Tweet
As Rosanne Rosanadana used to say on Saturday Night Live, “Never mind.”
Hopes that unfettered online sports betting would soon be legal in the United States were crushed on Wednesday when details of the soon-to-be-filed legislation regarding Internet gambling were unveiled and became public. In an obvious nod to the National Football League, the bill specifically excludes sports wagering. By definition that means that the legislation applies to . . . online poker.
Politics is occasionally defined as the art of the possible, and it’s apparent that the bill’s sponsor, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, didn’t feel that the legislation had a snowball’s chance in Mississippi of becoming law if it included sports wagering.
“Ideally we would want sports betting to be included because it is as capable of being regulated,” notes Clive Hawkswood, head of the European Remote Gambling Association and a close observer of goings-on in North America, “but we appreciate that politically it is much more problematic and it is safe to assume that after taking sounding (public opinion) Barney believed it to be a bridge too far.”
In Washington, Michael Waxman of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, a lobbying group, says that political realities limited Frank to legislation that at least moves the chains.
“We’re disappointed that this version of the legislation does not include online gambling,” says Waxman. “We think that Americans should not be prohibited from placing a bet on the team of their choice. (But) Congressman Frank obviously felt that he needed to file a bill that had a chance of passage.”
Frank, who rarely backs away from a fight and delights in verbally skewering anyone who challenges him, obviously chose this time to wage a battle that he at least has a puncher’s chance of winning. The opposition by the NFL and NCAA to legalized sports betting would have proved too tough a nut to crack.
Sans sports wagering, what is left in the bill? Basically, it would repeal the 2006 law that was rammed through Congress as an attachment to the port security bill and signed into law by then-President Bush. Residents of the United States could legally gamble online with companies licensed by the Treasury Department. There would be safeguards to help prevent underage and problem gambling, as well as a provision to assure that money is not laundered.
Chances of the bill’s passage, even without the allowance for sports betting, is problematic. Opponents will drag out all the usual suspects. Republican Robert Goodlatte, a longtime opponent of gambling (except horse racing, which is popular in his home state of Virginia), will probably be the point man in the House. Arizona Republican John Kyl has long history of opposing online gambling. Focus of the Family, a right-wing family values organization, has already started campaigning against the bill.
But the Internet gambling issue is difficult to decipher. Republicans have campaigned for years on individual rights and keeping government out of people’s lives. And some Democrats in states that have brick-and-mortar casinos might feel some blowback from home and oppose it. A similar measure in 2007 drew disparate support that didn’t exactly pit Democrats vs. Republicans.
The climate, however, has definitely changed in Washington. Richard Urey, an aide to Democrat Shelley Berkley of Nevada and a longtime ardent gambling supporter, says that with Democrats in control of both the House and Senate, plus the White House, the time may be ripe for the bill to progress. (Berkley is one of the bill’s co-sponsors.)
“My sense,” says Urey, “is that the issue is not as polarizing as it was a few years ago. We expect that many of the same people who backed passage in 2006 will oppose its repeal. But people don’t appear as strident about it.”
The Frank bill does, by omission, contain some good news for sports bettors. Since banks would be relieved of the burden of reporting credit card transactions between U.S. residents and web sites that offer poker and other casino games, it would be impossible to distinguish deposits to off shore sites that are made for poker/casino play and those made for sports wagering. So unless the bill is amended and addresses that issue, that heat would be turned down considerably.
Hopes that unfettered online sports betting would soon be legal in the United States were crushed on Wednesday when details of the soon-to-be-filed legislation regarding Internet gambling were unveiled and became public. In an obvious nod to the National Football League, the bill specifically excludes sports wagering. By definition that means that the legislation applies to . . . online poker.
Politics is occasionally defined as the art of the possible, and it’s apparent that the bill’s sponsor, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, didn’t feel that the legislation had a snowball’s chance in Mississippi of becoming law if it included sports wagering.
“Ideally we would want sports betting to be included because it is as capable of being regulated,” notes Clive Hawkswood, head of the European Remote Gambling Association and a close observer of goings-on in North America, “but we appreciate that politically it is much more problematic and it is safe to assume that after taking sounding (public opinion) Barney believed it to be a bridge too far.”
In Washington, Michael Waxman of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, a lobbying group, says that political realities limited Frank to legislation that at least moves the chains.
“We’re disappointed that this version of the legislation does not include online gambling,” says Waxman. “We think that Americans should not be prohibited from placing a bet on the team of their choice. (But) Congressman Frank obviously felt that he needed to file a bill that had a chance of passage.”
Frank, who rarely backs away from a fight and delights in verbally skewering anyone who challenges him, obviously chose this time to wage a battle that he at least has a puncher’s chance of winning. The opposition by the NFL and NCAA to legalized sports betting would have proved too tough a nut to crack.
Sans sports wagering, what is left in the bill? Basically, it would repeal the 2006 law that was rammed through Congress as an attachment to the port security bill and signed into law by then-President Bush. Residents of the United States could legally gamble online with companies licensed by the Treasury Department. There would be safeguards to help prevent underage and problem gambling, as well as a provision to assure that money is not laundered.
Chances of the bill’s passage, even without the allowance for sports betting, is problematic. Opponents will drag out all the usual suspects. Republican Robert Goodlatte, a longtime opponent of gambling (except horse racing, which is popular in his home state of Virginia), will probably be the point man in the House. Arizona Republican John Kyl has long history of opposing online gambling. Focus of the Family, a right-wing family values organization, has already started campaigning against the bill.
But the Internet gambling issue is difficult to decipher. Republicans have campaigned for years on individual rights and keeping government out of people’s lives. And some Democrats in states that have brick-and-mortar casinos might feel some blowback from home and oppose it. A similar measure in 2007 drew disparate support that didn’t exactly pit Democrats vs. Republicans.
The climate, however, has definitely changed in Washington. Richard Urey, an aide to Democrat Shelley Berkley of Nevada and a longtime ardent gambling supporter, says that with Democrats in control of both the House and Senate, plus the White House, the time may be ripe for the bill to progress. (Berkley is one of the bill’s co-sponsors.)
“My sense,” says Urey, “is that the issue is not as polarizing as it was a few years ago. We expect that many of the same people who backed passage in 2006 will oppose its repeal. But people don’t appear as strident about it.”
The Frank bill does, by omission, contain some good news for sports bettors. Since banks would be relieved of the burden of reporting credit card transactions between U.S. residents and web sites that offer poker and other casino games, it would be impossible to distinguish deposits to off shore sites that are made for poker/casino play and those made for sports wagering. So unless the bill is amended and addresses that issue, that heat would be turned down considerably.