Let your mouth speak archive

Rushing to take advantage of a U.S. Justice Department ruling that in-state Internet gambling does not violate federal law, a New Jersey lawmaker is pushing for his colleagues to pass a bill legalizing online gambling within the state's borders.

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said on Monday that he'll try to get a bill through the Legislature and on Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week. The goal is to make New Jersey the national leader in online gambling, now that the federal government says in-state bets do not violate the law.

"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," said Mr. Lesniak, a Democrat from northern New Jersey. "It's the wave of the future. It's going to come and we can be in the lead on it."

Last month, the Justice Department opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting. The department said the federal Wire Act only prevents gamblers from wagering on sports outcomes online, and said other in-state bets would be OK.

Nevada is already moving fast to capitalize on the ruling. Late last week, the state's gambling regulators approved rules that allow companies in the state to apply for licenses to operate poker web sites. Caesars Entertainment Corp., which owns four of Atlantic City's 11 casinos, and Boyd Gaming Corp., which owns half of the city's Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, have already submitted proposals to be licensed in Nevada.

State Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook, is not a fan of expanding Connecticut's gaming industry to help balance the state budget.

"It just doesn't seem to me to be the best way to raise revenue," said Daily, cochairman of the Legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. "There are many members of the finance committee who hate gambling and who would not want to vote for any kind of increase in gambling."

But, as Daily concedes, an apparent federal turnabout on Internet gambling may force skeptical lawmakers to change their minds as soon as the upcoming 2012 session.

"On the other hand we have to consider the competition from other states," she said.

Daily was referring to a Department of Justice decision, released Dec. 23, that is widely viewed as clarifying application of a 1961 ban on gaming across state lines to 21st century technology.

The justice department was considering whether the 40-year-old Wire Wager Act prevents proposals in New York and Illinois to sell lottery tickets to in-state residents online. The act has been considered an impediment to intrastate wagering -- and, subsequently, interstate betting. But the department's Office of Legal Counsel clarified it only applies to bets placed on a sporting event or contest.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen in an email said the federal opinion did not specifically address other games of chance but "would likely extend to intrastate Internet poker."

"Notably the DOJ implied that it is of the view that poker is not a `sporting event or contest' under the Wire Wager Act," Jepsen wrote. "My office continues to review the opinion, consider the many issues that are on the table because of the opinion and provide legal advice to some of our client agencies."

During a visit Friday to Newtown, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy expressed no doubts about the federal decision.

"There's going to be online gaming in the United States," Malloy said. "The world has changed since last Friday."

His administration has already been eyeing Massachusetts' legalization of casinos and the competition that will pose to Connecticut's two nearby Indian gaming facilities -- Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods.

Like Daily, Malloy said he is not an enthusiastic proponent of gaming. But he indicated lawmakers need to be practical about Internet options and the impact the federal turnabout could have on the state and the local economy, particularly if online interstate gambling were to be allowed.

"(If) all of the revenue that might be captured by the two casinos that are currently operating in our state dissipates to other states as they develop casinos and all of the online potential within our state goes to companies that are outside our state, then obviously we end up the big loser," Malloy said. "I think we would be making a mistake to forgo the income that might be generated, which is another way of saying, `We'll just let New York have it. Or we'll let Massachusetts have it. Or we'll let Rhode Island have it. Or we'll let New Jersey have it.'"

Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, has oversight over gaming as cochairman of the Legislature's Public Safety and Security Committee. Dargan said he interpreted the federal ruling as only applying to lottery sales and that he needs more clarification from legal experts.

But, Dargan acknowledged, there is no doubt the competition for gaming dollars is already fierce and will only grow more so if in fact intrastate online gaming is allowed.

"All states are looking to increase revenue when the feds are cutting back on different things and the dollars are not there," Dargan said. "And when Massachusetts' (casinos) get on line my estimates will be the revenue from (Connecticut's) two native American casinos could see losses between 10 and 20 percent."

Dargan said if and when the issue comes before the General Assembly it will likely be a major debate.

"Gaming is not Democrats or Republicans or the left against the right," he said. "People have lots of different philosophical issues."

One of the last failed efforts to expand gaming was in 2009 when then-Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed introducing electronic Keno to the state.

Many are worried about exacerbating problem gambling.

"I have very little appetite for preying on the weaknesses of the human condition as a way to generate revenue for public purposes," said Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, ranking Republican on the finance panel. "I don't think it's healthy from a societal perspective."

Asked about such concerns, Malloy Friday said Connecticut budgets around $1.9 million annually to help problem gamblers and may need to increase that amount.

"What the right level of money is and what the actual challenges will be remain to be seen," the governor said. "But at $1.9 million we're big investors and we're probably going to have to invest more."

Just before sneaking off to Hawaii, where he barred news photos on the golf course, President Obama overturned a longstanding U.S. policy that prohibited Internet gambling. In yet another presidential shenanigan that bypasses U.S. law, Obama used the device of a secret Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion, dated in September and quietly released to the public on Christmas Eve.

The Justice Department opinion opens the door for all U.S. states to sell lottery tickets over the Internet and to encourage varieties of online, web-based gambling, such as poker.

The Justice Department opinion reverses decades of previous policy that included civil and criminal charges. It undermines the U.S. Wire Act of 1961, which up till now has prohibited all wagers via telecommunications across state lines or international borders.

Eric Holder's lawyers invented the argument that the Wire Act applies only to bets on a "sporting event or contest," but not to a state's use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders.

The Assistant Attorney General who wrote the opinion, Virginia Seitz, claimed that the Wire Act's legislative history shows that Congress was mainly interested in Internet transmission of betting information on baseball, basketball, football, boxing and other sports-related gambling such as off-track betting on horse races. She jumped from that assertion to write that lotteries are not included in the Wire Act's prohibitions.

