Category Archives: Connecticut

Obama’s Online Poker Position: Let the States Decide for Themselves

Posted on May 19, 2012 by Bradley Vallerius| Comments Off

The White House has issued a statement regarding its views about online poker. The statement was issued in an e-mail to individuals who participated in the “We the People” petition process by signing a petition calling for the legalization of online poker.

The response from the White House echoes the Memorandum Opinion issued by Obama’s Justice Department in December regarding the scope of the federal Wire Act. The Obama administration says each of the 50 states has the right to make  its own decisions:

“…Online gambling on sporting events or contests violates federal law. The legality of other forms of online gambling is dependent upon the law of the states where the bettor or gambling business is located. It is left to each state to determine whether it wishes to permit such activity between its residents and an online poker business authorized by that state to accept such wagers… (emphasis added).

The e-mail in its entirety is posted below:

-

(Sent Friday, May 18, 2012)

What We Have to Say About Online Poker

By Brian Deese, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council

Thank you for taking the time to participate in the “We the People” petition process. We launched this online tool as a way of hearing directly from you, and are pleased to see that it has been effective in soliciting your feedback. We understand your interest in the petition to support the legalization of online poker, and appreciate the opportunity to share President Obama’s concerns about this issue.

The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes. Online gambling on sporting events or contests violates federal law. The legality of other forms of online gambling is dependent upon the law of the states where the bettor or gambling business is located. It is left to each state to determine whether it wishes to permit such activity between its residents and an online poker business authorized by that state to accept such wagers, but online gambling that is not authorized by state law may also violate federal statutes.

The rapid and anonymous nature of the internet distinguishes online games from onsite games, such as those in casinos, and creates distinct challenges. For example, there are many means of technologically circumventing restrictions on online gambling that can allow individuals from countries where gambling is illegal — or even minors — to play using real currency. Online games also have greater potential for fraud because gambling websites are much cheaper and easier to establish than on-site locations, and like telemarketing scams, can appear and disappear overnight. Finally, online gambling can be used in money laundering schemes because of the volume, speed, anonymity, and international reach made possible by internet transactions. The Administration will continue to examine this issue and is open to solutions that would help guard against the use of online gambling sites as tools for conducting illegal activities or preying on unsuspecting individuals to the extent that online gambling is permitted.

Thank you once again for signing the online petition. We appreciate hearing your opinions and look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Comments Off

Posted in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, U.S. Federal

Tagged ,

Standards published for the control of problem gambling on the internet

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Bradley Vallerius| Comments Off

 On April 23, the National Council on Problem Gambling published a set of standards it feels should be a part of all regulatory systems for internet gambling.

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) does not advocate that internet gambling should be prohibited. Instead, the organization argues that legalization of internet gambling should be accompanied by standards which mitigate the negative social effects of gambling.

“The most ethical and cost effective response to gambling addition issues raised by internet gambling is a comprehensive public health strategy that includes prevention, education, treatment, enforcement  and research services,” according to NCPG.

NCPG developed its standards after studying gambling regulatory codes from around the world and gathering empirical evidence and feedback from experts in the field. The organization also considered laws covering the online purchase of other age-controlled products such as alcohol and tobacco.

NCPG is an important political player because it is the largest organization that lobbies for programs and services to assist problem gamblers and their families. NCPG spokespersons are frequently invited to offer testimony to Congress and state legislatures.

NCPG’s “Internet Responsible Gambling Standards” are contained in a brief 7-page document (.pdf).

Below is an outline of the standards:

  • Policy
    • Policy commitment to responsible gambling
    • Strategy for responsible gambling
    • Support
  • Staff Training
    • Corporate policy
    • Training
  • Informed Decision Making
    • Information about gambling
    • Personalized information
    • Limit setting
    • Time out
  • Assisting players
    • Policies
    • Responding to information requests
  • Self-exclusion
    • Self-exclusion
    • Self-exclusion policies
    • Exclusion length
    • Communication with players
    • Access to help
    • Conditions of exclusions
    • Enforcement
    • Reinstatement
    • Renewal
  • Advertising and promotion
    • Advertising policy statement
  • Game and site Features
    • Passage of time
    • Display cash
    • Game features
    • New features
    • Registration
    • Multiple accounts
    • Free games
    • Encouragement to retreat
    • Underage gambling
    • Credit
  • Research
    • Transparency

Comments Off

Posted in California, Connecticut, Nevada, New Jersey, Tribes, U.S. Federal

Tagged , , , ,

What rights do tribes have in internet gambling?

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Bradley Vallerius| Leave a comment

“Even if there were no tribes in the United States, adopting appropriate legal rules for internet gambling would still be a difficult endeavor….”

I recently wrote an article for Tribal Government Gaming magazine in which I try to answer the question of what rights belong to Indian tribes with regard to participating in U.S. markets if a state or the federal government were to legalize internet gambling.

I conclude that each of the 50 states has the power to make its own decisions any way it reasonably believes appropriate. In some cases, a legislature might determine that allowing only one or two operators is the appropriate solution for managing policy concerns about the potential social costs of gambling. In some states, the preferred operators will not be a tribe. But in others, such as California and Connecticut, tribes can make a great case for being the state’s most qualified operators.

Furthermore, in the event that Congress were to enact a federal network for internet gambling, then tribal operators should probably be able to participate as freely as operators licensed by the states.

You can read the complete article online at Tribal Gaming Government magazine.

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in California, Connecticut, Tribes, U.S. Federal

Tagged , , ,

Connecticut Governor Prepares for Legalized Internet Gaming

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Bradley Vallerius| Leave a comment

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…

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Connecticut, New Jersey

Tagged , , , , , , , ,