|
|
Post by DommyLocks on Feb 24, 2009 18:06:42 GMT -5
TRENTON – A resolution sponsored by Senators Raymond J. Lesniak and Jeff Van Drew which would urge Congress to lift the federal ban on sports wagering was approved by the Senate today.
“During our current national economic crisis, states need to look to all untapped revenue streams in order to balance the books and continue to provide the services that our citizens depend on,” said Senator Lesniak, D-Union. “Sports wagering could help plug some of the revenue holes the State is currently facing and provide new capital for investment in a wide variety of economic growth projects. Rather than allow this money to funnel down the drain into illegal gambling rings, the federal government should overturn the ban and allow for State regulation and oversight on sports betting.”
“At the time Congress passed the sports wagering ban, they cited the need to protect the integrity and purity of sports contests,” said Senator Van Drew. “If anything, the ban has accomplished the opposite, pushing sports wagering underground and into the hands of organized crime, and opening up sports to potential criminal manipulation. With new reports coming out every day of steroid use, criminal behavior by pro athletes, and a whole host of allegations ranging from cheating to assault with a deadly weapon, I’d say that the sports wagering ban as a way to preserve the integrity of sports has been a resounding failure. It’s time that we brought sports wagering into the light of day, where it can be regulated by gaming authorities and protected from manipulation and dishonesty.”
The resolution, S-12, approved by a voice vote in the Senate, would urge Congress to remove the federal restriction on sports wagering, which was established in 1993 under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. Under the Act, states which had casino gambling at the time but hadn’t already allowed sports wagering were given a one-year window to authorize wagering; however, New Jersey wasn’t able to pass legislation with voter approval before the deadline lapsed. The only states which are exempted from the 1993 Act are Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana. Of those four, Nevada is the only state where sports wagering is conducted, though recent reports suggest Delaware is also looking at legalizing sports wagering to boost sagging revenues during the economic downturn.
“The ban on sports wagering is a gross double standard which penalizes all but a handful of states,” said Senator Lesniak. “Any federal regulation or ban on sports wagering should be applied fairly, evenly and universally, but under the current law, some states have special carve-outs to capitalize on sports wagering. We need to scrap the current ban and start from scratch, ensuring no state has an unfair advantage in generating revenue from sports wagering.”
“If Delaware does legalize sports wagering, you can count that as the death knell to an already hemorrhaging Atlantic City gaming industry,” said Senator Van Drew. “The casino industry has been hard-hit by competition from surrounding states in recent years, and I’m very worried sports wagering in Delaware will draw away customers and possibly cause irrevocable harm on the industry. New Jersey needs a level playing field to compete with other states for gaming revenue and by overturning the federal sports wagering ban, we would make sure no State has an unfair advantage in attracting vital tourism and entertainment dollars.”
As a resolution reflecting the opinion of the New Jersey Senate, it will now be filed with the Secretary of Senate and a copy will be transmitted to Congress.
Senator Lesniak said in addition to urging Congress to overturn the 1993 ban on sports betting he would be leading efforts to bring a lawsuit against the federal government to overturn the ban in court.
“It is patently unfair that people in New Jersey today are being punished for the mistakes made by our leaders in 1993,” said Senator Lesniak. “While 1993 may not have been the right time for sports wagering, voters should be given a chance to voice their opinion at the ballot box and overturn the federal ban. Whether we fight this out in the halls of Congress, in the judicial system, or at the voting booth, we need to use every tool at our disposal to make sports wagering a reality in the Garden State.”
|
|
|
|
Post by DommyLocks on Mar 16, 2009 18:30:14 GMT -5
All sorts of new thinking is emerging from legislatures in the face of the recession, and online sports gambling may be one of the changes soon to come to the US. While many Washington observers have been heralding the approach of regulated Internet gambling, sports wagering wasn't considered likely to be a part of the package until recently.
Now, however, movement in Delaware to exploit an exemption in the national law against sports betting has stirred other states, who are eager to create new revenues as well. New Jersey lawmakers, eager to find a solution for the precipitous drop in Atlantic City income, want the freedom to decide their own rules for sports gambling.
Delaware is one of four states allowed by a 1992 Congressional law against sports betting to consider its own statutes for wagering on sporting events. But many states are making moves precisely to keep gambling revenues at home, and aren't happy with any competitive advantage enjoyed by Delaware... or Montana, Oregon, or Nevada, for that matter.
New Jersey is also looking into beating the US to the punch and instituting intrastate online gambling. If a potential lawsuit suggested by a state Senator leads to a court ruling against the uneven federal sports gambling ban, it would seem reasonable that the state would combine the two.
Observers also point out that, while there is much opposition to legalizing sports wagering, states might force Congressional representatives to bend to economic necessity. Measures to regulate online gambling will surely be met with cries to include sports gambling.
While there is no federal law against Internet gambling, it has been found by courts that the Wire Act does preclude sports betting on the Internet. And the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act does block all but those fouir states from having any form of sports wagering.