Seitz ignored the Wire Act's provision that gives prosecutors the power to shut down phone lines engaged in interstate or foreign gambling. Gambling law experts say that the Justice Department's opinion would eliminate almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gambling that is legal under state law.

For example, Nevada and the District of Columbia have legalized poker within their jurisdictions. Under the Seitz opinion, federal law can no longer stop similar forms of gambling from expanding to other states.

Many of our 50 states may look to varieties of online gambling, such as online lotteries, to solve their budget deficit problems. Once states become dependent on gambling dollars, they search for more and more ways to entice the weakest among us to pour more of their money down the drain of gambling.

Poker, which involves elements of skill and luck, has been illegal online for real money since a 2006 law forbade financial institutions from processing funds for online wagering. Despite the U.S. ban, one survey shows that the global online gambling industry grew to $30 billion last year. The gambling industry has become a major contributor to political candidates and parties. As one example among many, the man who invented the instant scratch-off lottery ticket is funding the campaign to replace our Electoral College with his "national popular vote."

The Justice Department's opinion is part of a multifaceted, bipartisan effort to legalize Internet gambling. A House subcommittee held hearings in October and November with testimony by gambling supporters such as Frank Fahrenkopf, CEO of the American Gaming (Gambling) Association and former Republican National Committee chairman and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who tried to repeal the 2006 law when Democrats controlled the House in 2010.

Fahrenkopf predicted how the Justice Department opinion would enable the gambling industry to hit the jackpot. He said, "It's now clear that not only can lotteries sell tickets online, but also games that look like slot machines and poker."

On the other hand, Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., said that ending the federal ban on Internet gambling would enable the spreading of gambling to every computer, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android and Windows phone. It would be like having a casino at everyone's fingertips, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

A warning also came from the world's richest casino owner, Sheldon Adelson. He announced his opposition to Internet gambling because the available technology is not good enough to prevent teenagers from making wagers.

A report from Loma Linda Medical School in California showed that at least 1 out every 5 young people has a serious gambling-related problem, and the rate of gambling among the young is now almost double the 1988 rate.

Some people seem to think that no harm is done by lotteries; it's just individual choice. But here is the wisdom of our forefathers in an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court decision: "Lotteries ... are a species of gambling, and wrong in their influences. They disturb the checks and balances of a well-ordered community. Society built upon such a foundation would almost of necessity bring forth a population of speculators and gamblers, living on the expectation of what ... might be 'awarded' to them from the accumulations of others" (Stone v. Mississippi).

We should not permit the Obama administration to surreptitiously change federal law in order to vastly expand the gambling industry.

Denise Coates, the founder of online gambling giant bet365, was honoured this week as a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the Queen's New Year Honours list for her services to business and to the community.
An Incredible Honor

Coates, who has a controlling stake in the operator of online betting and casino services, called the announcement "an incredible honor" and said it would not have been possible without the fantastic support and commitment of everybody at bet365.

It is worth recalling that Coates founded the firm from the small city of Stoke in the year 2000. Since then it has grown into one of the biggest internet gambling companies in the world, with more than six million customers in 2000 countries, sites that operate in 17 different languages, and more than 1,700 employees.
Expansion Plans

Recently Coates gave a lengthy interview to an online gambling magazine, in which she said bet365 had enjoyed a good financial year thanks to the launch of new products such as a sports betting site with in-play features, and added that the company would expand to emerging markets.

Coates said preparations were underway for new licenses in Australia, Spain and Denmark, and hinted that bet365 was following developments in the United States - where the possible legalization of internet gambling would open up a whole new race for competing companies.

A study by accountants Deloitte, commissioned by bookmaker William Hill, concludes that levying such a tax at 10pc would seriously hurt the Government’s “consumer protection policy objectives”.

It finds that as much as 27pc of current revenues would disappear into the “grey”, or unregulated, market. At 15pc tax, the figure rises to 40pc.

William Hill has submitted the report, seen by The Daily Telegraph, to the Treasury, which is reviewing a new tax regime for remote gambling.

UK consumers currently spend about £1.7bn a year – roughly 18pc of total UK gambling revenues – with online gambling companies.

Such operators escape the 15pc gross profits tax levied in the UK by locating their internet operations in low or nil-tax environments. Bets placed online with William Hill and Ladbrokes, for example, are routed via computer servers in Gibraltar, while Paddy Power’s internet operations are based in Ireland and the Isle of Man. However, in July, tourism minister John Penrose proposed amending the Gambling Act so that online bets were regulated on a point of consumption basis.

Under this proposal all operators, whether from the UK or abroad, would be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers.

In light of this, the Treasury said it would “review the case for changing the taxation regime... and taxing operators on the basis of customer location”. This has triggered a fierce debate over the rate of tax that could be levied on online bets, with bookies fearing internet wagers could also be taxed at 15pc.

The Deloitte report warns that the most marginal operators, accounting for up to 13pc of UK online bets, could be “expected to exit following the introduction of a 5pc tax”. That rises to “approximately 40pc of the industry under a 15pc rate”.

The report finds that not only would that push more UK punters into the unregulated market but there would also be a knock-on effect on gambling companies’ revenues and marketing spend, hitting both corporation taxes and sports sponsorship.

Deloitte points to a potential “adverse impact on the UK economy through reduced industry spend on its supply chain”, noting the gross value added of Britain’s gambling industry is £1.2bn to £1.5bn.

It adds that evidence from the US, France and Italy shows that attempts to control online gambling “failed to prevent the emergence of a large unregulated sector”, not least because of the difficulties of introducing enforcement mechanisms such as blocking internet service providers or types of financial transactions.

Ralph Topping, the William Hill chief executive, said: “Money will always find a way out. More people will go overseas or to fly-by-night, unregulated sites where the consumer is not protected. I hope the Government sees sense on this.”

