🎰 Ohio Online Casinos & Gambling Sites For Real Money

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 🔥

Filter:
Sort:
A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Slot machine ownership laws vary from state to state, in general, most of the states allow individual to own a slot machine if the slot machine meets one of the following three kinds,... Cook, 265 N.E.2d 780 (Ohio 1970); State ex rel. Schillberg ...


Enjoy!
Legal – Blue Tip Gaming
Valid for casinos
Ohio Gambling Laws | Gambling Law US
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 59-677 CC WASHINGTON : 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by the U.
Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G.
HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J.
LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E.
GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M.
KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R.
FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G.
TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E.
SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A.
HATCH, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHARLES E.
GRASSLEY, Iowa JOSEPH R.
Senator from the State of Arizona.
Senator from the State of California 3 DeWine, Hon.
Senator from the State of Ohio.
Doyle, attorney general, State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Betty Montgomery, attorney general, State of Ohio, Columbus, OH, on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General; and James R.
Hurley, chairman, New Jersey Casino Control Commission, Atlantic City, NJ.
Jon: Letter to Senator Kyl from Commercial Internet Exchange Association, United States Telephone Association, America Online, and USWest, dated Mar.
Senate, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.
Jon Kyl chairman of the subcommittee presiding.
Also present: Senators DeWine, and Feinstein.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON.
JON KYL, A U.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator Kyl.
The hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information will come to order.
This is a hearing on Internet gambling.
I am Senator Jon Kyl, chairman of the subcommittee, and this is Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, and we welcome all of you to the https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/jogos-gratis-slots-machines-casino.html this morning.
Let me begin by making a brief opening statement, call on Senator Feinstein, and then we will roll the video.
I think that also Senator DeWine will be joining us in just a little bit.
As I suspect we all are well aware, societies throughout history have sought to prohibit most forms of gambling.
There are many reasons for this, but they are, I think, especially applicable to Internet gambling today.
Let me begin by commenting on a couple of recent stories.
It's redistributed among the rest of us in the form of increased prices on consumer goods.
It enhances the addictive nature of gambling because it is so easy to do.
You don't have to travel anywhere to do it; you can just log on to your own computer.
Gambling on the Internet is apt to lead to criminal behavior.
Indeed, up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to pay off their wagering debts, according to testimony before this committee in 1997.
We are talking about something that is very, very big here.
In just one year, that number more than quadrupled, going from about 60 in late 1997 to now more than 260 according to some estimates.
But this is a case where this national problem is a Federal problem, which is why the State attorneys general have come before us and are before us again today.
The Internet, of course, is interstate in nature, and Is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio cannot protect their citizens, enforcing their own laws from Internet gambling, if anyone can transmit into their States.
And that is why they check this out asked us for Federal legislation and Federal enforcement.
Now, the current law, as many of you know, is the 1991 Wire Act, which prohibits using telephone facilities to receive bets or send gambling information.
But as this ABA Journal article pointed out that I quoted before, the problem with the current Federal law is that the communications technology it specifies is dated and limited.
And that is why this Subcommittee on Technology, which in so many other areas has tried to bring the law up to date with evolving technology, began looking at this particular problem.
The advent of the Internet, a communications medium not envisaged by the Wire Act, requires enactment of a new law to address activities in cyberspace, again, not contemplated by the drafters of the older law.
So the bill that we introduced and which passed the Senate, 90 to 10, last year and which, with certain modifications, we have reintroduced, bans gambling on the Internet, just as the Wire Act prohibited gambling over the wires.
And it does not limit the subject to gambling sports.
In sum, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings Federal law up to date.
With the advent of new, sophisticated technology, the Wire Act is becoming outdated, as I said, and the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act corrects that problem.
In short, it ensures that the law keeps pace with technology.
We are going to be introducing our 1999 version of the bill very soon, perhaps today, and plan to hold a subcommittee markup in April if all goes well.
So, that is the brief introductory statement that I would like to make here, and let me now call on Senator Feinstein for any comments that she would have.
DIANNNE FEINSTEIN, A U.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Feinstein.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, and I certainly agree with your comments and I want to welcome the witnesses here this morning.
I think all of us have been surprised at how fast the Internet has blossomed, and with that blossoming comes a great deal of potential and a number of challenges.
I know there is a rush, in a sense, to regulate, but I think we should first ask ourselves several questions, and among them and most prominent is this.
Are current laws adequate to address the conduct already?
Would the transaction be illegal if it took place over the telephone lines or by mail?
And does the Internet present some threat that is distinct from these more established means of communication?
I believe that when it comes to gambling via the Internet, these questions are answered in favor of this legislation.
Gambling is heavily regulated in most States.
Utah and Hawaii, for example, outlaw gambling altogether.
Interstate wagering over wires is already a violation of Federal law.
However, many believe that this existing Federal law would not necessarily apply to Internet gambling.
For instance, the Join. arcade machine coin slot consider could be accessed through microwave signals rather than over a wire.
Thus, conduct that would be illegal if conducted over the phone is able to escape punishment when conducted via the Internet.
In effect, the Internet creates a loophole in existing law.
Gambling over the Internet is undergoing rapid growth.
