opt into a regulatory system enabling Internet betting for in-state residents. A similar system enables gamblers to bet on horse races from remote locations in their home states as well as other states that choose to participate.
Short of that, states will likely seek to regulate Internet betting within their borders. "I think states will make it a state's rights issue," said Rose, a professor at Whittier Law School in California. One effort is under way in his home state, where poker rooms are working on legislation that would legalise Internet poker wagering for California residents.
The Las Vegas Sun reviewed online gambling developments in Nevada, reporting that in 2003 the Nevada Legislature passed a bill allowing regulators to study whether Internet gambling could be regulated. The state Gaming Control Board heard testimony from technology companies with software claiming to pinpoint the location and identity of gamblers using satellites, online background checks and account information. But regulators did not pursue the issue after receiving a letter from the Justice Department restating the federal government's position that internet gambling fell under the 1961 Wire Act and was therefore illegal.
Nevada regulators considered appeals to legalise online gambling for Nevada residents but didn't pursue the matter. While Nevada casinos don't want to run afoul of the feds, some local companies may seek the right to allow Nevadans to bet online in the years to come, Rose said, adding that Nevadans already can make sports bets from their home computers after registering at a casino and transmitting bet information over a secure line.
"If at-home sports betting is legal, then Internet gambling should be legal for Nevada residents," Professor Rose said.
The Professor is on record elsewhere as being strongly critical of the UIGEA, saying it is confusing and contradictory with all its carve-outs, and noting how a portion of the bill even sanctions Internet betting conducted within states and tribal lands.
"It's a public embarrassment...it's a mess," says Rose. "Eventually I think they'll get Congress to change the law to do for Internet poker exactly what they did for Internet horse racing. It's an exemption but (based on) states' rights."
Undeterred by some opinions that the UIGEA is here to stay, Ambassador Colin Murdoch, permanent secretary in the Antigua and Bermuda Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the Antigua Sun that he expected some progress in negotiations on the gaming issue, once power shifts into Democratic Party hands in the USA in January, when newly elected representatives take office in both houses.
"I do not necessarily believe that there is much difference in the Democratic and Republican administrations. In fact, some of the harshest blows that the Caribbean has received in recent times, we got from the Democrats - like bananas," he said. "That was done under a Democratic administration.
"Having said that, I believe that when it comes to Internet gaming, there will be some new opportunities, with the new Congress, after January, to explore with them some change to the legislation that has been passed. Either a repeal or an amendment of that legislation" Murdoch said.
However, Ambassador Murdoch acknowledged that the US legislative system vests significant veto authority in President George W. Bush, who has gone on record backing restrictions on Internet gaming and who signed into law the recent legislation geared at blocking payments between online gambling sites and their clients.
He said this system was a potential barrier to the furtherance of Antigua's cause and described it as one of the obstacles that needed to be overcome.
Despite this, he expressed the hope that if some change can be pushed through Congress, negotiations with the White House can effect a compromise legislation that both Democrats and Republicans can live with.
"I think even the White House has seen the change in the American political environment and I believe that they would be amenable to moving towards the centre and have position based on compromise" Murdoch said.