Assuming “ineffective enforcement”, Deloitte finds that a 15pc tax rate would bring in incremental tax of £116m after adjusting for a £57m fall to £76m in corporation tax. That would be at the price, however, of exposing many more consumers to unregulated gambling sites.

A Treasury spokesman said: “Responses to the review are in and are being analysed.”

We like risk and reward. The gold rush was as much a motivation to be a pioneer as was the more noted religious freedom. Poker is actually considered a sport. Yes, poker players are athletes according to the U.S. government. It’s the one sport you can train for while chain smoking in a tracksuit.
But like every wine connoisseur will think they have nothing in common with a wino; we celebrate gamblers but not degenerates.

We don’t like people who lose and continue to place bets only to lose again. But here is the Republican Party wrapping up their year as unapologetic gamblers with America’s fate in their greasy hands.

And they’re on a losing streak.

“Ten thousand bucks?” proposed Mitt Romney to Rick Perry on a debate stage earlier this month. Yes, Romney couldn’t have said: “You are lying, Rick.” Couldn’t have said: “There you go again.” Couldn’t have countered with the fact Perry seems to get basic civics wrong and can’t list more than two things at a time – Mitt Romney had to make a wager; a wager for nearly a year’s pay for a minimum wage worker.

But this is what you do when you have a problem with gambling. This is what happens when you pass that invisible line from “risk taker” to “intervention subject.” When you lose – instead of contrition or reassessing your philosophy or re-thinking your lifestyle – you double down and hope to win. When your policies fail you prescribe those same policies as the solution.

It’s like a homeopathic remedy; put a hot compress on a burn. Sell your ideas as a remedy for the turmoil your ideas cause.

For example:

The housing bubble burst the entire world’s economy because there were too few regulations. The GOP double down? Fewer regulations!

There are Americans who live with dirty air and water. It’s been widely documented that fracking has caused earthquakes and taint well water. GOP double down? Kill the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rich have never been richer. Wealth inequality is worse in the U.S. today than that of the slave-owning Roman Empire. GOP double down? Protect all tax cuts for the wealthy and propose new ones.

Unemployment plagues America. Long-term unemployment is becoming acutely painful. GOP double down? Cut the federal workforce!

America is losing faith in their government. Republicans say government can’t do anything right. GOP double down? Be the most ineffective Congress you can be. Currently Congress’ approval rating is just above the margin of error.

When you double down – you lose twice as much – twice as quickly. And that sums up Speaker John Boehner’s tenure just perfectly. If Congress were an actual casino they’d be required by law to at least have Gamblers Anonymous pamphlets available. “Did you ever gamble until the deficit was $15 trillion and still vow to keep the Bush Tax Cuts? Call us.”

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” famously said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at the beginning of the lowest rated Congress in the history of the institution. Which to me is the biggest gamble of them all. It’s the notion that politics is a Zero Sum game. That if Obama loses – the GOP therefore wins. It’s just not true. Who loses are the people who always lose when it comes to Republican policies: the poor and the middle class.

That’s who’s bearing the brunt of the first gambling losses – and now the double down.
It’s us.

Like gambling addicts deluded into hoping against hope they will strike it rich in a casino, Ohio officials have their eyes on the jackpot they see coming from legalized table gambling and electronic slot machines.

Also like those who gamble away the rent money, state officials are allowing themselves to be manipulated by casino and slot machine interests.

Once the state's four full-scale casinos and video gambling facilities at seven racetracks are up and running, Ohio should pull in hundreds of millions of dollars a year as its share of the take. Dollar signs in state officials' eyes have blinded them to some concerns about how the casinos and massive slot parlors will be regulated, however.

State Lottery Commission officials have approved a proposal to allow slot machines at racetracks to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Racetrack operators claim continuous gambling is needed so they can compete against casinos in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo.

That should not be state government's concern - if the racetrack operators' contention indeed is valid. Whether money is lost at casino tables or racetrack slot machines, the state still collects about one-third of the amount wagered.

If anything, the track operators seem to be focusing on problem gamblers, who, after all, are more likely than more prudent recreational players to be at slot machines in the wee hours and on Sundays. State government ought to be doing what it can to help gambling addicts, not assisting tracks in fleecing them.

Racetrack gambling was an initiative of state government, not approved by Ohio voters. And when voters in 2009 approved casinos, they did so by a margin of about 53-47 percent, reflecting concern about social problems linked to gambling.

State legislators must approve racetrack slot machine rules proposed by the Lottery Commission. They should consider the agency's plan carefully. They should not approve 24-7 operation of video slot machines.

Nebraskans might get another chance to vote on casino gambling if a state senator from Columbus introduces a bill this year to put the issue on the ballot.

State Sen. Paul Schumacher tells the Columbus Telegram (Schumacher might take a shot with casino bill ) he may sponsor a constitutional amendment to allow gambling, so Nebraska won't continue losing gaming revenue to neighboring states that allow casinos.

But the idea faces long odds because Nebraskans have rejected several gambling proposals over the past decade.

Schumacher says the state can't afford to continue losing millions of dollars in tax revenue. He estimates that Nebraska might gain $60 million to $120 million in tax revenue through casino gambling.

Groups that oppose expanded gambling in the state have argued that the social costs of gambling outweigh any tax revenue benefit.

Information from: Columbus Telegram, The Columbus Telegram Online | Columbus, Nebraska

California's budget deficit appears more manageable than in past years, but the state's ongoing fiscal crisis will continue to dominate debate over other matters in the Legislature during the coming session.

Whether to delay a vote on an $11 billion water bond, approve online poker, reform public employee pensions, keep state parks from closing or scuttle a bond sale for the state's high-speed rail project are among the issues that will be considered against a backdrop of lower state tax revenue. Lawmakers will reconvene on Wednesday.

Legalizing online poker and perhaps other forms of gambling as a way to bring more revenue to the state is shaping up as one of the more contentious legislative questions for 2012.

