According to the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper, Utah State Representative Sheryl Allen (R-Bountiful) is seeking to introduce House Resolution 1, which asserts that the decision whether or not to adopt gambling should belong solely to the states. While Utah has managed to stunt land-based forms of gambling, Allen told the Tribune, “Computers made it much easier to gamble.”

House Resolutions such as the one that may be proposed by Allen are non-binding and in this case, according to Joe Brennan, Chairman of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), may simply be symbolic. Brennan told Poker News Daily, “You already have a group of state Attorney Generals sending letters to Congress and the Administration saying that they disagree with any laws regarding gaming that would take away the rights of the states.” According to the Tribune, land-based gambling is outlawed in the state’s Constitution. In order to gamble, Utah residents must hit the road and head to nearby Nevada or Idaho.

States like Nevada and New Jersey have embraced gambling and made it one of the centerpieces of their economies. Therefore, gambling being left up to the states themselves is an idea that will likely be embraced by both pro-gaming and anti-gaming jurisdictions. Cathy McKitrick, who authored the Tribune article, told Poker News Daily about the broader implications of House Resolution 1: “How can you reign in something like the internet? Would a resolution like Allen’s have any kind of legal impact?”

The Utah resolution may also serve as the spark for other states to push for all forms of gambling to be determined by the states, including the internet variety. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was ushered through Congress during the final minutes of the 2006 session by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, defers to state and tribal laws in determining what is legal. Brennan explains, “We have a situation where a federal law, the UIGEA, says the state laws will govern it. How is an entity going to determine whether internet gambling is legal when only six states have laws governing it?” Perhaps the harshest laws regarding internet gambling can be found in the state of Washington, where playing poker online is a Class C felony.

Brennan sums up his views of Allen’s declaration: “Really, this is a public statement. This is an exercise in rhetoric rather than an exercise in lawmaking.” McKitrick echoed that Allen’s objective was to send a message. The lawmaker is a moderate Republican. One of her concerns surrounds the World Trade Organization, whose actions may have an effect on Utah gambling law. The European Commission (EC) has recently taken up a complaint filed by the Remote Gambling Association (RGA). The dispute centers on whether the United States is discriminating against foreign internet gambling operators. The UIGEA and Wire Act of 1961 currently define the legal environment of online gaming in the U.S.

Recent disputes surrounding internet gambling have led to the U.S. giving trade concessions to Antigua and the European Union (EU), among other locales. The RGA has also taken issue with the recent settlement between Party Gaming Co-Founder and stakeholder Anurag Dikshit, who admitted to violations of the Wire Act and will pay the U.S. Government a total of $300 million. In addition, Dikshit faces up to two years in prison. On the agreement, which was made official in a New York courtroom in December, the RGA proclaimed, “These events show that the outgoing U.S. administration and the Department of Justice have shown a total disrespect for the legal rights of European online gaming companies.”

In March, Congressmen Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) authored a joint letter to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab requesting the details of the agreement reached between the U.S. and several nations regarding trade violations due to internet gambling. The amount of the concessions was never publicly revealed, as Schwab cited “national security.” Frank and Paul noted that billions of dollars could be at stake.

So far, trade concessions have affected industries such as international shipping as well as U.S. companies that hold certain patents and copyrights.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *