Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
LetsGambool, state lotteries only have the power that they do because of current federal legislation - specifically the law that prevents lotteries in one state from selling tickets in another state.
But that law only applies to traditional lotteries and their tickets. It is not designed to also apply to the new world of online scratch tickets indistinguishable from online slots.
Right now, thanks to the DOJ, states have the ability to allow their monopoly lotteries and/or instate casino interests to start online slots and similar games. Delaware has done it and New Jersey and Illinois are considering it.
But what stops Delaware from offering its games in New Jersey or Illinois once those states also allow online casino games? Only state law ... state law subject to Dormant Commerce Clause analysis.
Without federal legal protection, state lotteries that start online games could very easily be forced to also surrender their monopolies on those games. Thus allowing an opportunistic state like maybe Nevada to authorize private business to offer national lotteries in which 40-50-60% does not have to go "to the children."
Ask your friendly neighborhood lottery director which is more important: preventing out-of-state operators from running games in his/her state or getting his/her lottery in on online slots?
So for state lotteries the point is to be careful of what you wish for ....
And so their are ways for even state lotteries to also get behind this federal legislation; even if (and for the benefit of a certain troll I emphasize IF) it doesn't give them unfettered rights to have an in-state monopoly on online slots.
Skallagrim
Skall, that's interesting analysis, but it it doesn't really address either of my two points.
It certainly seemed like, from comments made on here this Spring, the lotteries were a major factor in gumming up a potential attachment. So is there something in that analysis that wasn't there a few months ago? What has changed the mind of state lotteries?
My second point was about lotteries pressuring states to opt out to protect their stranglehold on state gaming revenue. Wouldnt your post indicate they are likely to do just that?
Third, if its so easy for lotteries to provide games across state lines without legislation, why wouldnt that apply to poker as well? I thought the DOJ authorized intrastate gaming at this point? Furthermore, why would states choose to invade each others territory rather than forming partnerships as they have with MegaMillions and Powerball type games?
If I was a lottery provider and had political clout, those incentives wouldnt be enough for me. I'd want a cut of the money generated, preferential market access, or guarantees on my take of state gambling revenue. Otherwise Id take my chances with the intrastate route, where I would definitely get a perferred competitive position in any legislation, and figure out how to most profitably expand from there.
Obviously a less winning-player friendly route, but why would I give a damn about that?