"I'm not a huge fan, but if there really is the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars for education, higher education, health care, then I'm open to it," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento.

He previously put a hold on Senate consideration of two competing bills, including one that would allow online betting on games beyond poker.

Sen. Lou Correa, D-Anaheim, said his SB40 would bring the state an immediate $250 million by requiring upfront payments from online poker operators. Former state finance director Tim Gage projected it would create more than 1,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in new state revenue over 10 years.

Correa's bill would let every Indian tribe and state-licensed card room operate its own Internet poker site, using the state's existing card room regulations. It would ban other online gambling, aside from pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing. He has the backing of many gambling tribes and card rooms.

Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, has a competing bill, SB45, that would allow poker and other forms of gambling online.

His bill would authorize three operators who would give 10 percent of their gross revenue to the state. Online gambling operators backed his bill, but early versions were opposed by tribes and card rooms. An early analysis created for Wright estimated his plan could bring the state between $2.4 billion and $6.1 billion over eight years.

Wright chairs the Governmental Organization Committee, which plans hearings in January with the intent of advancing a bill.

Supporters estimate more than 1.5 million Californians play online poker each week, making the state the nation's largest online poker market. They want California to act quickly out of fear that Congress could restrict states' interest in Internet-based games.

Assembly Speaker John Perez is skeptical that expanding gambling would significantly help with the state's budget problems and said his chamber will wait to see how the legislation develops in the Senate.

While online gambling would add money to the state's general fund, two other hot-button topics require billions in spending and are being criticized as too expensive for a state facing a $13 billion deficit over the next 18 months.

Lawmakers might consider reducing the cost of what is currently an $11 billion water bond measure scheduled for the November ballot, or even remove it from the ballot altogether. Gov. Jerry Brown is among those who think voters will balk at borrowing that much money, even for water projects and conservation programs.

Steinberg, however, worries about upsetting the bipartisan compromise that was negotiated in 2009 between legislative Democrats and Republicans and Brown's predecessor, former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He said doing so would be particularly problematic because any new deal would need a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, requiring some Republican support, at a time when the two parties are finding it virtually impossible to compromise on major issues.

Lawmakers already shifted the bond measure from the 2010 ballot because of the state's precarious fiscal condition, and Perez said they could delay it again. But he also said the state would benefit from construction jobs that would be created if the bonds were approved.

Some lawmakers from both parties and the nonpartisan legislative analyst also say the Legislature should reconsider spending the $9 billion voters have approved for building a high-speed rail system. The total cost estimate has more than doubled since voters approved the bond in 2008 and now stands at $98 billion.

Lawmakers must approve selling the bonds if the project is to continue. Brown and both Democratic legislative leaders support high-speed rail, but a Field Poll released in December found about two-thirds of California voters want to rethink the borrowing while a majority would reject the spending if given another chance to vote on it.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Noreen Evans said she will challenge Brown's plan to close as many as 70 of the state's 278 parks starting July 1, a step intended to save $33 million over two years.

The Santa Rosa Democrat said the targeted parks were chosen without an economic or environmental analysis. She plans to introduce legislation halting the closures until officials analyze the costs and benefits and consider alternatives to closing them.

Lawmakers also will take up Brown's proposals to reform California's public employee pension system. Brown wants to increase the retirement age, require local and state government workers to pay more toward their pensions and retiree health care, and place new workers into a hybrid plan that includes 401(k)-style accounts.

Republicans say his plan doesn't go far enough, while Brown's fellow Democrats were lukewarm during a joint Assembly-Senate committee hearing this month.

Steinberg called the governor's plan "a pretty provocative proposal" and said he is reluctant to swap the state's defined-benefit plan for a hybrid model. Perez said the majority of problems are with local governments, and that most public employees earn a reasonable retirement income.

California provides a guaranteed pension for life f

LeBron James

NBA star LeBron James is officially engaged to longtime girlfriend Savannah Brinson. At his 27th birthday slash New Year's Eve party, the Miami Heat star dropped to his knee after ringing in the New Year whilst a number of teammates and close friends cheered him on. A shocked Brinson, James' highschool sweetheart, said yes. She and James have two sons together.

"It was beautiful," Heat teammate Chris Bosh said. "I told him, 'Good luck.' It was nice. It was real nice."

Miami Heat teammate Dwyane Wade was in charge of holding the ring until it was time. Then about 50 guests were on-hand to toast the couple. A few hours after close friend Chris Paul and Heat owner Micky Arison began tweeting about the big proposal.

"My girl, she's very excited," James said Sunday night after he and the Miami Heat beat Charlotte 129-90. "She would love to answer more questions about it than me. But she's happy, my family's happy and that's what it's about."

"It should be a surprise for any woman anytime something like that happens," James said. "She was surprised. It was great that all the friends and family were there to bring in a new year. Even my kids were happy about it, so that's good. I feel good. I feel good. It's a good point in my life right now."

Recently Richard Bronson, Chairman of U.S. Digital Gaming, a company that offers end user solutions to start up gaming companies, was featured on CNBC News and ABC Nightly News to discuss the DoJ’s comments that the wire act only applies to sports betting. Not as enthusiastic about the announcement I decided to discuss the issue with Mr. Bronson to find out more about his views.

The first question I asked was whether he truly believed the US Department of Justice intended to imply that the Wire Act did not apply to poker or casino games. After all under the Republican administration, the DoJ was clear that they believed all betting on the internet was illegal under the wire act.

“If the Department of Justice felt it was a misrepresentation,” Bronson answered, “then they would have refuted it right away; but they have said nothing.”