This already undermines the severe restrictions against gambling which the major athletic leagues take so seriously, as illustrated, I think, well by the case of Pete Rose, a sure- fire check this out entry into the Hall of Fame who apparently is forever barred from its doors because he bet on baseball.
We already have seen the effects that sports gambling has.
College athletes from Northwestern University to Arizona University have been convicted of shaving points in their games.
If the Internet permits sports gambling to dramatically escalate, as apparently is happening, the threat to the integrity of our athletic events will also escalate accordingly.
But we must be careful in how we go about remedying the problem.
There are legitimate businesses across the country which rely on legal gambling.
Horse racing, for example, is supported by gambling which has been legalized and regulated by most States in the country.
So we must be careful that we don't inadvertently disrupt legal businesses on which so many people rely for their livelihood.
In that regard, Mr.
Chairman, I have appreciated your efforts to work with me to carefully address these concerns in this legislation.
check this out must also be careful not to slow down the Internet or place unreasonable burdens on legitimate Internet-related businesses.
The Internet and the businesses which are involved in or related to it have been the engine of dynamic economic growth, contributing greatly to the economic prosperity which we now enjoy.
Nearly 16 million Americans were buying online in just the last 90 days alone.
So the Internet has great potential for even significantly greater growth, with its dynamic interactivity and rapid delivery of electronic products.
For the Internet to reach its full potential, however, it and the computer which people to access it must be even faster so that switching from one multimedia web site to another takes no longer than changing the channel on our television sets.
We must be careful not to impose requirements which slow down Internet functions or which place unreasonable burdens on Internet-related businesses which create such robust economic activity.
I believe we can do this, Mr.
Chairman, and I look forward to discussing these issues with our witnesses today and to working closely with you, as we do so often, in addressing these issues and passing this legislation.
Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
We are now joined by Senator Mike DeWine.
Senator DeWine, in addition to making any opening comments, could I call upon you to introduce one of our opening panelists, your State attorney general, please, and then I will introduce the others.
MIKE DeWINE, A U.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Senator DeWine.
I would be delighted to, Mr.
Thank you very much.
I just want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this very important hearing on Internet gambling.
The global nature click here the Internet confronts our States with really a number of challenges, not the least of which is policing gambling on the Internet.
Many of our States are now wrestling with the thorny law enforcement and consumer link surrounding interstate Internet gambling.
Chairman, you have been a leader for some time on this whole issue, and I really appreciate your continued work and your tenacity in dealing with this problem.
I would like to take a moment to welcome my friend and the Attorney General of the State of Ohio, Betty Montgomery, who is appearing in front of our committee today on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General.
Attorney General Montgomery and I have worked together for a number of years on many law enforcement issues in Ohio.
Betty, we just welcome you here and we are delighted that you have taken the time to testify this morning.
We look forward to your testimony.
Chairman, I believe that Attorney General Montgomery's law enforcement perspective is going to be particularly valuable for us this morning, stemming from her work https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/marvel-1-cent-slot-machines.html the National Association of Attorneys General Working Group on Internet Gambling.
This will be helpful to our consideration of this issue and I certainly look forward to hearing her testimony.
Thank you, Senator DeWine, and I welcome Attorney General Montgomery.
I also want to introduce Attorney General James Doyle.
I know that Senator Kohl was going to try to be here this morning, and hopefully he will join us.
And he could give you a much better introduction than I can, but let me tell you, as a Republican introducing a Democrat attorney general here, there isn't anybody that has been more of an educator to me and more helpful in pursuing this matter than Attorney General Jim Doyle, who has acted as head of the National Association of Attorneys General, has really helped to educate other members of the Attorney Generals Association on this, whose staff has been of immense help to my staff, and who has worked with us with each different draft.
We have had a lot of different iterations of our legislation through the last year when it passed 90 to 10, and then in working with other groups this year trying to see that they could be comfortable with what we are doing.
And we have made some modifications to meet some of their objectives.
And I can't say enough about Attorney General James Doyle and the support that he has given to us in this legislation and the way that he has been a real leader in the area.
So, Jim, I am very happy to have you testifying again for us.
And we have another panelist here who hasn't testified before our panel before, but we are very happy to welcome Mr.
James Hurley, who is the Chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, Atlantic City, NJ.
You will bring a very useful perspective to us with respect to this legislation and I welcome you as well, Mr.
Now, I didn't ask you which order to go in--oh, we are going to roll some video before we start, and maybe I could ask our technical people here to go ahead with that.
Well, that was Jim Lampley in a special interview for HBO which ran, I think, about a month ago.
I hope you enjoyed it.
Let's begin with Attorney General James Doyle, and then we will just move down the table this way.
Again, General Doyle, thank you very much for everything you have done in the past and for being with us here today.
PANEL CONSISTING OF JAMES E.
DOYLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, WI; BETTY MONTGOMERY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBUS, OH, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL; AND JAMES R.
HURLEY, CHAIRMAN, NEW JERSEY CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION, ATLANTIC CITY, NJ STATEMENT OF JAMES E.
Chairman, Senator Feinstein, Senator DeWine, thank you for giving us this opportunity.
Senator Kyl, I want to thank you as well and your staff who have been extraordinarily responsive to the attorneys general from around the country.
And you have been the leader on this read more and we have been proud to be working with you.
