In an article that appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper last week, Nevada Congressmen Jon Porter (a Republican) and Shelley Berkley (a Democrat) lashed out against the Investing in our Human Resources Act, HR 6501. The bill, which was introduced in recent days by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), prescribes up to $40 billion over the next ten years to be used on educational opportunities and job training for those in foster care as well as declining job markets. The bill does not legalize internet gambling by itself. Rather, it would take passage of a bill like Barney Frank’s HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, in order to become relevant. PocketFives.com spoke to staffers at Porter’s and Berkley’s offices to learn more about their comments.Berkley called the bill, “a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.” It was far from a shining endorsement of a fellow Democrat’s piece of legislation and, to several in the poker world, came as a surprising comment. Berkley’s statement focuses on earmarking what will be done with revenue derived from taxing internet gambling before the industry is even legalized in the United States. Berkley’s Press Secretary, David Cherry, commented to PocketFives.com, “Gambling right now is regulated at the state level. Her concern is that we’d have a Federal gaming tax. The idea that we’d create one and distribute revenue via traditional population means is concerning. However, she would never rule out the idea that we could have a conversation about the revenue.”
McDermott’s bill taxes the internet gambling industry and then divides up the funds based on population. Nevada, for example, would receive up to $330 million over the next ten years, whereas California, the largest state in the U.S. by population, could pocket up to $4.7 billion. Right now, brick and mortar gambling revenue in Nevada is a major source of income for the state.
Nearly every state has some form of gambling in its borders; however, the breadth of gambling activities allowed varies from state lotteries to full-blown casinos. Cherry remarked, “You don’t force a state that doesn’t want gambling to have it. The way to pass internet gambling legislation would be to let it be a state by state choice. That’s been the model that the gaming industry has lived with across the United States. Congresswoman Berkley’s ‘cart before the horse’ comment just means that we haven’t gotten there yet.”
Berkley has proposed HR 2140, the Internet Gambling Study Act. Of the various internet gambling bills in Congress, HR 2140 has the largest number of co-sponsors, with 73. It was introduced on May 3, 2007 and referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Cherry noted that Berkley is pushing for a hearing on the bill in the House Judiciary Committee. He quipped, “Why would anyone oppose a study? The study requires no action other than to complete it and then distribute a report.”
Jon Porter’s Press Secretary, Matt Leffingwell, told PocketFives.com, “Congressman Porter drew up an internet gambling study bill during the last Congress. He wants to take the results of the study and then go from there. He believes the McDermott bill is getting ahead of ourselves.” Unlike Berkley, Porter is a Republican. He commented in the Las Vegas Review Journal that HR 6501 was “a frivolous attack on the gaming community to pay for services that local governments, states and the federal government should already be providing.” Berkley and Porter appear to agree that the issue of internet gambling should be handled on the state level. Frank’s legislation actually defers the decision on whether to implement internet gambling to the states, allowing them to opt out.
Cherry summarizes the Nevada Congressmen’s hesitations with HR 6501: “For a very long time, Nevada has been wary of Federal intervention when it comes to gambling. Berkley would be comfortable using the state of Nevada as a model for how to regulate internet gambling. Nevada is the gold standard on gambling. Our residents are very wary of the Federal government interfering in what has always been a state-regulated activity. If the next frontier for gaming is cyberspace, she would look to use the same model.”
Canada
United Kingdom
Costa Rica
Australia
Mexico
Denmark
Russian Federation
Sweden
Brazil
Germany