Of course Bronson is correct. Government officials vent everything through public relations and legal staff before releasing anything to make sure there can be no dispute of the comments. I’m reminded when Canada announced they weren’t going to support the U.S. war in Iraq after 9-11 because they wanted proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush was furious with Canada’s “betrayal” and in a televised speech Bush listed countries that were friends with the U.S. and which the U.S. could rely on in time of need. Canada was left off the list. Bush suggested later that “Canada was like a little brother and didn’t need to be named,” but insiders admitted that the speech was looked over with a fine tooth comb and Canada’s omission was indeed intended to be a warning to the Canadian government to step in line or be ostracized. So what was stated by the DoJ earlier this week about the wire act only applying to sports is exactly what the DoJ meant to say.

I also asked Bronson, why he believed this was such a significant announcement and he replied it would be a domino effect.

“No doubt Nevada will be first to offer online poker and then state after state will start offering online gambling.”

Bronson pointed to the lottery which didn’t exist in the United States until 1964 but once New Hampshire offered it, most others followed suit and today 43 of the 50 states have a lottery. Moreover states realize that gambling is the easiest way to generate revenue without raising taxes and they were just waiting for some other state to take the first step. No state wanted to challenge the federal government but the DoJ announcement has effectively given the states the green light to offer any form of gambling except sports without fear of repercussion by the feds.

“We always said regulated online gambling in the U.S. would be a state issue,” Bronson said, “and really it is a 10th amendment states rights issue anyway. Gambling has always been something that belonged to the states.”

As most know, Caesars has opposed all state bills and has put all their efforts into creating a federal bill. I asked Bronson if he was concerned that Caesars would somehow put the brakes on the plans by states to offer online gambling.

“There will never be a federal bill,” Bronson said, “and I believe Caesars will support state run online gaming because it benefits them too.”

Bronson noted that Caesars has put in a license request for online gambling in Nevada. Bronson admitted that Caesars would prefer a federal bill because they want to effectively control online gambling in the country but he also said it won’t happen.

“Caesars can make all the demands they want but in the end the states will do what is best for their main interests. The main stakeholders will be the first to get licenses,” Bronson said.

As an example, the 2nd largest political contributors in California are the various native tribes and Bronson is sure that the majority of licenses in California will go to the various tribes. If Caesars wants an early foot in the door in California they may have to set up a partnership with one of those tribes. In Connecticut the licenses will likely go to Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. In New York the licenses will almost certainly go to the New York lottery corporation and in New Jersey the licenses will go to the Atlantic City casinos including Caesars. Bronson is confident that the states already know which companies will win the first bids.

Asked whether offshore or foreign sites would ever get licenses, Bronson said it was highly doubtful.

“Getting approved for a license is one of the most heinous tests you’ve ever seen,” Bronson said. “Governments put all kinds of requirements in place and they’re difficult to meet.”

Bronson noted that even when companies meet the requirements often governments will find a reason to give the contract to someone else if they better represent their interests. Bronson also doesn’t feel that the WTO agreement which requires the U.S. to provide equal access to remote gaming services is relevant because the country doesn’t believe the WTO made the right ruling in the case. He did admit that it’s possible a company like Betfair, who bought out TVG or 888 Gaming who has partnered with Caesars in Nevada to offer poker could get a license but he believes the requirement will be that the operations must set up shop in a state and hire local people.

One argument Bronson doesn’t buy is that there isn’t enough liquidity in most states to successfully offer online gambling.

“31 states have enough of a population base to generate the magic number of 74,000 players to generate liquidity,” Bronson said “and for California and New York because of the population base they could be looking at about $1 billion per year in revenue.”

Bronson believes 2012 will be “the year online gambling in the U.S. is born.” And he believes that in the future the issue will be looked back on the same way as what happened with Napster. As many will recall Americans were illegally downloading music and video files on Napster unti

The fight to fully legalize online gambling in the U.S. is now less about whether Americans will be able to play and more about who will bring the action to them -- and when.

A recent U.S. Justice Department opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting.

The DOJ memo also enflamed a battle within the industry over how to legalize online gambling that once generated an estimated $6 billion yearly just from poker: Should each state have its own system, or should there be a nationwide law?

Most of the U.S. games vanished after the indictments.

One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the DOJ memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.

"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."

Online poker boomed in the U.S. over the last decade, but a 2006 law forbade financial institutions from processing transactions related to illegal online gambling.

According to iGamingBusiness.com, the Belgian Gaming Commission announced that it had approved three sites for real-money poker and will block access to all other unauthorized sites. Belgian online poker players will be allowed to play on the following sites: PokerStars.be, Partouche.be and Casino777.be.

According to recent legislation, most notably the Gambling Act, players are only allowed to play on approved sites, and the nation’s four largest Internet service providers will block unauthorized sites, such as PartyPoker.com and iPoker. Both of those sites have called the Gambling Act, which leaves issues of taxation unresolved, “unenforceable.”

The latest developments come after two years of debate and legislation, and it was no surprise to see PokerStars among the approved sites. In October 2010, PokerStars developed a partnership with online casino operator Circus Groupe that allowed the pair to offer their services under the regulation of the Belgian Gaming Commission.

“PokerStars.com and the Circus Groupe are logical partners,” said Sander Siezen, marketing manager for PokerStars.com BeNeLux, of the partnership. “CasinoDeNamur.be has the largest live poker events offering in Belgium. PokerStars.com is the world’s largest poker site and the largest in Belgium, as well. In addition, PokerStars.com organizes the largest live poker series, the EPT. This is also in line with our global strategy to obtain online poker licensing wherever it is available.”

Emmanuel Mewissen, chief executive officer for Circus Groupe, was also quoted as saying of the 2010 announcement: “Attracting the world’s largest poker site was made possible by the remarkable work of the Belgian Gaming Commission and the Wallonia Ministry Of Finance, who were able to establish taxation that is perfectly suited for this type of activity.”