As you know, I have long supported this legislation, and I hope this is the year that you will be successful in seeing it become the law of the United States.
It was about 3 years ago that the National Association of Attorneys General took the step that many of us never imagined.
The organization recommended an expansion of the Federal Government's traditional law enforcement role.
If you sit around one of our meetings, normally we are complaining about how the Federal Government is always trying to take another crime away from the State and put it on the Federal side of things.
But this was a case where we strongly supported Federal action.
And since that initial recommendation, as you know through your work, a lot has changed.
The Internet has continued to grow faster.
Gambling is more available than it was 3 years ago.
The kind of stories that were detailed there are becoming more and more common.
The reason the State attorneys general took this action was that we recognized the limitations of traditional concepts of State jurisdiction when it comes to regulating and controlling gambling on the Internet.
Although the overwhelming majority of Internet traffic occurs within the United States, the Internet is global and any single State or even any combination of our States working together can only have a limited effect in controlling the myriad of activities occurring in that medium.
Gambling laws and regulations have more State-to-State variation than almost any other area of the law.
There probably is no other area that so reflects the different cultural values and concerns of the various States in this country.
Each State's gambling policy is carefully crafted to meet its own moral, law enforcement, consumer protection, and revenue concerns.
Most States believe that they have the correct combination of law and policy to address the needs of their citizens.
The Internet threatens to disrupt those laws and policies, and Federal action on Internet gambling is necessary in order to preserve each State's ability to direct its own gambling policies.
This is not an instance in which we are asking the Federal Government to take over an area that we seek to control within our own States.
This is an area where we are asking the Federal Government through this bill to, in fact, protect the States in their ability to decide their own gambling policy within their own States.
The technology of the Internet simply cannot meet the slot machine da bar of effective gambling regulation.
Gambling laws must address a wide variety of specific issues in order to meet these policy concerns.
Some of the most crucial issues include game integrity; dispute resolution; underage gambling, which again is something that you, Senator, mentioned as a growing problem; problem and compulsive gambling; effective means to verify the physical location of the players and proprietors.
And as we just saw in the show there, Aruba turned out to be a house in Pennsylvania.
Internet technology is currently unable to adequately address all of these policy considerations.
Many have argued, and undoubtedly will argue again today that the Government cannot effectively prohibit gambling on the Internet.
Instead, they argue that the Government should attempt to regulate gambling rather than prohibit it.
Let's be clear about what they are really asking.
They are asking for a national policy permitting gambling, with a national Federal regulatory scheme for regulating gambling.
That is the request that is being made as far as regulating Internet gambling.
We don't want gambling in Wisconsin.
We don't want a federally regulated system of gambling in Wisconsin.
We want to make our own choice about what kind of gambling is going to be permitted in the State.
In addition, the argument, I think, turns on its own head.
The fact that it is difficult to flat out prohibit Internet gambling also demonstrates that it is impossible, I believe, to have any effective regulation as well.
The difficulty of prohibition does not provide a reason to legalize the activity, which is opposed by the great majority of people in the United States.
I have no illusions about the U.
Government's choice here that it will change the behavior of all the jurisdictions around the world.
However, I do believe that a strong statement in favor of prohibition will raise the necessary red flags for citizens all over the world, and certainly all over this country, who might fall prey to unscrupulous gambling organizations.
They should also know that they will not be able to turn to the Government for help when they lose their money to an unknown operator on the other end of a wire or when their financial information is used in a way that harms them.
If this Government were to choose to regulate this activity, it is clear that the regulation would not be effective.
There are simply too many work-arounds and too much anonymity programmed into the infrastructure of today's Internet for any regulator to vouch for the security and identity of a Web gambling operator.
In addition, there is no way to regulate the person who is placing the bet.
Unlike an actual physical casino where you can see machine igt barcrest pinball slot people who are going in, there is no way to regulate or to make sure that the person who is using the computer and gambling is of appropriate legal age, that they are not a compulsive gambler.
There is no way to cut them off after significant losses.
There is no way to put into place the kinds of protections from money laundering that exists in legalized gambling operations in the United States.
Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein, you have indicated some of the problems in the current Wire Communications Act.
It was a good attempt that was not designed to be directed at Internet gambling.
That law needs to be modernized; it needs to be updated, and it needs to make clear that Internet gambling is illegal in this country.
That then permits each State to make its own decision about what its gambling policy will be.
As the National Association of Attorneys General, we fully support your bill, Senator Kyl.
We look forward to working with this committee and, as I say, I hope this is the year we are finally going to see it enacted into law.
Thank you, Attorney General Doyle.
Doyle Thank you for inviting me to speak to the subcommittee regarding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.
I have long been a supporter of this legislation, and am eager to do all that is necessary to assure its enactment into law.
Almost three years ago, the National Association of Attorneys General took a step many of us never imagined: The organization recommended an expansion of the federal government's traditional law enforcement role.
Specifically, we urged the federal government to enact legislation to prohibit gambling on the Internet.
Since that initial recommendation, a lot has changed.
The reason the Attorneys General took this action was that state law enforcement officials recognize the limitations of traditional concepts of state jurisdiction when it comes to regulating and controlling gambling on the Internet.
