Protectionist Measures Added
Congressman Barney Frank has made some major concessions on elements of his
online casino gambling legalization bill in an effort to keep the bill moving
along at all costs. So that means that even though some of the bill’s amendments
in the House Financial Service’s Committee were nit-picky and protectionist in
nature they were added to the bill as a way to secure votes and approval in the
Committee. One of the more controversial amendments that does not align with
Frank’s overall plan for the bill is the amendment that now allows states to opt
out of the new regulations and keep online casinos out of their market. This
issue was raised by the Joe Baca, a Democratic Representative from California
who expressed concern that the federal legislation would overshadow the state
land and tribal gaming laws.
And although Frank and the rest of the Committee added in an opt-out amendment
to the bill so that California could choose to exclude itself from the federally
controlled online casino gambling industry Frank feels that this policy was a
wholly a protectionist move by California because the state has the largest and
most developed land tribal gambling industry in the country. Additionally, the
state tribes have a lot of control in the politics of the state and they are
keen on keeping state gambling revenues funneled fully through the reservation
casinos rather than through federally approved and taxed internet gambling
sites.
Frank is concerned that these types of amendments are watering down the online
casino bill and allowing some states to continue a close gambling market despite
the fact that US citizens have the right to access a competitive market. At this
point though the focus remains on passage – the smaller issues can be fought at
a later date, once the bulk of the US internet gambling industry is legalized. |