Rushing to take advantage of a U.S. Justice Department ruling that in-state Internet gambling does not violate federal law, a New Jersey lawmaker is pushing for his colleagues to pass a bill legalizing online gambling within the state's borders.

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak told The Associated Press on Monday he'll try to get a bill through the Legislature and on Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week. The goal is to make New Jersey the national leader in online gambling, now that the federal government says in-state bets do not violate the law.

"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," said Lesniak, a Democrat from northern New Jersey. "It's the wave of the future. It's going to come and we can be in the lead on it."

Last month, the Justice Department opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting. The department said the federal Wire Act only prevents gamblers from wagering on sports outcomes online, and said other in-state bets would be OK.

Nevada is already moving fast to capitalize on the ruling. Late last week, the state's gambling regulators approved rules that allow companies in the state to apply for licenses to operate poker web sites. Caesars Entertainment Corp., which owns four of Atlantic City's 11 casinos, and Boyd Gaming Corp., which owns half of the city's Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, have already submitted proposals to be licensed in Nevada.

New Jersey tried to become the first in the nation to approve Internet gambling last year, but Christie, a Republican, vetoed the bill in March, fearing it would violate federal law and lead to a proliferation of back-room Internet gambling dens across the state.

A spokesman for the governor could not say Monday whether Christie would sign the bill if it passes. A spokesman for Senate leadership said it won't be clear until Tuesday whether there's enough support to move forward quickly on the bill, and a spokesman for Assembly leadership said leaders would listen to Lesniak's request before deciding on a course of action.

Lesniak introduced a new bill in August that he says contains safeguards to address Christie's concerns, including fines of $1,000 per player per day for anyone running an illegal Internet betting parlor, and $10,000 for advertising such illicit operations.

Bettors would have to be New Jersey residents at least 21 years old, and physically be in the state. Lesniak says existing software could verify those requirements.

So far, the bill is not scheduled for a vote on Jan. 9, the last day of the current legislative session.

But Lesniak said he is trying to secure approval from Assembly and Senate leaders to have it approved in committees this Thursday, then finally approved on Jan. 9 and sent to Christie. He said he expects to determine on Tuesday whether sufficient support exists to fast-track the bill through the Legislature in the closing days of the session.

"I got it through last year with overwhelming support," he said.

Robert Griffin, CEO of Trump Entertainment Resorts and president of the Casino Association of New Jersey, said the trade group is scheduled to discuss the matter Tuesday night. Last year, he said that money currently going to offshore online betting operations could benefit New Jersey.

Trump Entertainment Resorts announced plans last year to set up an Internet gambling operation as soon as it becomes legal to do so.

The bill says only the Atlantic City casinos could offer Internet gambling in New Jersey, requiring the computer servers to be physically located in Atlantic City to comply with state law mandating that all New Jersey casino gambling occur there. Gamblers would have to set up online wagering accounts with the casinos.

The bill also contains a provision intended to gain the support of the state's horse racing tracks, reinstating two-thirds of the subsidies the casinos had to pay to the tracks until last year. The casinos once had to pay $30 million a year to the tracks in return for keeping slot machines out of the tracks. Lesniak's bill would require that Internet betting licensees pay $20 million a year for three years to help increase race purses and help the tracks through a difficult period.

Lesniak said if the Internet bill becomes law, giving the casinos a new revenue stream, that would not necessarily make New Jersey lawmakers more likely to approve slot machines for horse tracks.

"Those are two separate issues," he said.

Internet gambling revenue would be taxed at 10 percent instead of the current 8 percent on traditional casino revenue.

The bill also would allocate $100,000 a year from online gambling proceeds to fund programs for compulsive gamblers. People with gambling problems would be able to set limits on how much they could bet or lose within a specific time frame.

Pennsylvania lottery officials say they will explore the possibility of selling lottery tickets online following a re-interpretation of federal law that could permit it.

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue spokeswoman Elizabeth Brassell said a recent change in the reading of the federal Wire Act of 1961 doesn't mean the state can start selling lottery tickets online immediately, however.

"It would require changes to the lottery law and lottery regulations, and that would be a long-term proposition," she said. "To change laws and regulations, that could take a year or more."

In 2010, the state lottery systems of New York and Illinois asked for a federal opinion on whether the Wire Act of 1961 prohibited them from selling lottery tickets online.

In a September opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice that was made public in late December, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Virginia Seitz wrote that the Wire Act is applicable only to a "sporting event or contest," opening the door for lottery tickets to be sold online.

But it also opened another door — online gaming. The Wire Act was used as the means to make online gambling and gaming like poker illegal, but Seitz's opinion doesn't rule it out.

One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.

"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."

Mount Airy Casino Resort officials said putting together an online gaming component is a trend across the gaming industry.

However, John Culetsu, Mount Airy's executive vice president and general manager, said any online gaming ventures the casino would take "in no way replaces the total gaming, accommodations, dining, entertainment and recreation features one can experience from personally visiting a property which offers all of these amenities such as Mount Airy."

Culetsu said the casino isn't making any predictions on how it will take advantage of the new law interpretation or how the business will be affected until federal or state lawmakers define the "legalities of online gaming."

As for lottery ticket sales, Pennsylvania Lottery said it's too early to say when it would be able to start selling tickets online but that it is something the state is exploring.

Before any changes will be made, Brassell said the lottery likely will consult with gaming vendors and industry experts around the world. She said that likely would include consulting with the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries. The association also includes Canadian lottery groups, which do operate online gaming.

"We're going to tap into all the resources we can, so we can wrap our head around the impact," Brassell said.

She said the lottery's analysis will include full studies on online lottery tickets' "fiscal and social impacts, as well as the impact on our network of retailers."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The push to get a bill to allow internet gaming onto the governor’s desk hit a bump today, as its main sponsor backed off an effort to get it passed in the lame duck session.

“Speaking with Governor Christie, I’ve agreed to reintroduce Internet gaming in the next legislative session, and I expect that we can get it through the Legislature and signed by the Governor within the first few weeks of the new session,” state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) said in a statement this evening.

The bill (S3019) was scheduled to be heard in Assembly and Senate committees tomorrow and voted on in full sessions of both houses Monday.

But the Christie administration had several hang ups and legal questions about it, including whether it has to be put to voters as a constitutional amendment. “There are competing opinions on that within the administration and within the industry. But I am convinced that we can move forward and get it up and rolling without amending the constitution,” said Lesniak.

The measure would authorize the state Casino Control Commission to issue licenses to casinos to operate computer servers based in Atlantic City. Computer software then would have to determine whether the player was a New Jersey resident, whether the game was being played in New Jersey and whether the player was at least 21.

Only card games currently offered in Atlantic City casinos like poker, blackjack and baccarat would be offered. Bars, restaurants and similar places would be prohibited from advertising that they offered online gambling, a concession to Christie to keep it in Atlantic City. Lesniak acknowledged the measure still included a provision giving a portion of the revenue to the state's horse racing industry, which Christie opposes. But he said he would be willing to drop that provision if it were the only obstacle to passage.

The rush to get it passed was caused by a recent opinion by the Justice Department permitting online gaming. It sent several states, including New Jersey, scurrying to cash in since gambling in neighboring states has cost Atlantic City millions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs in the past half-dozen years.

Christie vetoed an earlier version of the bill in March, citing concerns about expanding casino gaming beyond Atlantic City’s borders, subsidies for horseracing and various legal problems. Lesniak said this bill would be more palatable to him because it would keep the core operations in Atlantic City, and that he would be willing to drop the horse racing subsidies to get it passed.

At a press conference today, Christie said he supports the idea.

“I think New Jersey should be in that business. I think we should be a epicenter for that business, but I want to do it right,” he said. “I do not want to rush and get legislation that either doesn’t pass state constitutional muster, or creates other problems for us.”

Around the nation, a recent U.S. Department of Justice memo is viewed as giving a green light for the future of online gambling. But in California, many close to the high-stakes issue say the battle is far from over.


The document clarifies a federal law, the 1961 Wire Act, which has a prohibition against online gaming that applies only to bets on sporting events. Many are interpreting that position as opening the legal floodgates for the acceptance of other forms of Internet gambling, including poker.


“I think most of us assumed that the Wire Act did not apply to intrastate Internet gaming, but this confirms it,” said Sacramento attorney Howard Dickstein, a specialist on tribal gaming and jurisdictional

“And it also provides California with the opportunity apart from what the federal government decides to do with Internet gaming to enter into agreements with other states to increase the market, the liquidity, and viability of state authorized Internet gaming,“ Dickstein said.


But while the memo does clarify the formerly ambiguous legal status of intra- and interstate online gaming, states must pass the legislative licensing framework, which has been California’s challenge for the past few years.


And the federal stance on the legality of online gaming is far from the most pressing issue when it comes to the political workings behind the future of California gaming.


“In three years of discussing Internet gaming in California this issue has come up maybe once or twice,” said David Quintana with the California Tribal Business Alliance.


“Clarifying this issue and its effect on the ability of [a] bill getting passed or not is the equivalent of saying whether a race car that has leather or vinyl seats is going to win the race.”
With both of last year’s contentious online gambling bills SB 40 and SB 45 set to expire, a new bill under the supervision of Senate Leader Darrel Steinberg of Sacramento is in the works.


Quintana said the fate of the online gaming legislation has much to do with Capitol politics surrounding three major issues:


Who gets to operate the online gambling sites? Tribes only? Tribes, card rooms, and race tracks? Tribes, card rooms, race tracks and advance deposit-wagering companies?
Every one of those players has a vested interest to either widen or narrow ownership. Then, once the configuration is decided, how will it be financed?


Do the participants put up 100 percent of the money to operate that site or 51 percent? Because the smaller the need to put up to the operate the site, the more you are allowing out-of-state non-gaming people to come in, like big vendors from overseas or venture capitalists funds, to get behind some of these players.


What’s the scope of gaming going to be? Is it just poker, is it poker plus some smaller games?


According to Quintana, the more games you allow, the less likely you are to have tribes who agree to that legislation because that’s going to affect brick and mortar facilities.


“Those are really going to be what the fights are going to be about in the legislative trenches, this [clarification] is a spelling error, that’s all,“ said Quintana.


Though framework for the new bill is still being developed, Dickstein says the bill will probably be more market-oriented, not making arbitrary choices amongst operators and allowing market forces to play a more significant role in deciding which companies and operators are successful.

Last December, I published predictions for the online gambling industry in 2011. Looking back, the results were strong which has encouraged me to offer the online gambling industry fresh prognostications for 2012.

1. AMERICA: Long before the US Department of Justice's admission that the Wire Act didn't extend beyond sports betting, I was on record as predicting no positive momentum for online gambling legislation at the federal level in 2012. Anyway, the recent DoJ announcement just underscores my long-held belief that it's the states that make the gambling decisions in the US.

I say it's 50/50 that there will be one more state doing remote gambling in 2012, and even that one state may only offer online purchases of lottery tickets. But while progress will be slow, this state-by-state process that started in late 2010 with remote sports betting in Nevada will continue to spread over the coming decade.

2. EUROPE: I don't expect much in the way of significant developments here. With faith in a common currency significantly shaken in 2011, the ongoing Balkanization of Europe's gambling markets will only accelerate. Overall, this is a stale and mature market with an economy that will remain shaky for a long time to come. The smart companies (smart enough to have steered clear of public markets and shareholder meetings) will be shifting their focus toward…

3. ...ASIA: This market is still in its infancy, yet it's already bigger than the rest of the world put together. Those who make a name in this region have yet to be determined, but one thing is for sure: public companies will not be among them.