Although the overwhelming majority of Internet traffic occurs within the United States, the Internet is global in scope, and any single state, or even a group of states working together, can have only a limited effect in controlling the myriad of activities occurring in that medium.
Gambling laws and regulations have more state to state variation than almost any other area of law.
Each state's gambling policy is carefully crafted to meet its own moral, law enforcement, consumer protection and revenue concerns.
Most states believe they have the correct combination of law and policy to address the needs of their citizens.
Federal action on Internet gambling is necessary in order to preserve each state's ability to direct its own gambling policy.
The technology of the Internet simply cannot meet the needs of effective gambling regulation.
Gambling laws must address a wide variety of specific issues in order to meet these policy concerns.
Some of the most crucial issues include game integrity, dispute resolution, underage gambling, problem gambling, and effective means to verify the physical location of players and proprietors.
Internet technology is currently unable to adequately address all of these policy considerations.
Many have argued, and undoubtedly will argue again today, that the government cannot effectively prohibit gambling on the Internet.
Instead, they argue, this government should attempt to regulate that which it cannot prohibit.
However, this argument turns against itself, because it is quite clear that an activity which could not be effectively prohibited is also not subject to effective regulation.
The fact that Internet Gambling is difficult to control does not mean that law enforcement should bury its head in the sand and pretend the problem does not exist.
Nor does that difficulty provide a reason by the majority of the U.
I have no illusions that the United States' policy choice in this matter will not, in itself, change the behavior of every jurisdiction around the world.
However, I do believe that a strong statement in favor of prohibition will raise the necessary red flags for citizens all over the world who might fall prey to unscrupulous gambling operators trolling the information highway for likely victims.
They also should know that they will not be able to turn to the government for help when they lose their money to an unknown operator on the other end of the wire, or when their financial information is used in a way that harms them.
If this government were to choose to regulate this activity, it is clear that the regulation could not be effective.
There are simply too many workarounds and too much anonymity programmed into the infrastructure of today's Internet for any regulator to be able to vouch for the security and identity of a web gambling operator.
Even if game integrity and operator identity could be confirmed, there is currently no infrastructure available for customers to be assured that they are dealing with an individual operator who is covered by that regulation.
This is just one small example of the difficulties gambling regulation would face on the Internet.
The Wire Communications Act, 18 Sec.
The Wire Act was enacted in the early 1960's primarily to prohibit interstate transmission of sports and race bets via the telephones and telegraph wires.
The Act, however, contains major limitations which need to be addressed in the age of the Internet.
One of the most critical limitations of the Wire Act is the scope of the gambling activity covered.
There is, to many, an ambiquity regarding the types of gambling covered by the Act.
Because of the context of the time it was passed, some believe it is limited solely to sports and race wagering.
While these may be the only types of the multimedia transmissions suitable for depicting all forms of casino gambling.
It is a new world, and we must be certain that these new games are addressed as effectively as traditional gambling was under the Wire Act.
This Senate's action on Senator Kyl's bill begins a process in which the United States' government can make a strong policy statement that gambling via the Internet is not a good bet for its citizens.
I urge this subcommittee to support this bill.
STATEMENT OF BETTY MONTGOMERY Ms.
Chairman, Senators Feinstein and DeWine, thank you so much for inviting us here today.
Having been not only a legislator in Ohio, as well as an elected county prosecutor and a career prosecutor, it is a pleasure to speak today on this very important subject.
General Doyle has handled this very well.
The Internet has, in fact, changed our world for the better and also for the worse, and it is quite obvious by looking at what we are looking at right now.
The convenience that allows for instant international training, as Senator Feinstein has referred to, and communication, also allows individuals to gamble away their life savings and their family's life savings in the click of a mouse.
It all feels just like a video game.
It seems it would be very easy for the young or the naive who do not fully grasp that those little numbers appearing on their computer screen are real dollars--they are not Monopoly dollars--going down the cyber drain.
For generations, most communities in the United States have not allowed most forms of gambling, as General Doyle has indicated and as you have, Mr.
The average citizen, I believe, is aware that because of the advances in the Internet, there are some serious problems with access into their own community and their home.
And it is unprecedented the amount of gambling that is going on virtually unregulated.
The scariest thing about it is that it doesn't take much sophistication to gamble on the Internet, and I will show you in a moment how easy it is.
You have seen on the video that Senator Kyl has shown you it takes no time and even less effort to be able to do this.
Gambling has been primarily regulated by States.
That is not by accident.
It is because, as General Doyle has indicated, each of our States has a different set of problems, a different set of cultures, a different sense of what is appropriate and inappropriate in terms of legalized gambling or moral behavior.
Each of the State's gambling laws have been carefully crafted to reflect its own public policy concerns.
On Ohio, most forms of gambling are prohibited.
Exceptions have been made for the State lottery, horse racing, and some types of gambling activities conducted by nonprofit charitable organizations.
Most State lawmakers and law enforcement officials, including Ohio's, believe that the right combination of law and policy address their population's moral, law enforcement, consumer protection, and revenue needs.
But the Internet is a threat to the traditional independence of State law enforcement, and I am again repeating what General Doyle has said in saying it is with your help that we can protect each of our State's individual rights to control our own individual State laws, and it is with your help that we can join hands to have that happen.
These interactive sites allow individuals to play games as if he or she were inside a casino.
