Why legalizing sports betting (still) faces such long odds at the Legislature this year

Legal sports betting may be coming to Minnesota. But it doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry.
Consider that the Senate bill that could partly conjure sports books in Minnesota narrowly slipped from its original committee Thursday (and faces an uncertain reaction during its next stop). The majority leader of the Senate isn't keen on the idea. The nation's 11 Native American tribes are opposed. Anti-gambling and several religious organizations tend to be more than And, oh yeah, it will not raise much money.
There's also this: the House bill on the same topic hasn't been set for a hearing, lacks support from DFL leadership, also confronts lots of the same liabilities as the Senate bill.
Aside from that, it's a certain thing.
Introduced by Senate Taxes Committee Chair Roger Chamberlain, R-Lino Lakes, the Senate's sports betting bill, SF 1894, will have exemptions from both Republican and DFL senators. And it made its first official appearance before Chamberlain's own committee Thursday. "This is a business, it's a profession, it's amusement," Chamberlain said. "Individuals do make a living from this… and they also have a great deal of fun."
And even though it is not legal in Minnesota, there are a lot of people who gamble illegally or via abroad mobile or online sites. Chamberlain thinks by legalizing and regulating it, the state could bring to the surface what is currently underground.
But sports betting gambling is a minimal profit company for casinos; a lot of what's wagered is returned to players as winnings, so that would be subject to state taxation,"the grip," is relatively small. Chamberlain's bill would tax that amount — the amount of wagers minus winnings — at 6.75 percent.
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
MinnPost photograph by Peter Callaghan
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
"Many states think it's a money-maker for these also it may be," Chamberlain said. "But we're not in this to raise a great deal of revenue. We want people to take part in the business and have some fun doing this." Race and casinos tracks could benefit using sports betting as a way to bring more people in their casinos, he said.
The bill claims that if the nation's tribes wish to offer sports betting, they'd need to request a new compact with the state, something required by national law. The state is bound to deal in good faith and that includes agreeing to any form of gaming already permitted off reservation.
Nevertheless, the executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, John McCarthy, said Thursday that the tribes have lots of worries about both the House and Senate bills, and are in no rush to incorporate sports betting to their surgeries.
McCarthy said the tribes have invested billions of dollars in gaming facilities and use them to raise money to cover"services, schools, clinics, housing, nutrition programs, wastewater treatment facilities, law enforcement and emergency services, and other solutions."
"Since these operations are essential to the capacity of tribal governments to meet the needs of their people, MIGA has had a longstanding position opposing the expansion of off-reservation gambling in Minnesota," McCarthy said. The mobile facets of the bill, " he said, would"create the most significant expansion of gambling in Minnesota in over a quarter-century, and consequently MIGA must respectfully oppose SF1894."
He said that the tribes were particularly concerned about mobile gambling and how it might lead to even more online gaming,"which represents an even more significant threat to all sorts of bricks-and-mortar facilities that now offer gambling: Japanese casinos, race tracks, lottery outlets, and pubs together with charitable gambling"
Also opposed was an anti-gambling expansion group and a religious social justice organization. Ann Krisnik, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, mentioned the state financial note that stated the revenue impacts of the invoice were unknown.
"It's unknown not just concerning revenue, but it is unknown also concerning the ultimate costs this generates for the state," Krisnik stated, citing social expenses of more gambling.
Jake Grassel, the executive director of Citizens Against Gambling Expansion, said the bill was a bad deal for the state. "The arguments in favor of legalizing sports betting may appear meritorious at first blush — that is, bringing an unregulated form of betting from the shadows," Grassel stated. "Upon further reflection and consideration, the prices are too high and the benefits are too little."
A way to'start conversations with the tribes'
The Senate bill finally passed the Taxes Committee with five votesno votes and one"pass." Two other members were also absent. It now belongs to the Senate Government Operations Committee.
Following the taxes committee vote, Chamberlain said he considers this a way to begin conversations with all the tribes. Even if the bill passes, it will not take effect until September of 2020. And compacts would need to be negotiated to clear the way for on-reservation sports betting.
"We are hopeful that they will come on board," Chamberlain said of the tribes. "Their business model will not last forever. Young folks do not visit casinos. I visit them occasionally with my spouse and others and often I am the youngest one there and I'm within my mid-50s. We think it is a business enhancer.
"I know their caution but we are right there with them and when they make more comfortable and more individuals understand more about it, I'm convinced we will move," he explained.
Later in the afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said the GOP caucus hasn't met to talk about the issue and that he is not in a hurry. He said the cellular betting aspects are of special concerns to him and he is personally opposed.
"I really do know that it needs more time and that's the one thing I am gonna inquire of that bill," Gazelka explained. "It is come forward around the nation and we are gonna need to manage it like any other matter. Nonetheless, it is not a partisan matter."
Some thorny questions that are legal All this became possible when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last spring that Congress had exceeded its authority when it announced that sports gambling was prohibited (except in Nevada, where it was already operating at the time). New Jersey had sued to clear the way for sports novels at its fighting Atlantic City casinos.
The conclusion quickly led states across the country contemplating whether to legalize and regulate sports gambling. Eight already have, and polls indicate legalizing sports betting has broad popular support.
The issue for the country's gambling tribes is if they'd make enough out of the brand new gaming choice to compensate for the potentially massive growth of it off-reservation. There is also no obvious answer to if tribes can do much with cellular gambling, because the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that generated the financial boost of casino gambling allows gambling only on reservations. While some countries have announced that using the computer servers which procedure bets on reservations is sufficient to comply with the law, the problem has yet to be litigated.
Both the House and Senate bills also increase a thorny political and legal issue because they apply state taxes to tribal gaming, something the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission has ruled is not allowed. While tribes in other states have consented to discuss gaming revenue with countries, it's come with invaluable concession — for example tribal exclusivity over betting.
While the House bill provides the tribes a monopoly for the time being, the Senate version cuts the nation's two horse racing tracks in on the activity. A 2018 evaluation of this issue for the Minnesota Racing Commission calls sports gambling a"momentous threat" to racing, but notes that all the countries but one that have legalized sports gambling have allowed it to be provided at race tracks. As reported by the commission, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation has reasoned that"he obvious way of decreasing the possible negative effects of legalized sports betting on the racing market would be to allow sports gambling at racetracks and to direct net revenues to the aid of racing and breeding in the state. "
The Senate bill allows a kind of cellular betting but necessitates the use of geofencing to assure that the bettor is within state boundaries and needs them to get an account that has been created in person at the casino or race track. Additionally, it generates a Minnesota Sports Wagering Commission, which will make rules such as what types of bets would be permitted and also control the matches.

Read more: manchesterinnews.com