Yet, there is a mood in the country for removing outdated laws, and online sports gambling would serve as a strong regulatory form in which to collect revenue from an industry largely dominated by local bookies. If sports advocates can be convinced that outlawed gambling is far more dangerous to leagues than transparent, legitimate licensed sports gaming, the US may see gambling openness only dreamed of a few scant moths ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by DommyLocks on May 9, 2009 8:23:54 GMT -5
You never know where a big controversy in football will turn up—it could be anywhere from Gainesville, FL, to Oakland—but you almost never expect it to come from the Delaware State House of Representatives.
Yet today that's where some controversial news is coming from, Dover, DL, as the House, in the wee hours Friday morning, approved legislation for sports betting and table games.
The bill passed 30-4 only two days after a similar bill was not approved. The latter bill gives the state's three racinos (Delaware's combo race tracks and casinos) added table games and an even split in sports lottery revenue, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell has said the bill would give his state much-needed revenue (estimates are between $52 million and $55 million) for the upcoming fiscal year and is part of his overall economic plan.
The Wilmington News Journal gave some details of the debate and long night:
Little word was given about the closed-door discussions, except at 7:30 p.m., when Markell’s chief of staff, Tom McGonigle, left to grab a pizza and later when House Minority Leader Richard Cathcart, R-Middletown, came out to have pizza ordered for the rest of his caucus, signaling it was going to be much longer.
Because of a brief and unsuccessful experiment with a sports lottery in the late 1970s, Delaware is one of only four states, along with Nevada, Montana and Oregon, grandfathered in under a 1992 federal law banning sports betting.
Exactly how sports betting would work in Delaware is not set, but you can bet the NFL and NCAA will weigh in on this as they (along with the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball) already are opposed to Nevada's legal books.
If the bill does become law, the NCAA would bar the state's universities from holding NCAA championships. To which the Delaware legislators and Markell have said kiss our Blue Hen butts. After all, when was the last time Delaware hosted a major NCAA championship?
Markell has said Delaware needs to try to enhance ways to generate money as neighboring Pennsylvania and Maryland already have slot machines and New Jersey is considering a similar bill on sports betting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weatherman on Sept 5, 2009 18:08:15 GMT -5
3 team parlay only ...are they crazy
|
|
|
|
Post by DommyLocks on Sept 8, 2009 12:22:41 GMT -5
3 team parlay only ...are they crazy Thats complete crap...... I was planning on a weekly or more visit but not now.... will just stick to online dommy |
|
|
|
Post by DommyLocks on Aug 6, 2010 9:05:48 GMT -5
Aug 6th 2010
Legalized sports betting in New Jersey more than a pipe dream
Like a steamroller, the fight to legalize sports betting is slowly winding its way through the U.S. federal court system, and plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that they have more than a puncher’s chance of prevailing.
The months ahead will be filled with legal wrangling and at this point no one is willing to claim anything close to victory, but the United States Department of Justice at least knows that it has a fight on its hands as it moves to keep gambling illegal in all but four states.
“The government’s argument is filled with contradictions,” says Joe Brennan, president of Interactive Media & Gaming Association, one of several plaintiffs in the suit. “For example, the government says that New Jersey is free to pass a law allowing sports betting. Except that there is a federal law precisely making any New Jersey statute unenforceable.”
The suit, which seeks to overturn the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), is being heard in federal court in New Jersey, and on Tuesday, Aug. 3 the government issued its rebuttal to the plaintiffs’ case.
The ball is now in the court of the plaintiffs, mainly iMEGA, N.J. State Senators Ray Lesniak and Stephen Sweeney, and an amalgam of N.J. horse racing groups. Nov. 1 is the target date for the plaintiffs’ response, although the court could grant an extension. After that the court could set a trial date or issue a ruling. Only one thing appears certain – whichever side loses will take the case to the Federal Court of Appeals. The next step would be the Supreme Court.
The move to legalize sports wagering in New Jersey has had many stops and starts since the idea was first proposed by Lesniak, who like many lawmakers was searching for ways to plug the state’s budget shortfall and help Atlantic City’s casinos, which were bleeding red ink as the economy soured. In 1992 New Jersey had a one-year window to allow sports wagering, but political infighting in an election year and the legislature’s decision to concentrate on other issues put the issue to bed.
Now, a generation later, Lesniak and others say the time is ripe to re-visit the issue, especially in light of the fact that no one denies that sports wagering has created an underground (and non-taxable) economy and that offshore sports betting is benefitting no one in the state.
“The reasons given by the supporters of the ban are no longer valid,” Lesniak said in 2002, “or have been proved to be not valid in the first place. The time is ripe . . . to re-state opposition to the ban, so states can decide for themselves if legalized sports betting is good for their individual state.”