Audio available while visiting or playing these sites allows individuals to hear the wheels turn, to hear the machines ring, to hear the chips fall and the dollars fall, to actually be in a virtual casino.
No permanent real estate location is necessary.
Individuals from Alabama can generate capital in Switzerland, run their business from Ohio, but have their computer software located and licensed in Antigua and conduct their business throughout the world.
VIP Sports also reported a is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio growth, and this is because of Internet gambling.
Let me just show you a few sites.
Copies of these web sites are included in your packet.
If you take a look at one, the first site shows the worldwide reach of Internet gambling.
It allows consumers from anywhere on the globe to gamble with their currency of choice all with just the click of a mouse.
It is not Monopoly money consumers are losing; it is their hard-earned wages.
The third site offers games of chance that are available in any Atlantic City casino, only this isn't Atlantic City.
No plane ticket is needed, as Senator Kyl has indicated.
Consumers can play poker, black jack, roulette, without ever leaving the convenience of their homes and their computers.
And, finally, just like Las Vegas tourists head for the slot machines with buckets of change, a one-arm bandit in cyberspace beckons them on the Net.
This site provides all real-world action of slot machines--change tumbling into slots, levers' downward motion, windows spinning around, matching symbols, and lights flashing with instructions.
That is why, Senator Kyl, the Internet defies traditional concepts of jurisdiction and geographic boundaries.
And it is a global medium and therefore intrinsically interstate in its reach.
We understand the law enforcement resources of Ohio or Wisconsin or any of the States, even well-coordinated, cannot get to the reach that the Internet has.
That is why, Senator Kyl, your legislation is so needed.
Furthermore, technology alone cannot address the requirements of effective gambling regulation.
Gambling is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world.
Yet, the Internet is one of the most unregulated and inherently difficult phenomena to regulate in modern times, and it is all just a click of a mouse away.
Regulation in the traditional gambling industry has important parameters.
And, Senators, I know that General Doyle alluded to it, but the integrity of the gambling system itself, background checks of proprietors, resolution of consumer disputes, verification, importantly for us, for the age of the players, all are things that we can't get to at the State level.
The qualities that make the Internet such a powerful force, as Senator Feinstein has referred to, is also the thing that has caused our State regulators to frankly have a very difficult time in trying to regulate under Ohio's gambling laws or Wisconsin's gambling laws.
For these reasons, NAAG has for several years supported Federal intervention.
The industry has grown immensely.
A few years ago, there were dozens of web sites and now, as Senator Kyl has indicated, there are hundreds of web sites.
We continue to support, Senator Kyl, your courageous work in this area.
We know, frankly, any of us who have dealt with gambling, both as a local prosecutor or as a State legislator, the pressures that come to bear with the amount of money involved and the powerful interests involved, economic as well as political interests paradise fishing machine azure slot />I know personally how difficult this is going to be for this Congress to pass.
I can only sit here and say as one State-elected official to other statewide elected officials and national officials, it is critical that we act now because if we wait too much longer, it will be virtually impossible for us to be able to make those differences.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, General Montgomery.
Just before I call on Mr.
Hurley, just let me say I think all of us could live quite comfortably on the money that just was spent last year and is likely to be spent this year lobbying against this legislation.
That is why we had better do it now.
Commissioner Hurley, thank you very much for being with us today and we look forward to your testimony as well.
Incidentally, I took this down.
This was supposed to be a useful tool to let you know when you are getting close to 5 minutes.
We are not limiting your testimony.
If you can keep it to 5 minutes, that is fine, but I didn't want you to feel intimidated by these lights.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R.
I thank triple 7 machines for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the regulation of casino gambling.
My name is James Hurley.
I am the Chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission.
I realize the topic for this subcommittee hearing is internet gambling, and one of the issues is whether Internet gambling can be effectively regulated.
What I would like to do is to describe our system of slot prices video machines casino gambling and suggest that absent a strict licensing and regulatory system, there is no way to ensure the integrity of operators or games.
New Jersey developed a strict, comprehensive regulatory system back in 1977.
It was designed to ensure the suppression of organized crime and that the casinos pay taxes on all the money they win.
We believe it has worked very effectively to ensure not only that casinos are owned and operated by people of good character, honesty and integrity, but also that the public has confidence that the games are honestly run, fair, and their winning wagers will be paid.
To accomplish this level of public confidence, New Jersey implemented a licensing system that requires every owner, officer and director of a casino, as well as many of the officers, directors and owners of a holding company or intermediary company, to file an extensive license application.
They had to disclose detailed information about any criminal record, business affairs, civil litigation, at least 5 years of personal income tax returns, and voluminous additional information.
Applications for casino operation license generally fill several large transfer boxes.
A copy of that application is forwarded to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which is in the Department of Law and Public Safety, headed by the attorney general of New Jersey, which conducts a full investigation into the applicant and its qualifiers.
The Gaming Division looks at criminal histories, bank records, civil litigation, tax returns, SEC filings, and anything else that it feels would be pertinent to determine whether a company or a person has the required good character, honesty and integrity.
It even looks at newspaper articles to determine not only the fact of an applicant's good character, but also the applicant's reputation for good character.
The results of that application and that investigation are put into a report that is submitted to our commission.
