TRIBES MUST BE CONSULTED IN ANY ONLINE GAMBLING
LEGALISATION MOVES (Update)
10 February 2012
Fears that 'commercial interests' may be
trying to build a monopoly
Thursday's hearing of the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs covering the topic "The U.S.
Department of Justice Opinion on Internet Gaming: What's
at Stake for Tribes?" predictably delivered a slew of
different perspectives and an insight into Indian fears.
The president of the Seneca Nation of Indians in New
York, Robert Odawi Porter, voiced tribal fears that
major Nevada and New Jersey land gambling corporates
pushing for federal legalisation may be trying to stage
what he described as a 'power grab' in their efforts to
establish a monopoly for their benefit.
He
recalled that Rep. Joe Barton's attempt to federally
legalise online poker last year was condemned by the
National Indian Gaming Association, and stressed that it
was imperative that the tribes were involved in the
political debate on legalisation.
Porter also
expressed concern at the wider legalisation of online
gambling beyond poker, which he characterised as "a
slippery slope"
He received some support from
Poker Players Alliance lawyer Patrick Fleming, who
distinguished online poker from other forms of online
gambling and stressed how important it was that Indian
tribes be involved in any legalisation process.
He also suggested that legalised online poker could
generate additional business for Indian land operators,
and that the rake from internet poker represents only
one percent of the total tribal gaming win.
"The
short answer to the Department of Justice opinion is
that states are now free to do whatever they wish with
respect to Internet gambling, except for, of course,
sports betting," Fleming told the committee. "This opens
up an entire Pandora's box of possibilities."
A
Senator from Colorado, Mark Udall, also supported
Porter's contention that Indian involvement was
essential.
Legal academic Kevin Washburn
suggested that the Department of Justice's recent
revision of its policy on internet gambling in the
context of the Wire Act had placed pressure on Congress
for a federal solution; he felt that legalisation by
individual states was 'schizophrenic' and impractical,
and he noted that the tribes are dependent on gambling
revenues and should be involved.
Fellow academic
I. Nelson Rose opined that a state-by-state approach
could mean the exclusion of the tribes unless state
politicians included them. He said that few states do
not have online ambitions and warned that New Jersey's
plans included handing complete control of its
intrastate online activity to the Atlantic City
operators.
By contrast, he cited Connecticut,
where it appeared possible that the tribes operating
Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun would be given authority.
California, Rose said, was considering prohibitive
license fees for online poker that could make it
impossible for smaller tribes to compete.
Indian
gaming lawyer Glenn Feldman urged politicians to be
cautious and careful on the legalisation issue, which
has the potential to impact a diversity of state laws,
compacts and businesses.
Other witnesses told the
committee that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl are working on Internet
gambling legislation that may involve legalising online
poker.
They said that Kyl, traditionally a
protagonist of internet gambling, recently told the
publication National Journal that the Justice Department
opinion may force Congress to clarify current law.
Online Casino News Courtesy of
Infopowa
More news here.
Top of page |
Home |
News |
Forum |
Webcast |
Vortran |
Accredited Casinos |
Evil Ones |
Pitch a Bitch |
Online Gambling Resources |
Poker
|
