Among other things, Patrick’s go-straight-to-jail provision has managed to alienate U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who had spoken in favor of Patrick’s casino plan just recently. Frank tells the Globe, “Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not? He’s making a big mistake. He’s giving opponents an argument against him.” Nice work, Governor.
In two other casino-related developments, it appears that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is moving backwards in its bid to build a casino in Middleborough.
First, Boston Herald reporter Scott Van Voorhis writes that federal regulators may move to take some of the allure out of the high-stakes video bingo parlors that Indian tribes are allowed to open even in the face of state opposition. The idea is that such bingo games would have to look more like bingo and less like slot machines. This could damage the argument advanced by some pro-casino forces that if Patrick’s proposal is defeated, the Mashpee will open a sort-of casino anyway.
Van Voorhis’ piece is a follow-up to a story first broken on Oct. 29 by George Brennan in the Cape Cod Times.
Second, tribal leaders have reportedly been talking out of both sides of their mouths on the matter of whether they will enter the Patrick sweepstakes or instead pursue their gambling plans under the federal route. Boston magazine’s Jason Schwartz explains.
The most recent version of my standard disclosure.
I’m on the opposite side as you as far as the brink-and-mortars go, but I share your cynicism here.
<
p>
I suppose one possibility is that the Gov. has included this provision to try and get anti-casino people on his side by banning one sort of gambling, but I doubt this will do more than alienate some supporters of the plan (as you mention).
<
p>
What is more likely is that the casinos wrote most of the bill, and made sure this provision was in there. After all, the brick-and-mortar casino industry was instrumental in getting that anti-online gambling provision into last year’s port security bill (the one Frank wants to overturn).
…sometime during Patrick’s legal training, he would have read the US Constitution. Such a proposal would obviously be a violation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause.
http://www4.law.corn…
…whether or not Congress passes a law, doesn’t mean that the law is necessarily constitutional.
<
p>
Or even enforceable. Tell me again, how is the state of MA going to enforce the proposed law? Or the US government, for that matter.
<
p>
I’ll just remind you that, if you are going to mention funds transfer, the banking system is so internationalized that banks in the Caribbean, which are correspondents of banks in the US, can easily transfer funds to and from the off-shore casinos.
my point exactly, many thanks. why is it relevant whether the proposal is constitutional or not (or enforceable or not for that matter) when similar legislation has had no problem passing the past?
<
p>
i certainly make no argument that this is enforceable, or passable (based on the rest of the bill), i only dismiss your original post on the grounds of being irrelevant.
<
p>
fortunately one can get up to speed on the law side of all of this pretty quickly by reading any number poker blogs out there:
<
p>
http://pokertable.bl…
<
p>
Cheers!
So I’m basically against the proposal to introduce casinos in the state at all. But let’s suppose it’s a good idea, and let’s take the “cynical”, which I agree is the realistic, interpretation that this move is to make sure all gambling goes through the in-state casinos. Why is that necessarily a bad idea?
<
p>
If people are to gamble, would it not be conceivably better to have it down through casinos that have some accountability to the state and under state regulation than leave it online and presumably less within our control? Plus, I assume some of the funds generated from the in-state gambling will be directed towards addiction-prevention programs — can we guarantee the same from the online casinos?
<
p>
I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. But it seems to me the justification for preventing online gambling but allowing in-state casinos is similar to the current justification for preventing in-state casinos but allowing the lottery. Whenever there’s a volatile activity taking place, it’s preferably to have it take place in the most regulated, accountable, controlled setting possible.
<
p>
Again, just playing devil’s advocate here . . . and I’m happy to here why this argument is wrong.
I previously wrote about the prospects of Socialized Gold
.
<
p>
Anyways, I hear Sal is going to appoint a financial team to analyze the casino bill. It would be very refreshing to see an accurate, fiscal analysis conducted by a political body on this issue prior to making a decision. I still wish the Administration had done a better job and not embarrassed themselves with the Bad Bill.
<
p>
Oh, and Representative Frank, please read the bill before flapping
<
p>
praises for casinos.
<
p>
It does matter, immensely. Despite the cookie-cutter 2.5% mitigation formula in the Bad Bill there are no two communities or regions exactly alike!
<
p>
And, Congressman McGovern, please do not state
<
p>
THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR EDUCATION IN THE CASINO BILL.
If we legalize prostitution Massachusetts——–the commonwealth would be the pimp?
<
p>
Now I understand. If we are going to do something reprehensible it is OK as long as the state profits by it. In this ridiculously corrupt and fiscally irresponsible state the only folks who really profit are the hacks and their minions.
First, you didn’t read my comment, because I never argued that Deval’s gambling plan was “OK” (I actually said the opposite), nor that gambling in general was “OK”. I’ll elaborate my opinions on those topics another time. The idea I threw out there was that if gambling were to be legalized, that ensuring it all takes place under highly-regulated public control arguably makes sense.
<
p>
Yes, if prostitution were legalized (and, again, I’m not arguing it should be), then I think it should more or less follow the model of Nevada. There, prostitution is only legal is state-authorized highly regulated brothels. The workers are medically examined to be disease-free and wearing protection is enforced. It is rightfully taxed through license fees to recoup the costs of enforcement and negative economic externalities. Street prostitution is illegal.
<
p>
The existence of corruption and what to do about it are important, but they’re separate matters to be discussed. Whenever economic activity is taking place that externalizes costs on everyone else (alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, pollution-causing manufacturing, many, many others) then the market will fail unless we regulate it to reduce the external costs and/or tax it to offset them.
<
p>
We don’t have that much control over online gambling to ensure these conditions, so banning it isn’t a completely outlandish idea. I’m not sure I agree with the ban, but I see how a case could be made along the lines of my above argument.
shocked to discover politics going on in this gambling establishment!
<
p>
(Sorry, could not resist.)
I think the amount of gambling on the internet that would directly compete with the casinos is a drop in the bucket. My gut tells me that more internet gambling revolves around sports betting, versus games of chance. Does the current legislation allow sports books to operate in these casinos?That said, bad politics not to have someone aware that Rep Frank was involved in this issue. I personally don’t trust internet gaming sites, but have no problem with those that wish to drop their money there in a safe and regulated manner. I’m not sure that criteria is achieveable.
is huge. Hundreds of millions of dollars a month.
Quoting you,
<
p>
<
p>
State monopoly casinos well be regulated and the public, protected by the all wise Nanny-State, will
gamblebe entertained in the blissful ambiance of State administered rules.<
p>
By contrast, online casinos will take your money, scar your children, cause you to go blind, your wife will leave you…. Oh, and they’ll cut into the Nanny State’s take, not that that point is too important. Barely worth mentioning.