Congresswoman Pours Cold Water On Federal Sports Betting Bill's Prospects
An enthusiastic piece of legislation that aims to insert the federal government into oversight of legal sports wagering is currently under fire from its detractors and might deal with an uphill climb in an already divided Congress.
New York City Rep. Paul Tonko and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal formally the SAFE Bet Act last week, a costs that would put a blanket ban on sports betting throughout the U.S. unless authorized by the Department of Justice.
The proposed legislation rapidly drew pushback from the gaming market and one influential lawmaker, Nevada Rep. Dina Titus, who stated it was a "misdirected technique" to try to pre-empt state regulators.
Not so quick, my buddy
Titus' district consists of part of Las Vegas, and she co-chairs the Congressional Gaming Caucus in Washington, D.C.
Moreover, regardless of sharing Democratic Party subscription with Tonko and Blumenthal, and regardless 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 midst of the campaign season.
"It's partially a messaging costs," Titus stated Thursday throughout a gaming-focused occasion hosted by news outlet Semafor. "I do not see it passing, definitely not this session. Probably nothing's going to pass this session, however we do not desire it to get a head of steam moving forward."
Asked about the sure thing Act sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, @repdinatitus tells @eschor:
"I think that's much better to have self-regulation or state policy, not to have the federal government get included at this level." pic.twitter.com/3xvmgKxewp
Titus sees a "preconception" connected to the betting market - even though it offers jobs and produces tax profits - that makes it a target for legislators. Her choice is to keep the states in control of legal sports betting in the U.S. and to keep federal meddling to a minimum.
The Tonko-Blumenthal legislation likewise surpasses just limits on marketing. Among other things, it would set federal standards for various parts of the business, such as how frequently a player could transfer with an online sportsbook.
"I do not think that's the method to approach it," Titus said of the limitations. "I certainly support responsible gaming. The industry does. They've taken strong actions, returning to the 90s, to control themselves, and I believe that's much better, to have self-regulation or state regulation, not have the federal government get included at this level."
The comments from Titus suggest the SAFE Bet Act will have its reasonable share of challengers in Congress. While passage was never a certainty, what does seem certain is that there will be political pushback in some type.
"What the Supreme Court did explicitly lay out in their choice ... was that Congress keeps the right to regulate sports gambling," Tonko said recently. "So that's what we're all gathered here today to reveal, as an effort that we're going to welcome."
"It's overwhelming to me in the arrogance of (the feds) saying 'we understand more than you do' without dealing with things together that we have already reached out to work on to make things much better for our citizens in all the states that legislate sports wagering," - Dave Rebuck 9/19
Titus has actually combated against federal intervention in the video gaming industry in the past, such as by proposing legislation that would rescind Washington's 0.25% tax on sportsbook deal with. She has actually also butted heads in the past with Blumenthal over a bill proposing to commit manage tax earnings to issue gambling programs.
Titus is not alone in her reservations about the winner Act either. In addition to state legislators and regulators who might not want the federal government peering over their shoulders, the industry was quick to pan the legislation.