ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 3003
February 24th, 2017 at 6:05:56 AM permalink
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).
iamnomad
iamnomad
Joined: Nov 3, 2014
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 108
February 24th, 2017 at 6:56:19 AM permalink
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.
Lando
Lando
Joined: Aug 14, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 34
Thanks for this post from:
onenickelmiracle
February 24th, 2017 at 8:10:32 AM permalink
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.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 3003
February 24th, 2017 at 10:28:36 AM permalink
Quote: iamnomad

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.


That's my point - what do you legalize? If you say, "professional sports only," then the college bettors remain underground. If you say, "professional and college sports only," there's still an underground, albeit much smaller, high school betting element.
And is it just sports? Would you be allowed to bet on, say, the Oscars, or who's going to win America's Got Talent? Could some of the more esoteric Super Bowl props be legalized?

Quote: iamnomad

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.


Tax on wagers, or tax on the books' profits? Tax on wagers - even a tax just on winning wagers, which amounts to an increased vig (e.g. a pick'em game would be -115 for each team instead of -110) - might keep bettors underground, the way there was (and may still be) numbers running even in states with daily lotteries. IIRC, illegal numbers games pay 600 for 1 instead of the legal 500 for 1.
iamnomad
iamnomad
Joined: Nov 3, 2014
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 108
February 24th, 2017 at 10:50:29 AM permalink
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...
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 935
February 24th, 2017 at 4:28:52 PM permalink
Quote: Lando

It is clearly contradictory to federally prohibit anything not mentioned in the Constitution (Amendment 10),



Sports betting almost certainly falls under interstate commerce, which is covered in the Constitution (google says Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)
Mission146
Administrator
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 104
  • Posts: 9322
February 24th, 2017 at 6:54:05 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Sports betting almost certainly falls under interstate commerce, which is covered in the Constitution (google says Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)



Because the games (generally) are taking place in another state? I don't see the problem as long as the betting transaction is fully contained within one state, which is one reason Nevada doesn't give lines over the phone, at least, that's the reason one sportsbook gave me.
Vultures can't be choosers.

  • Jump to: