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

Legal sports gambling may be coming to Minnesota. But it doesn’t seem to be in much of a rush.
Consider the Senate bill that would partially conjure sports books in Minnesota narrowly slipped out of its original committee Thursday (and faces an uncertain response during its next stop). The majority leader of the Senate is not keen on the idea. The nation’s 11 Native American tribes are opposed. Anti-gambling and many religious organizations tend to be more than And, oh yeah, it will not increase much money.
There is also this: the House bill on the same topic has not been set for a hearing, lacks support from DFL leadership, also faces lots of the same liabilities as the Senate bill.
Aside from that, it’s a certain thing.
Inspired 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. Plus it made its first official appearance before Chamberlain’s own committee Thursday. “This is a company, it’s a profession, it is entertainment,” Chamberlain said. “Individuals do make a living off of the… and they also have a great deal of fun.”
And although it isn’t legal in Minnesota, there are many men and women who gamble illegally or via abroad mobile or online sites. Chamberlain believes by legalizing and controlling it, the state could bring to the surface what’s currently underground.
But sports gambling is a minimal profit business for casinos; much of what’s wagered is returned to players as winnings, which means the part that would be subject to state taxation,”the grip,” is comparatively small. Chamberlain’s bill would tax that amount — the amount of wagers minus winnings — in 6.75 percent.
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
MinnPost photograph by Peter Callaghan
State Sen. Roger Chamberlain
“Many states think it is a money-maker for these and it might be,” Chamberlain said. “But we’re not in this to increase a great deal of revenue. We want people to share in the business and have some fun doing this.” Casinos and race tracks could benefit by using sports betting as a way to attract more people into their casinos, he said.
The bill says that if the nation’s tribes wish to provide sports betting, they would have to ask a new compact with the state, something required by federal law. The state is obligated to deal in good faith which includes agreeing to some kind of gambling already allowed off reservation.
Nevertheless, the executive director of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, John McCarthy, said Thursday that the tribes have many concerns about both the House and Senate bills, also are in no hurry to incorporate sports betting to their surgeries.
McCarthy said the tribes have invested billions of dollars in gaming centers and utilize them to raise money to cover”services, schools, schools, home, nutrition programs, wastewater treatment centers, law enforcement and emergency services, and other solutions.”
“Because these operations are crucial to the ability of tribal governments to meet the requirements of their own people, MIGA has had a longstanding position opposing the expansion of off-reservation gaming in Minnesota,” McCarthy said. The cellular facets of the bill, he explained, would”create the most significant expansion of gambling in Minnesota in over the usual quarter-century, and consequently MIGA must respectfully oppose SF1894.”
He said the tribes were especially concerned about mobile gaming and how it might lead to much more online gambling,”which represents an even more significant danger to all types of bricks-and-mortar facilities that currently provide gaming: Japanese casinos, race tracks, lottery outlets, and bars with charitable gambling”
Also opposed was an anti-gambling expansion group and a spiritual social justice organization. Ann Krisnik, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, mentioned the state financial note that said the earnings impacts of this bill were unknown.
“It’s unknown not only concerning revenue, but it is unknown also concerning the greatest costs this creates for the nation,” Krisnik stated, citing societal costs of gambling.
Jake Grassel, the executive director of Citizens Against Gambling Expansion, said the bill was a bad deal for the nation. “The arguments in favour of legalizing sports betting may appear meritorious at first blush — that is, bringing an unregulated form of gambling out of the shadows,” Grassel stated. “Upon further reflection and consideration, the costs are too high and the advantages are too small.”
A way to’begin conversations with the tribes’
The Senate bill finally passed the Taxes Committee with five yes votes, two no votes and one”pass” Two other members were also absent. It now belongs to the Senate Government Operations Committee.
After the taxes committee vote, Chamberlain stated he believes this a way to start conversations with the tribes. Even if the bill passes, it will not take effect until September of 2020. And compacts would have to be negotiated to clear the way for on-reservation sports gambling.
“We are hopeful that they’ll come on board,” Chamberlain said of these tribes. “Their business model will not continue forever. Young folks don’t visit casinos. I go to them sometimes with my partner and others and frequently I’m the youngest one there and I’m within my mid-50s. We think it is a business enhancer.
“I understand their care but we’re right there with them and when they make more comfortable and more people know about it, I’m convinced we will move,” he explained.
Later in the afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka stated the GOP caucus hasn’t met to talk about the issue and he is not in a rush. He said the mobile gambling aspects are of special concerns to him and he’s personally opposed.
“I really do know that it needs more time and that’s the 1 thing I am gonna ask of this invoice,” Gazelka explained. “It’s come forward around the nation and we are gonna need to deal with it just like any other issue. Nonetheless, it is not a partisan matter.”
Some thorny legal questions All of this became possible when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last spring that Congress had exceeded its authority when it announced that sports betting was prohibited (except in Nevada, in which it was operating at the time). New Jersey had sued to clear the way for sports novels at its struggling Atlantic City casinos.
The decision quickly led countries across the country contemplating whether to legalize and regulate sports gambling. Eight already have, and surveys suggest legalizing sports gambling has wide popular support.
The issue for the country’s gambling tribes is if they would make enough from the brand new gaming choice to compensate for the potentially gigantic growth of this off-reservation. There is no clear response to if tribes can do much with mobile gambling, because the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that generated the financial increase of casino gaming allows gambling only on bookings. Though some countries have declared that using the computer servers which procedure bets on bookings is enough to comply with the law, the issue has yet to be litigated.
The House and Senate bills also raise a thorny legal and political issue because they apply state taxes to tribal gambling, something the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission has ruled is not permitted. While tribes in different states have consented to share gambling revenue with states, it’s come with invaluable concession — such as tribal exclusivity over gambling.
While the House bill provides the tribes a monopoly for now, the Senate version cuts the nation’s two horse racing tracks in on the action. A 2018 evaluation of this problem 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 offered at race tracks. As reported by the commission, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation has concluded that”he most obvious way of decreasing the possible negative effects of legalized sports gambling on the racing industry is to allow sports betting at racetracks and also to direct internet revenues to the aid of breeding and racing in the state. ”
The Senate bill enables a type of mobile betting but requires using geofencing to ensure 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 kinds of bets would be permitted and also regulate the games.

Read more: nflbetsports.com