The suit was filed in March 2009, and Lesniak and the other plaintiffs have had to absorb a couple of hard body blows since then, not the least of which was the election defeat of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine. Corzine, a Democrat, had tried to become a party to the suit, which would have given the bid a solid jolt of gravitas.
But the court ruled that he could not join in until Nov. 2, the day of the election and Corzine – who never recovered from a personal scandal involving a female union official – lost to current Gov. Chris Christie. After months of consideration, the Republican decided not to join the suit – “At best a legal long shot,” said a spokeman for Christie at the time.
But while the loss of the governor’s office was tough to swallow, more curious on the surface was the opposition to the suit by the Atlantic City casinos themselves, which have been hemorrhaging money and in the face of competition from Pennsylvania and Delaware would seem to want to grasp onto any tumbling rock in the middle of an economic avalanche that was devouring them.
Even with gaming revenues at AC casinos down a staggering 13.2 percent in the 2009 calendar year, the Casino Association (comprised of the city’s 11 casinos) announced that it opposes the suit. The association argues that Atlantic City would actually be harmed if the public had access to sports wagering at race tracks and offshore sites.
Association President Mark Juliano did not respond to phone calls and e-mails seeking comment, but former president Joe Corbo was quoted as saying “the last thing that the state needs at this time is to undermine the destination resort model by expanding gambling to other parts of the state.”
But Lesniak, who has also introduced an interstate egaming bill that would allow Atlantic City’s 11 casinos to offer online versions of poker, blackjack and baccarat, claims that the association is merely carrying water for moneyed interests in Las Vegas, particularly Harrah’s. “Harrah’s is self-serving, duplicitous and they talk out of both sides of their mouth,” said Lesniak earlier this week. “They’re spending millions on lobbyists trying to kill sports betting in Atlantic City so they can protect their Las Vegas interests. Simple as that.”
(A phone call to the Harrah’s media communications department was not returned.)
“The government’s rebuttal to our suit leans heavily on standing,” says Richard Rudin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “They basically state that the plaintiffs (Lesniak and Sweeney, specifically) have no standing to challenge the law. It’s pretty much what we expected them to say, particularly after the governor decided to not intervene. If they (the government) can get it dismissed on standing, they don’t have to significantly address the core issues we brought up.”
Jeff Standen, a professor of law at Willamette University in Salem, Ore., and a leading authority on sports and the law, says the chances of the law being overturned are not great, and that the plaintiffs’ best chance for success lies in the their contention that PASPA violates the 10th amendment to the constitution.
“It’s never an easy sell to convince a court that the Congress has overreached,” says Standen. “The Commerce Clause pretty clearly states that the government can treat states differently.” In a recent blog, though, Standen said that the plaintiffs have a viable 10th amendment argument:
“The tenth,” wrote Standen, “has been held to prohibit the federal government from forcing states to enact specific laws. What does PASPA do if not compel states to prohibit sports betting games? Put it this way: if PASPA were nationally uniform, then Nevada would have to change its laws to conform with the federal law. In this sense, a state (other than Nevada or one of the other exempted ones) in passing a lottery law must include a provision prohibiting games based on sports contests. So PASPA in effect requires states to pass state laws to conform with federal law. This poses a substantial tenth amendment issue.”
While the New Jersey legislators, iMEGA and the state horse tracks are pretty much going it alone against the government and assorted allies, the suit is being watched by state governments and casino interests in other states which have flirted with the idea of somehow, some way instituting sports wagering. A few years ago a Rhode Island legislator got the issue as far as a state house hearing, and California lawmakers are informally talking about it.
In Iowa, which has 12 casinos and a population of just over 3 million, the state’s Gaming Association is keeping its eye on developments in New Jersey and the state Senate has endorsed pro and college sports wagering if/when the federal law is overturned.
“We’re not going to be a party to the suit,” says Wes Ehricke, president of the Iowa Gaming Association, “but we certainly would see it as a benefit for the casinos here.”
IMEGA’s Brennan, who believes that internet sports bettors should have the same rights as those who wager at Nevada casinos, is optimistic that the law can be overturned.
“When this law went into effect in 1992,” says Brennan, “one of the leading opponents was Richard Thornburgh, and that was interesting because Thornburgh happened to be the attorney general of the United States. Now the current attorney general (Eric Holder) is in essence trying to uphold a law that his predecessor didn’t want to implement in the first place. They want it both ways.”
Pro or con, though, no one denies that the scope of illegal sports wagering. In 2007 authorities broke up a sports betting ring that was run by a reputed Philadelphia mafia associate, run out of the Borgata poker room. Reportedly more than $60 million exchanged hands, either at the poker room itself or through two web sites eaglesdp.com (shut down) and justwagers.com. Twenty-four persons, several of them with mob connections, were charged and two wound up doing time.
“Sports betting should be considered in New Jersey,” said David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at UNLV, commenting shortly after the bust. “This shows people are willing to borrow money at rates of 50 percent to do it, and it might be better . . . if it were legal, regulated and protected.”
|
|