We then schedule a public hearing into the application, during which witnesses are examined and cross-examined, documents are reviewed and placed into evidence, and attorneys make opening and closing statements and argue points of law.
At the end of that process, we then vote on whether the applicant has met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has the required character, honesty and integrity to hold a license.
The process is almost identical for every key casino employee who works in the New Jersey gaming industry.
They file lengthy disclosure statements.
This, by the way, is an application for a casino qualifier.
It is 60 pages long.
They submit these disclosure statements for rigorous investigation and, if necessary, undergo a full hearing before a commissioner to determine suitability.
Through this process, we can, and we have, prevented organized crime and other unsavory individuals from owning or operating a casino in Atlantic City.
But frankly we want to tell you and emphasize that we don't stop there.
We know that there are other ways for organized crime to infiltrate, influence or control the casino industry.
As a result, we subject anyone who sells a product or a service to a casino hotel to licensing requirements.
Before a vendor can sell a slot machine, a deck of cards, or a pair of dice to a casino, that company has to file a casino service industry license application.
The officers, directors and owners of that company have to be identified and investigated to determine whether the seller is qualified for license.
While the company can start selling prior to the issuance of a license, every single transaction has to be scrutinized and approved in advance by our commission.
Anyone who wants to sell nongaming products or services to a casino--soap or towels or food--also could face licensing requirements.
If a company does regular https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/white-ice-slot-machine.html continuing business, which is defined in our regulations by certain monetary thresholds, it also has to file a license application and undergo a background check.
Even if the vendor never meets that threshold, if the Division of Gaming Enforcement discovers information that the vendor is unsavory, we can order casinos not to deal with that vendor.
And I will give you one example, a wholesale seafood firm in New Jersey supplying casinos.
The Gaming Division learned that one of its sales representatives was the head of a Philadelphia-based organized crime family.
Even when the seafood firm offered to have that sales representative handle only noncasino accounts, we indicated that was not sufficient and we ordered casinos not to deal with that firm.
Through the licensing and registration of casino service industries, we have prevented organized crime and other unsavory elements from coming in the back door to influence casino operations.
Let me move quickly to a second prong of our system.
That is the oversight and control of casino operations.
Regulations on internal and accounting controls, gaming equipment, and on the operation of the games ensure effective control and fair gaming for the public.
Every casino operates under a strict set of regulations and internal controls that spell out in great detail how gaming operations are to be conducted.
The rules of the games are detailed in our regulations, as is the basic organizational structure for the casino.
In addition, the casinos operate under the strict security of our inspectors who are on duty in those casinos around the clock.
Every slot machine that an operator wants to use must be tested and approved in advance.
Testing is done by the Division of Gaming Enforcement in a specialized electronic games laboratory in Atlantic City.
The Gaming Division makes certain not only that the machine pays back at least the minimum 83 percent, as required by law, but it pays back precisely what the manufacturer says the program is designed to pay back.
Once a slot machine program is approved, the computer chip containing the game is placed in the machine and sealed by click here Gaming Division.
Cards are inspected when a game opens and cannot be used for more than a single day.
Dice are checked when the crap table opens to make sure they are perfectly square and balanced.
They, too, are only used for a single day.
Roulette wheels are tested to make certain they are balanced and true.
There are specific procedures that casinos must follow to make certain all cards are in the deck and to reduce the possibility of cheating and collusion.
All of this is done, very frankly, with a system of people watching people watching people.
The actions of a dealer are watched by a floor person.
Both of them are watched by a pit boss.
Shift managers watch the pit bosses.
And then there is an elaborate surveillance system that can monitor activities at every table and every slot machine, as well as anything that goes on in the count rooms or in the cashier's cage.
Our inspectors are on-site watching, as well as plain- clothes agents of the Division of Gaming Enforcement regularly are in those casinos.
Both king of coin slot machine inspectors and the Gaming Division also have complete access to the surveillance system from our own offices.
Under every slot machine is a compartment where the winnings fall, but to open that compartment there are two locks and the casino only has a key to one of them.
We have the other one.
The same with the drop boxes; two keys are needed to open them.
That means our inspector must be present when cash is collected from the slots and the tables.
The money is counted in secure count rooms.
Once again, to get into the count room you need to open two locks.
We control one, the casino controls the other.
Our inspector is physically present when all of the currency is counted and when slot machine picture denominations are counted.
The counts are videotaped.
The soft count where paper money is counted is even audiotaped.
In either case, our inspector has to verify the count before the money can leave the room.
This procedure allows us to verify the amount of the casino's tax liabilities.
We also require casinos to prevent underage persons from gambling.
Every year, casinos escort more than 30,000 underage persons from casinos.
Generally, fewer than 500 have actually been found gambling, but casinos know that we take this issue very seriously.
If they fail to keep underage https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/working-lego-slot-machine.html from the casino or from gambling, they are subject to complaints and we have imposed significant fines against them.
The list of controls goes on, and I know our time is limited, but it is difficult to adequately explain in words how this system works.
Chairman, I would like to invite you and the rest of your committee to visit Atlantic City and to see firsthand the protections that I have described today.
I hope, though, that I have given you a flavor of the kinds of protections that are needed to ensure that the games are fairly run, and by honest people who cannot be manipulated.
