Monthly Archives: January 2012

Hawaii HB 2422 would create “Internet Lottery and Gaming Corporation”

On January 25th, House Bill 2422 was introduced in the state legislature of Hawaii. The purpose of HB 2422 is to create a “Hawaii internet lottery and gaming corporation,” which would be authorized to offer “games of chance and games of skill, including lottery, poker, and casino games” on the internet only.

The Hawaii internet lottery and gaming corporation would “not be deemed a state agency” but rather an “instrumentality of the state.” It would be a public corporation subject to the corporate laws of Hawaii, but it would also have clearly enumerated regulatory responsibilities. A seven-member board of directors would be appointed by the governor, the president of the state senate, and the speaker of the state house of representatives.

The Hawaii Internet lottery and gaming corporation would enter into an agreement with a private company to conduct the operation of internet gambling games, and the chosen company would effectively receive a monopoly on the in-state market.

The Hawaii internet lottery and gaming corporation would select its operating provider through a bidding process, and no company would  be eligible to become the operating provider if it has ever accepted internet gambling wagers from Americans.

Initially, the chosen operator would not have the ability to offer real money wagers to customers located outside of Hawaii. However, the bill envisions that the Hawaii Internet lottery and gaming corporation should have authority to “enter into agreements with other state gaming entities for the offering of multistate games, consistent with state and federal law.”

Even in the absence of such agreements it would be permissible for the chosen operator to offer free-play games to individuals located outside the state, and in this regard the Hawaii internet lottery and gaming corporation would be authorized to “conduct no more than two land-based gaming entertainment events annually, related to the corporation’s internet game offerings, for the purpose of attracting tourists to Hawaii; provided that the corporation shall not have the authority to conduct any other form of land-based gambling.”

HB 2422 is significant not only because it makes Hawaii one of the first states to propose regulations for internet gambling, but also because Hawaii has never had any forms of legalized gambling– not even a lottery.

Separately another bill, HB 2316, has been introduced into Hawaii’s legislature which would establish a “Hawaii state lottery commission.” However, HB 2316 would permit the commission to operate only land-based games and not internet games.

House Speaker Emeritus Joseph Souki is a co-sponsor of both HB 2422 and HB 2316, as are Representatives Faye Hanohano and Angus McKelvey.

HB 2422 is pending in the House Committees for Economic Revitalization and Business, for the Judiciary, and for Finance. Meanwhile HB 2316 is pending in the House Committees for Education, for the Judiciary, and for Finance. Representative McKelvey, who co-sponsors both bills, is chairman of the House Committee for Revitalization and Business.

DOJ gets out of the way (Memorandum Opinion on Internet Gambling)

A small fire was started in December when US Attorney General Eric Holder, through his Legislative Affairs Office, sent a letter to Senators Jon Kyl and Harry Reid. The subject of the letter was a Memorandum Opinion drafted by Holder’s Legal Counsel Office, addressing two very specific questions of federal law related to internet gambling.

The Memorandum Opinion is significant because it adopts a shocking new interpretation of federal law with regard to unsettled questions surrounding internet gambling. It used to be the official position of the US Justice Department that all gambling on the internet violates federal law. The former position inferred a very broad scope from the language of the Wire Act of 1961.

The new position adopted in the Memorandum Opinion takes a more literal reading of the Wire Act, limiting its terms to interstate wagering on sports, which was likelier the intent of Congress in 1961.

Presumably Holder’s Office of Legal Affairs sent the Memorandum to Senators Kyl and Reid because the the Senators had earlier in 2011 published a letter of their own in which they criticized Holder’s Justice Department for a lack of consistency and aggression in enforcing internet gambling law. The Senators requested that Holder either confirm the Justice Department’s traditional approach to the Wire Act or else explain any new approach to Congress. In that regard, the Memorandum Opinion speaks for itself.

The broad significance of the Memorandum Opinion is that if the Wire Act applies only to sports wagering, then state legislatures are free to license and regulate poker, casino games, and lotteries on the internet. The effect in media and government has been profound, and there are many indications that policymakers in the state and federal governments are having serious discussions about the prospects of legalization.

For an in-depth exploration of the Memorandum Opinion, please see an article I wrote for Global Betting & Gaming Consultants of the UK: US Government Moves out of the States’ Way.

See also: Memorandum Opinion of the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel: Whether Proposals by Illinois and New York to Use  the Internet and Out-of-State Transaction Processors to Sell Lottery Tickets to In-State Adults Violate the Wire Act

See also: Letter from Attorney General’s Office of Legislative Affairs to Senators Jon Kyl and Harry Reid (please note, this is a large file– 4.3 Mb)

 

Connecticut Governor Prepares for Legalized Internet Gaming

The legalization of internet gambling is likely to proceed piecemeal over a period of several years in the USA, at the discretion of each state as it becomes ready to experiment.

New Jersey is poised to become one of the first states to legalize,  and the governor of nearby Connecticut says he would like his state to start competing as quickly as possible.

“Internet gaming is going to come to the United States,” says  Connecticut’s Governor Daniel P. Malloy.

“Now that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to come to all 50 states, but I don’t have to worry about all 50 states. I have to worry about the states that we compete with, particularly for casino traffic, which is roughly New Jersey through Maine, through Eastern Pennsylvania, and New York State. And if [internet gaming] comes to any one of those places, as it clearly is going to because it’s going to come to New Jersey– they passed it last last year, and the the governor said he’s going to sign it this year [even though] he vetoed it last year– and if it is at all tied to the success of their casinos, then the shot is fired… So I think all of our discussions are about being ready for what’s going to happen in our region….”

The editorial meeting, in which Governor Malloy openly fields questions in a straight-forward and informed manner, is available for streaming at The Day:  Malloy sees need to protect casinos.

Among the highlights:

Reporter: Do compacts have to be renegotiated to allow online gaming? (5:00-minute mark).

Governor Malloy: Sure.

Reporter: Are there active and ongoing discussions with the two tribes?

Governor Malloy: Yes. Tribes, the lottery, everybody. We’re all trying to figure this out together.

Reporter: Is the assumption they would be the ones operating?

Governor Malloy: I don’t think there is any assumption. I think there are sufficient questions around that issue, [such as] who has authority [to operate]… The wisdom or lack of wisdom of competing with casinos, is another one of the issues we have to take into consideration.

We have two highly successful organizations running gaming in our state. Actually three; the lottery does a good job as well. They all have to be at the table and we’ve got to figure this thing out. We’re working on it– and have been working on it– but it took on a whole new dimension the Friday before Christmas. There is no doubt about it.

Reporter: Do you expect any action this legislative session?

Governor Malloy: Yes. I hope so. Whatever we’re going to do we should do. New Jersey is going to pass it in a couple weeks. Let’s assume New Jersey permits it and allows their casinos to operate, and all of a sudden they’re operating online gaming and they’re giving points or incentives to use their casinos…