4. LATIN AMERICA: The southern half of the western hemisphere will never rival Asia in terms of scale, but in gambling terms, it's largely virgin territory, and probably represents the second best market to target in 2012.

5. INDIA: A massive market that always seems to get overlooked for some unexplained reason. Someone will figure out how to crack this market one day, and when they do… cha-ching.

6. CONVERGENCE SWINGS BOTH WAYS: In 2011, the focus was on land-based casino companies getting their digital feet wet. Going forward, I can see at least one major online brand laying a brick and mortar foundation in 2012. Someone is going to crack the integration code, overcoming the challenges of combining online and land-based gambling into one symbiotic business model. It's my opinion that the guys best positioned to do this integration are the online companies that control their own technology and are not burdened by massive amounts of debt. Unlike online, land-based gaming is a natural fit for the public markets as you are subject to whatever regulations exist in the country in which you build, and you know you are never going to move a land-based casino.

7. MO' MOBILE, MO' OFTEN: patently obvious but mobile is still on a massive growth curve.

8. LIVE DEALER CASINO: Already massively popular in Asia, live dealer's appeal will spread to other markets and into other forms, such as bingo. The technology has matured, and bottom line, it's just more fun. Conversely, as live dealer casinos continue to excite, RNG casinos have grown stagnant due to a profound lack of innovation by the super-complacent companies that dominate this space. However, this stagnation means the road is wide open for some innovative company to make serious inroads.

9. SPORTS BETTING: The sector will continue to evolve slowly but vibrantly, with more betting types and increased integration with social media. Sports betting is the most complicated of all the channels and has the largest barriers to entry. This means that most of the innovation will come from existing industry players. Look for this to happen primarily in less regulated markets, though - as usual, player value is highest where the regulatory hurdles to experimentation and innovation are lowest.

10. BODOG RECREATIONAL POKER PLAYER MODEL: Though released in late 2011, its impact on the global online poker industry will remain the big poker story of 2012. I recently had a chat with Patrik Selin and Jonas Ödman, the two brains chiefly responsible for the rollout of the new 'controversial' Bodog Poker Model. These two have been developing this model for the past five or so years and the preliminary data they're crunching tells them their theories are correct. The remaining features of their model, complete with a number of player-suggested improvements, will roll out over the first quarter of 2012.

12. OTHER POKER MODELS: Subscription poker and free-play virtual chip models will continue to grow, but their ability to convert players into risking real money will remain a major question mark.

13. HORSE RACING: The sport of kings is far from dead, but unless someone can find a way to attract a younger demographic to the track (in person or online), the knackers will continue sharpening their knives. Horseracing would benefit from some celebrity jockeys and an infusion of pop culture. The stuffy old top hat thing needs to be replaced with a hipper scene.

15. THIS SITE ROCKS AND YOU KNOW IT: CalvinAyre.com will be formally recognized as the largest and most comprehensive site covering the global online gaming market, but then I would say that.

16. WHO REALLY KNOWS?: Right this second, there's some guy toiling away in obscurity on some project that will prove mind-blowingly good but which absolutely no one could have predicted (yet, like all truly great ideas, will seem completely obvious given the benefit of hindsight).

Full article can be found at CalvinAyre.com, the home of gaming news offering opinions, analysis and insight into newsworthy items affecting the industry globally.

Regulated internet gambling is now in full force in Belgium and with the turning of the calendar, the Belgium Gaming Commission has released its list of approved sites on which its citizens can place a wager. Included on the list are three online poker rooms, highlighted by PokerStars, as well as four online casinos and two online sports books.

The three online poker rooms on which Belgians are eligible to play are PokerStars.be, Partouche.be, and GPWin.be.* Unlike countries such as Italy and France, Belgium did not ring-fence itself from the rest of the internet gaming world, so its players, despite signing up through a “dot be” site will still play at tables with competitors from other countries. Thus, the online poker experience for players on PokerStars.be will be the same as those who play on PokerStars.com, while Italian customers may only play against other Italians on PokerStars.it and French players may only play with one another on PokerStars.fr. GPWin.be is the Belgian offering of GoldenPalacePoker.com, and as such, is part of the iPoker network.

It appears that Partouche.be may be the unique room of the three, as Partouche Poker is an independent poker room accessible only by residents of France. Since France restricts its citizens to French-only sites, it would lead one to believe that Partouche.be will be a separate site for Belgians.

The Belgian online gaming regulations, passed in 2011, are a bit controversial because of how restrictive they are. Belgians are only allowed to play at the sites on the approved list and face criminal penalties if they are caught playing on unlicensed sites. The four largest internet service providers in the country are set to IP block sites on the Belgium Gaming Commissions “black list.” Additionally, all online gambling operators must be associated with a brick-and-mortar casino. PokerStars.be has teamed up with Circus Groupe, specifically Casino de Namur. Partouche already has four casinos in Belgium, the first of which opened in 1995. Similarly, there are also a number of land-based Belgian casinos in the Golden Palace family, so GPWin.be was set in that regard.

At the same time the laws are restrictive, they are also vague in some regards. There is some question as to whether or not player winnings are considered taxable income, a question that will hopefully be answered with a future update to legacy gaming laws.

All customers of the online poker rooms must be at least 21-years old and in a method somewhat similar to the old Cryptologic rooms, players must verify their identity with the cashier via paper mail once they have either deposited or attempted to withdraw more than €3,000.

Some online poker rooms who were not invited to the party are helping themselves to a drink, anyway. PartyPoker and other rooms on the iPoker network are still allowing Belgians to play on their sites, saying that the online gaming laws may be against European Union law and are “unenforceable,” a stance not unlike that taken by poker rooms once serving players in the United States.

I think I have seen a video of this proposal somewhere. Can't seem to find it now. Damn!!




_________________

Oh so good!!