Online Casino Transfer: News - AGA Interview

04/08/2010		Online Casino Style: News AGA Interview - 2
Home History Games News Dictionary		continued from AGA Interview - 1 Until legalization becomes a viable option, he was quick to clarify, that particular question isn’t yet applicable. For now, there are both the Barney Frank and the Menendez bills that are waiting in the wings for their turns to be voted on. Rumors have it that the Frank bill, as it grows in support among the legislators, would likely find its way into law by being tacked on to another ‘sure hit’ bill, not wholly dissimilar to the way the UIGEA passed in 2006, adding a sweet twist of irony to its turnover. Some online gambling industry experts are beginning to wonder if too much hype and promise are being associated with the Frank bill; it would effectively legalize online gambling in all forms, and written as it is, asks a lot for the anti-gambling politicians to concede to. Some opine that effort would be better spent on the Menendez bill, as it would legalize only online poker, classifying it as a game of skill rather than luck. A poker carve out in the existing legislature would still be a win, and much smaller loss for those against the whole of the world of internet gambling. Murphy did ask for additional information as to why the AGA board members might prefer state regulation over federal regulation. Fahrenkopf answered that the taxation imposed by the US government as a whole would be far more expensive than if states were given the power. The disadvantage would be that pools of players would be limited to jurisdictions, limiting the liquidity that online casinos often thrive upon. Thankfully, he did offer up a possible compromise: “If I were doing this, and I’m not, but one of the ways it could work would be if there were a federal oversight with minimal standards, which would be delegated to the states. Therefore, to be a state regulatory agency, you’re going to have to have a lot of experience,” he said. “The net result would probably be that Nevada and New Jersey are the places where regulatory control would take place, but it would be done in a way where each state didn’t have to deal with it.”

04/08/2010

Online Casino Style: News
AGA Interview - 2

continued from AGA Interview - 1

Until legalization becomes a viable option, he was quick to clarify, that particular question isn’t yet applicable. For now, there are both the Barney Frank and the Menendez bills that are waiting in the wings for their turns to be voted on. Rumors have it that the Frank bill, as it grows in support among the legislators, would likely find its way into law by being tacked on to another ‘sure hit’ bill, not wholly dissimilar to the way the UIGEA passed in 2006, adding a sweet twist of irony to its turnover.

Some online gambling industry experts are beginning to wonder if too much hype and promise are being associated with the Frank bill; it would effectively legalize online gambling in all forms, and written as it is, asks a lot for the anti-gambling politicians to concede to. Some opine that effort would be better spent on the Menendez bill, as it would legalize only online poker, classifying it as a game of skill rather than luck. A poker carve out in the existing legislature would still be a win, and much smaller loss for those against the whole of the world of internet gambling.

Murphy did ask for additional information as to why the AGA board members might prefer state regulation over federal regulation. Fahrenkopf answered that the taxation imposed by the US government as a whole would be far more expensive than if states were given the power. The disadvantage would be that pools of players would be limited to jurisdictions, limiting the liquidity that online casinos often thrive upon. Thankfully, he did offer up a possible compromise:

“If I were doing this, and I’m not, but one of the ways it could work would be if there were a federal oversight with minimal standards, which would be delegated to the states. Therefore, to be a state regulatory agency, you’re going to have to have a lot of experience,” he said. “The net result would probably be that Nevada and New Jersey are the places where regulatory control would take place, but it would be done in a way where each state didn’t have to deal with it.”