From what we know about Internet gambling right now, I do not believe the same kind of protections are in place or they ever could be put in place.
The lengthy procedure of background checks on employees, inspection of machines, oversight of operations, simply cannot be ensured through Internet gambling.
Without them, I cannot see how anyone can have any level of confidence in article source fairness of the games or the likelihood of receiving their winnings.
Thank you very much.
That is a very helpful statement.
Chairman, Senators, I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the regulation of casino gambling.
My name is James Hurley and I am Chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission.
I realize the topic for this sub-committee hearing is internet gambling and one of the issues is whether internet gambling can be effectively regulated.
What I would like to do is to describe our system of controlling casino gambling and suggest that absent a strict licensing and regulatory system there is no way to ensure the integrity of operators or games.
New Jersey developed a strict, comprehensive regulatory system back in 1977 which was designed to ensure the suppression of organized crime and that the casinos pay taxes on all money they win.
We believe that it has worked very effectively to ensure not only that casinos are owned and operated by people of good character, honesty and integrity, but also that the public has confidence that the games are honestly run, fair and that their winning wagers will be paid.
To accomplish this level of public confidence, New Jersey implemented a licensing system that requires every owner, officer and director of a casino--as well as many of the officers, directors and owners of any holding or intermediary company--to file an extensive license application.
They had to disclose detailed information about any criminal record, business affairs, civil litigation, at least five years of personal tax returns and voluminous additional information.
Applications for a casino operating license generally fill several large file transfer boxes.
A copy of that application is forwarded to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which then conducts a full investigation into the applicant and its qualifiers.
The gaming division looks at criminal histories, bank records, civil litigation, tax returns, SEC filings and anything else that it feels would be pertinent to determine whether a company or a person has the required good character, honesty and integrity.
It even looks at newspaper articles to determine not only the fact of an applicant's good character, but also the applicant's reputation for good character.
The results of that investigation are put into a report which is submitted to the Casino Control Commission.
We then schedule a public hearing into the application during which witnesses are examined and cross examined, documents are reviewed and placed into evidence and attorneys make opening and closing statements and argue points of law.
At the end of that process, we then vote on whether the applicant has met its burden to walmart slot machines by clear and convincing evidence that it has the required good character, honesty and integrity to hold a sorry, mini slot machine bank excited />The process is almost identical for every casino employee and casino key employee who works in New Jersey's gaming industry.
They file lengthy disclosure forms, submit to is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio investigations and, if necessary, undergo a full hearing before a commissioner to determine suitability.
Through this process, we can, and have, prevented organized crime and other unsavory individuals from owning or operating a casino in Atlantic City.
But we don't stop there.
We know that there are other ways for organized crime to infiltrate, influence or control the casino industry.
As a result, we subject anyone who sells a product or a service to a casino hotel to licensing requirements.
Before a vendor can sell a slot machine, a deck of cards or a pair of dice to a casino, the company has to file a casino service industry license application.
The officers, directors and owners of the company have to be identified and investigated to determine whether the sellers qualify for a license.
While the company can start selling prior to the issuance of a license, every single transaction has to be scrutinized and approved, in advance, by our commission.
Anyone who wants to sell non-gaming products or services to a casino--widgets, perhaps--also could face licensing requirements.
And even if the vendor never meets that threshold, if the Division of Gaming Enforcement discovers information that the vendor is unsavory, we can order casinos not to deal with that vendor.
Let me give you an example of a wholesale seafood firm in New Jersey that was supplying casinos.
The gaming division learned that one of the sales representatives was the head of the Philadelphia-based organized crime family.
Even when the seafood firm offered to have that sales representatives handle only non-casino accounts, we indicated that was not sufficient and we ordered casinos not to deal with the firm.
Let me now move on to second prong of our system--oversight and control of casino operations.
Regulations on internal and accounting controls, gaming equipment and on the operation of the games ensure effective control and fair gaming for the public.
Every casino operates under a strict set of regulations and internal controls that spell out with great detail how gaming operations are to be conducted.
The rules of the games are detailed in our regulations as is the basic organizational structure for the casino.
In addition, the casinos operate under the constant scrutiny of our inspectors who are on duty in every casino around the clock.
Every slot machine that an operator wants to use must be tested and approved in advance.
Testing is done by the Division of Gaming Enforcement in a specialized electronic games laboratory in Atlantic City.
The gaming division makes certain not only that the machine pays back at least the minimum 83 percent as required by law, but that it pays back precisely what the manufacturer says the program is designed to pay back.
Once a slot machine program is approved, the computer chip containing the game is placed in the machine and sealed by the gaming division.
Cards are inspected when a table opens and they cannot be used for more than a single day.
Dice are checked when a craps table opens to make sure they are perfectly square and balanced.
They too are only used for a single day.
Roulette wheels are tested to make certain that they are balanced and true.
There are specific procedures that casinos must follow to make certain all cards are in a deck and to reduce the possibility of cheating and collusion.
All of this is done with a system of people, watching people, watching people.
The actions of a dealer are watched just click for source a floorperson and both of them are watched by a pit boss.
Shift managers watch the pit bosses and then there is an elaborate surveillance system that can monitor activities at every table and every slot machine as well as everything that goes on in count rooms or the cashier's cage, Our inspectors are on-site watching as well and plainclothes agents of the Division of Gaming Enforcement regularly are in the casinos.
