Congresswoman Pours Cold Water On Federal Sports Betting Bill's Prospects
An enthusiastic piece of legislation that intends to insert the federal government into oversight of legal sports betting is already under fire from its critics and might face an uphill climb in a currently divided Congress.
New York Rep. Paul Tonko and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal officially introduced the winner Act recently, a costs that would put a blanket ban on sports wagering across the U.S. unless authorized by the Department of Justice.
The proposed legislation quickly drew pushback from the video gaming market and one influential lawmaker, Nevada Rep. Dina Titus, who said it was a "misdirected approach" to try to pre-empt state regulators.
Not so quick, my pal
Titus' district includes part of Las Vegas, and she co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus in Washington, D.C.
Moreover, despite sharing Democratic Party membership with Tonko and Blumenthal, and in spite of seeing their effort as well-intentioned, Titus is bearish about the SAFE Bet Act's potential customers in the legislature, specifically now, in the middle of the project season.
"It's partially a messaging expense," Titus stated Thursday during a gaming-focused event hosted by news outlet Semafor. "I do not see it passing, definitely not this session. Probably absolutely nothing's going to pass this session, but we don't want it to get a head of steam moving forward."
Inquired about the winner Act sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, @repdinatitus tells @eschor:
"I think that's better to have self-regulation or state regulation, not to have the federal government get included at this level." pic.twitter.com/3xvmgKxewp
Titus sees a "preconception" connected to the gambling industry - despite the fact that it provides jobs and produces tax income - that makes it a target for lawmakers. Her preference is to keep the states in control of legal sports wagering in the U.S. and to keep federal meddling to a minimum.
The Tonko-Blumenthal legislation also goes beyond simply restricts on advertising. To name a few things, it would set federal requirements for different parts of the service, such as how frequently a gamer could with an online sportsbook.
"I don't think that's the way to approach it," Titus said of the constraints. "I definitely support accountable gaming. The industry does. They have actually taken bold actions, returning to the 90s, to control themselves, and I think that's better, to have self-regulation or state guideline, not have the federal government get involved at this level."
The comments from Titus recommend the sure thing Act will have its fair share of challengers in Congress. While passage was never ever a certainty, what does appear certain is that there will be political pushback in some kind.
"What the Supreme Court did clearly lay out in their choice ... was that Congress retains the right to manage sports betting," Tonko said last week. "So that's what we're all collected here today to reveal, as an effort that we're going to accept."
"It's mind-boggling to me in the arrogance of (the feds) saying 'we understand more than you do' without dealing with things together that we have actually already reached out to work on to make things better for our residents in all the states that legalize sports wagering," - Dave Rebuck 9/19
Titus has actually fought against federal intervention in the gaming market in the past, such as by proposing legislation that would rescind Washington's 0.25% tax on sportsbook manage. She has also butted heads in the past with Blumenthal over a bill proposing to dedicate handle tax income to problem gaming programs.
Titus is not alone in her reservations about the sure thing Act either. In addition to state lawmakers and regulators who might not want the federal government peering over their shoulders, the market was fast to pan the legislation.