New Jersey Introduces In-State Internet Gambling Legislation

Jan. 15, 2010 - A newly proposed law would allow Internet gambling by New Jersey residents, to be offered on Web sites through the state’s casinos in Atlantic City. The bill was introduced in the New Jersey senate by Sen. Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), who also introduced a separate bill which calls for New Jersey residents to vote on a constitutional amendment that would permit state-regulated sports wagering in Atlantic City casinos, and by state residents via an intra-state Internet gambling system.

New Jersey currently offers wagering on horse racing to state residents through the 4NJbets.com Web site. The state would expand the law to permit Internet versions of games currently allowed in Atlantic City casinos, such as Poker, Blackjack and Baccarat. The intra-state Internet gambling system would be regulated by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, which would establish a Division of Internet Wagering to oversee operations and licensing.

“We’re happy that New Jersey has taken this issue into their own hands,” said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr. “New Jersey is recognized as having the toughest gaming regulators in the US, but as a leading gaming state with a long track record of doing things the right way, Internet gambling will have a great home here and the opportunity to begin normalizing the industry.”

Though iMEGA supports efforts in Washington DC, especially by Rep. Barney Frank (D) in the US House and Sen. Robert Menendez (D) in the US Senate, to create a Federal path to regulation, the association worked with New Jersey legislators on the new bill to ensure continued progress toward regulated Internet gambling in the US.

“The efforts to resolve the Internet gambling issue have stalled in Washington DC,” Brennan said. “If states assert their right to regulate gambling and take a serious look at permitting Internet gambling within their borders, one side effect may be a breaking of the deadlock in the US Congress.”

Links
NJ Senate S3167 - Intra-State Internet Gambling Bill
Bio: NJ Senator Raymond J. Lesniak

Huh? Since when have the federal "efforts to resolve the Internet gambling issue" stalled? Didn't we just get a delay to the implemenation of the UIGEA regulations, and a start on the markup hearings for the Barney Frank bill?

Also, I'm not sure why iMEGA thinks this NJ bill is a good thing, since it will make all internet gambling sites illegal for NJ except for sites run by licensed Atlantic City casinos with their gaming servers located in Atlantic City.

I am less concerned about who owns the sites and where the servers are located than I am that these legal requirements will also mean that the poker offered by the AC casinos (and who they hire to create and run the sites for them) will be limited to only NJ players.

NJ is a good sized state and that may well make such a system effective. But while I hardly consider it a deal killer, if I lived in NJ I would sorely miss being able to play ring games and especially tournaments against players from other jurisdictions and countries.

But other than that concern, I agree with the general premise that we should push for openly legal online poker wherever we can, and to whatever extent we can get. Every step forward gets us closer to the real goal.

Skallagrim

Oh boy...what''s going to happen to NJ residents who have poker accounts on sites that are regulated off-shore. That just makes illegal for those sites to allow NJ residents to play on those sites except for the ones within NJ. Isn't it weird how the Barney Frank and the PPA try to push for federal legalized online gambling but yet those rights are reserved to the states? I can see why pushing to those online casinos and cardrooms to be federally legalized because they allow US players to play. Also the UIGEA doesn't really clarify to the players what is legal and what is not legal. Maybe NJ took this idea from Florida and California respectively...>_>

Wait, what am I missing? Unless I'm reading the wrong thing, I don't see this anywhere. Can someone show me where it says that me (NJ resident) playing on pokerstars will become illegal if this passes?

Edit: nm, found this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...-490-a-685979/

Why do you think the right to regulate interstate gaming is reserved for the states? Nothing in the Constitution defines gaming as a state issue. OOTH, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

All -- the PPA is very intrigued by the NJ proposal. We have not taken a formal position and we appreciate the dialogue on this forum. To further the discussion and help us better understand the bill I am meeting with iMEGA this week. Hope to have more of a perspective after this meeting.

Thanks,

John Pappas

IMO, the PPA should oppose NJ proposal on the grounds that it is too protectionist and violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

PPA needs to support this legislation. Closest thing in the works to legally licensed and regulated poker. This will be a huge victory for poker players in US.

I think the PPA opposing this proposal would be foolish. Legislation like this, even at state level, is still a means to push back on the current federal situation. This may be somewhat protectionst and frankly that's fine by me. I appreciate that some lobbying groups might have ties to such sites, but I have no loyalty to Stars, FTP, or really any offshore site at all.

In this case, it would be regulated by a state agency I know to be very critical and demanding, and if my games are going to be taxed I'd much rather see revenue staying in state as much as is possible. Sure there is a big trade off with regard to the player pool but we could finally get some badly-needed accountability for operators, because I think we're all tired of the UBs/APs/Pitbulls/Pokerspots having none.

This also doesn't rule out other states following suit and perhaps becoming part of a larger network (such as with lotteries) in the future. This might be a good out for those states who object to this sort of thing anyway... if some Bible Belt state doesn't want online gambling or the revenue it could help provide, so be it.

There are millions, if not billions, of dollars collected in taxes from gambling in the US, but how much of that does the federal government get? I believe very little. They now have a chance to cut themselves in with a licensing and regulation bill. However, if the individual states do it for themselves with intrastate initiatives, then once again the feds will be left out in the cold.

I think these kind of initiatives give one more reason to Congress to act.

To Joe Brennan Chairman @ imega.org

Mr. Chairman, if you could respond to this when you get a chance from your busy schedule...I'm an MBA student looking to finish and go to law school and I admire your work for not just poker players but also for creating the dialogue between the entire online gaming industry and government while fighting for every American's right for freedom on the internet...

With that said, Mr. Chairman, could you answer why no has challenged the supreme court to redefine the Wire Act in the context of online gambling and not telephone or electronic gambling...Clearly the Wire Act predates the internet and lawmakers could not have created such a rule with the foresight of the internet so many decades ago. If the Wire Act is explained and understood to not include internet gambling (especially gambling games of skill that do not include sports gambling), then the DOJ cannot threaten gaming sites and American citizens with the notion that internet gambling is illegal. I understand that it may not be high on the supreme courts list, but with so much money at stake and clearly an outdated law that fails miserably to be both understood and explainable to even the common man, there is a fundamental lag between the Wire Act, internet gambling of today, and what is deemed legal or illegal.

-Michael of NJ

I'm in the middle of traveling to the UK this weekend, but once I get settled in London, I'd be happy to address this.

Joe@iMEGA

Do you have a strong argument why the states should give up control of gambling regulation, along with half of the tax proceeds they could otherwise receive?

^^^ Because they don't/can't control it on the internet?