The main stumbling block I see with this is, there has to be some point at which the law says, "You can't bet on that," but the response will always be, "Then they'll bet on it anyway, illegally, and we're no better off than we were before." For example, if the Federal law puts in a ban on betting on college sports - or even if they allow betting on college sports but not on high school ones; I have a feeling a lot of money changes hands on Saturday mornings in the fall in parts of Texas.
Also, I wonder how the Vegas (and, to a lesser extent, Reno/Tahoe) casinos would feel about it if sports betting was legalized in California, even if it is limited to tribal casinos. I was about to add, "However, I don't see a state that doesn't allow new or expanded casinos to have E-roulette allowing sports betting any time soon," but this is the sort of thing that can be changed through a ballot proposition here. IIRC, Big Vegas Money can get involved in California when it wants to; for example, when it helped shoot down a proposition to allow greyhound racing (of course, that had help from animal rights and horse racing interests as well).
I kind of agree with Don, although any new law would only specify what you can be allowed to bet on. Anything other than what is specified would be illegal.
Big stumbling block now is the NFL. Once league leaders become "enlightened" as Adam Silver in the NBA has become, it shouldn't be that difficult to convince Members of Congress that you have a nice little revenue stream, in the form of taxes on wagers, that's could be tapped.
And remember, don't be misled by the heading on this thread. The federal government will not "legalize" sports betting under any new legislation. Should Congress act, it will allow the individual states to decide for themselves whether to legalize it.
Thanks for this post from:
For the life of me, and this is a major reason why I find the USA is increasingly attaining Banana Republic status, I cannot understand the basis on which PASPA is constitutional. It is clearly contradictory to federally prohibit anything not mentioned in the Constitution (Amendment 10), cinching this point is that gambling and horse racing is and has always been a state issue. What's more, the only way PASPA would even be theoretically constitutional, at least with a sound argument, would be if all states were prohibited. You can't have state preference on a federal issue.
More than any other law, this law is clearly unconstitutional and has been for the longest time, since its inception in 1992. It's the quintessential example of emotion, not law or rule of law.
I think it's all pretty easily solved, Don, by just going back to the language, or lack of same, that was in effect prior to '94. Leave it up to the individual states, just as it's pretty much been left up to Nevada to decide what wagers can be made in state. And I was not advocating any new tax, just the existing taxes, both on casinos and those who win wagers with the casinos, reaching a larger base...