GGB is committed to providing updated news and analysis on our weekly news site, GGBNews.com.

Online Gaming Ban Back in U.S. Senate

Online Gaming Ban Back in U.S. Senate

The other shoe has dropped in the move to ban online gambling in the U.S. as Senator Lindsey Graham—now a Republican candidate for president—has introduced his version of the Restoration of America’s Wire Act bill into the U.S. Senate.

The bill seeks to rewrite the 1961 federal Wire Act to include a prohibition against online gaming. Graham and supporters dispute a 2011 opinion by the Department of Justice that said the original Wire Act applied only to sports betting and does not ban intrastate online gaming.

Three states—Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware—have legalized online gaming within their borders since the DOJ ruling.

The bill is identical to a bill from Graham introduced in the Senate in 2014, and does not include a grandfather clause for states that already have online gaming. A companion bill from U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was introduced in the House of Representatives in February.

The bill is seen as coming from Las Vegas Sands owner Sheldon Adelson’s Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling. Adelson has backed an extensive lobbying effort to ban online gaming, saying it will lead to underage gambling and more gambling addictions among the public. He also feels online gambling will hurt the brick-and-mortar casino industry.

However, the bills have had some backlash from conservatives charging that they subvert states’ rights to make their own decisions on online gambling. The bills have also been criticized for being simple “cronyism” to appease a major donor to Republican candidates in Adelson.

John Ashbrook, a spokesman for the coalition, told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the group feels momentum to pass the ban is building “and the Graham-Feinstein bill is an important part of the effort.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California is the lead Democratic co-sponsor. Other co-sponsors—all Republicans—include senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio, and Senators Mike Lee, Kelly Ayotte, Dan Coats and Thom Tillis.

“Predatory online gambling is ruining lives all across our country, and this bill will help us stop it,” Ashbrook told the paper.

But as if it was timed to coincide with Graham’s bill—which has been expected for several months—a Texas congressman also introduced a bill last month in the U.S. House to legalize online poker.

The bill from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) had also been previously announced, and “licenses and regulates internet poker and seeks to restore the rights of people to play the ‘all-American’ game, while at the same time protecting them from fraud.”

“My bill is needed now more than ever,” Barton said in a press release. “It creates one federal standard that protects the integrity of the game and the financial interests of players—while protecting American consumers from nefarious and predatory overseas gambling operations.”

While it’s hard to say whether Barton’s bill will gain traction in the House, it does point out the division and debate on online gambling now under way.

Graham’s bill, while hardly a surprise, was immediately denounced by advocates for regulated online gaming.

“It is unfortunate that Senator Graham and Senator Rubio and several colleagues have chosen to carry Adelson’s water in the U.S. Senate,” said Kristen Hawn, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection, a pro-iGaming group funded by MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment Corp.

“By introducing this ill-conceived piece of legislation in spite of broad bipartisan opposition, they have chosen political interests over the interests of sound policy,” Hawn said in a press statement. “Law enforcement officials and internet safety advocates alike have said that it does nothing to protect children and consumers from online predators, and nothing to prevent illegal activity such as money laundering and identity theft.”

There have also been concerns about the bill from state lotteries, many of which have moved to online ticket selling. In fact, the Review Journal cited unnamed sources as saying Graham’s bill was delayed while he was in negotiations with lottery representatives, though no language to protect lotteries was inserted.