Legal sports gambling may be coming to Minnesota. But it does not appear to be in much of a rush.
Consider that the Senate bill that could partially conjure sports novels in Minnesota narrowly slipped from its first committee Thursday (and faces an uncertain response during its next stop). The majority leader of the Senate isn’t keen on the idea. The nation’s 11 Native American tribes are opposed. Anti-gambling and several religious organizations are opposed. And, oh yeah, it will not raise much money.
There’s also this: the House bill on the same topic has not been set for a hearing, lacks support in DFL leadership, and confronts many of the same liabilities as the Senate bill.
Aside from that, it’s a certain thing.
Inspired by Senate Taxes Committee Chair Roger Chamberlain, R-Lino Lakes, the Senate’s sports betting bill, SF 1894, will have exemptions from both Republican and DFL senators. And it made its first official look before Chamberlain’s own committee Thursday. « This is a company, it’s a profession, it is amusement, » Chamberlain said. « Individuals do make a living off of the… and they also have a great deal of fun »
And although it is not legal in Minnesota, there are many people who gamble illegally or through offshore mobile or online sites. Chamberlain believes by legalizing and controlling it, the state could bring to the surface what’s currently underground.
But sports betting gambling is a minimal profit company for casinos; a lot of what is wagered is returned to players as winnings, which means that would be subject to state taxation, »the grip, » is relatively small. Chamberlain’s bill would tax that amount — the sum of all wagers minus winnings — at 6.75 percent.
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
« Many nations think it is a money-maker for these and it might be, » Chamberlain said. « But we are not in this to raise a whole lot of revenue. We would like people to take part in the company and have some fun doing this. » Casinos and race tracks could benefit by using sports betting as a way to attract more people in their casinos, » he said.
The bill claims that if the state’s tribes wish to offer sports betting, they’d need to ask a new compact with the state, something demanded by national law. The country is obligated to bargain in good faith which includes agreeing to some kind of gambling already permitted off reservation.
Nevertheless, the executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, John McCarthy, said Thursday that the tribes have many concerns about both the House and Senate bills, and therefore are in no hurry to incorporate sports gambling to their operations.
McCarthy said the tribes have spent billions of dollars in gambling facilities and utilize them to raise money to pay for »human services, schools, schools, housing, nutrition programs, wastewater treatment facilities, law enforcement and emergency services, and other services. »
« Since these operations are essential to the ability of tribal governments to meet the requirements of the people, MIGA has had a longstanding position opposing the growth of off-reservation gaming in Minnesota, » McCarthy said. The mobile facets of the bill,  » he said, would »create the most significant expansion of gambling in Minnesota in more than the usual quarter-century, and consequently MIGA must respectfully oppose SF1894. »
He said that the tribes were particularly worried about mobile gaming and how it might lead to even more online gaming, »which represents an even more significant danger to all types of bricks-and-mortar facilities which now offer gambling: tribal casinos, race tracks, lottery outlets, and bars together with charitable gambling. »
Additionally opposed was an anti-gambling expansion set and a religious social justice firm. Ann Krisnik, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, mentioned the state fiscal note that said the earnings impacts of this bill were unknown.
« It is unknown not only in terms of revenue, but it’s unknown also in terms of the ultimate costs this generates for the nation, » Krisnik stated, citing social expenses of gambling.
Jake Grassel, the executive director of Citizens Against Gambling Expansion, said the bill was a terrible deal for the nation. « The arguments in favor of legalizing sports gambling may appear meritorious at first blush — that is, bringing an unregulated form of betting out of the shadows, » Grassel said. « Upon further consideration and reflection, the costs are too high and the benefits are too small. »
A method to’start conversations with the tribes’
The Senate bill ultimately passed the Taxes Committee with five votesno votes and one »pass » Two additional members were absent. It now belongs to the Senate Government Operations Committee.
After the taxes committee vote, Chamberlain said he believes this a way to start conversations with all the tribes. Even if the bill passes, it will not take effect until September of 2020. And compacts would need to be negotiated to clear the way for on-reservation sports gambling.
« We are hopeful that they’ll come on board, » Chamberlain said of the tribes. « Their business model will not continue forever. Young people do not go to casinos. I visit them occasionally with my partner and others and often I’m the youngest one there and I am in my mid-50s. We think it’s a business enhancer.
« I know their caution but we’re right there together and when they get more comfortable and more people understand more about it, I am convinced we’ll move, » he said.
Later in the afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka stated the GOP caucus has not met to discuss the issue and that he isn’t in a rush. He explained the cellular betting aspects are of special concerns to him and he is personally opposed.
« I really do know that it needs more time and that’s the one thing I’m gonna ask of this bill, » Gazelka explained. « It’s come forward around the country and we’re gonna have to manage it like any other matter. Nonetheless, it is not a partisan issue. »
Some thorny legal questions All of this became possible when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last spring that Congress had exceeded its authority when it announced that sports gambling was prohibited (except in Nevada, where it was already operating at the time). New Jersey had sued to clear the way for sports novels at its fighting Atlantic City casinos.
The conclusion quickly led countries across the nation considering whether to legalize and regulate sports betting. Eight already have, and polls suggest legalizing sports betting has broad popular support.
The problem for the country’s gambling tribes is if they’d make enough out of the brand new gaming choice to compensate for the potentially gigantic expansion of it off-reservation. There is also no clear response to if tribes could do much with cellular gaming, because the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that created the financial boost of casino gaming allows gambling only on bookings. Though some countries have declared that using the computer servers that process bets on bookings is sufficient to comply with the law, the issue has not yet been litigated.
The House and Senate bills also increase a thorny political and legal dilemma because they apply state taxation to tribal gaming, something the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission has ruled is not allowed. While tribes in other states have consented to discuss gaming revenue with states, it has come with invaluable concession — such as tribal exclusivity over betting.
While the House bill provides the tribes a monopoly for now, the Senate version cuts the nation’s two horse racing tracks in on the activity. A 2018 analysis of this problem for the Minnesota Racing Commission calls sports gambling a »momentous threat » to racing, but notes that each of the states but one that have legalized sports betting have let it be offered at race tracks. According to the commission, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation has concluded that »he obvious way of decreasing the possible negative effects of legalized sports gambling on the racing industry is to allow sports gambling at racetracks and also to direct net revenues to the aid of breeding and racing in the nation.  »
The Senate bill allows a type of cellular betting but requires using geofencing to ensure that the bettor is within state boundaries and requires them to have an account that has been produced in person at the casino or race track. Additionally, it creates a Minnesota Sports Wagering Commission, which would make rules such as what kinds of bets will be permitted and also control the games.

Read more: nvbasketballalliance.org


août 28, 2019 - Non classé