Both our inspectors and the gaming division also have complete access to the surveillance system from our own offices.
Under every slot machine is a compartment where the winnings fall.
But to open the compartment, there are two locks and the casino only has the key to one of them.
We have the other one.
The same with the drop boxes attached to the gaming tables--two keys are needed to open them.
That means that our inspector must be present when the cash is collected from slots and tables.
The money is counted in secure count rooms.
Once again, to get into the count room, you need to open two locks--we control one and the casino controls the other.
Our inspector is physically present when all of the currency is counted and when high denominations are counted.
In either case, our inspector has to verify the count before the money can leave the room.
This procedure allows us to verify the amount of the casino's tax liability.
We also require casinos prevent underage persons from gambling.
Every year, casinos escort more than 30,000 underage persons from casinos.
Generally, fewer than 500 are actually found gambling, but casinos know that we take this issue very seriously.
If they fail to keep underage persons from gambling, casinos are subject to complaints and we have imposed significant fines against them.
The list of controls goes on and I know our time is limited.
It is difficult to adequately explain in mere words how these systems work.
I would like to invite you, Mr.
Chairman, and the rest of the committee to visit Atlantic City to see first hand the protections we have in place.
I hope, though, that I have given you a flavor of the kinds of protections that need to be in place to ensure that games are run fairly and by honest people and that they can't be manipulated.
From what we know about Internet gambling right now, I do not believe the same kind of protections are in place or if they ever could be put in place.
Without them, I cannot see how anyone could have any level of confidence in the fairness of the games or the likelihood of receiving their winnings.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Let's begin the questioning with Senator Feinstein.
Well, let me thank all of the witnesses.
I think your testimony was excellent and right on point.
Let me ask the attorneys general this question.
Some Indian tribes have argued that they should be exempted completely from this legislation.
What do you think of that?
Well, we very much oppose such an exemption.
The National Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for a system of compacts between the States and the tribes.
Wisconsin was one of the first States to enter into compacts with tribes.
We are now on our second generation of compacts.
The first have expired; we are on the second.
We have a process in place of negotiating them and of assuring that gambling takes place is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio the terms of those compacts.
To exempt the tribe would mean that a tribe, as occurred several years ago in Idaho, would claim that they have a right to conduct gambling operations in the State of Wisconsin even though they have never compacted with our State.
So I think that Indian gaming, as it goes on, should go on consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which means that if it is going to take place in Wisconsin, it should only take place pursuant to a compact between the State of Wisconsin and a particular tribe.
Thank you very much.
Montgomery, do you have anything to add to that?
Chairman, Senator Feinstein, no.
I agree entirely with General Doyle.
Thank you very much.
I wanted you just for a moment, if you would--and perhaps, Mr.
Doyle, because you mentioned it in your remarks, you would expand somewhat on the wire communication facility of section 1084, title 18, and why this is not sufficient to make Internet gambling illegal.
Well, the concern there is--and I believe, Senator, you mentioned it--is that it was intended to deal with telephone and telegraph.
And the antecedents of this Act go back to the laws that kept bookies from making book over telegraph wires, and as communications now expand, microwave and other nonwire means of communication, the definition section simply is not adequate to keep up with the change in technology.
Thank you very much.
One last question on technical feasibility.
We are going to hear about blocking access to gambling web sites.
Do you believe this could be effective in controlling the problem?
Senator Feinstein, I think one thing we have all learned in terms of regulation is that as quickly as we do that, there will be another way around it.
Obviously, as a former prosecutor and legislator, and now attorney general, I would like to work on doing some effective regulation, as you have suggested.
But on the other hand, it will be only one tool and we will have to have a combination of approaches in order to effectively address Internet gambling.
Senator Feinstein, if I might add to that, we have looked at that same issue with respect to the distribution of child pornography.
Technically, at least the people who work for me on this say that as much as that effort is going on, it is not feasible at this time.
Maybe it will be at some point in the future, but it certainly is not feasible now.
Chairman, I would like to ask, if you have people, Mr.
Doyle, that are working on this, perhaps they can elaborate somewhat in writing on that answer because I think this is going to be one of the objections that we constantly get.
And I would like to have as detailed an answer to that as I possibly could.
We would be happy to, Senator.
Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Those are excellent points to bring out.
I might say for those who had some familiarity with our legislation last year that the enforcement mechanism is essentially the same, but there is some additional leeway provided to the service providers and others who would be asked to assist in the enforcement.
The primary method of enforcement here is to disconnect the service of the illegal Internet web site, and to the extent more info the providers and switching companies and phone companies and others felt this would constitute a burden upon them, something which we really did not intend, we have worked with them to develop language which will be in our bill that makes it clear that when the court finds probable cause to believe that there is an illegal site the provider will be asked to pull the plug on that site.
If it can't be done technically or if it is economically not doable, then they would be excused from that liability.
We are not asking them to monitor it, in other words.
Action would be precipitated by law enforcement and they would only be required to do that which they can economically and feasibly and technically do, which I think is fair.
I mean, they would then be assisting in law enforcement, but not at any burden on themselves.
While it might not be perfect and it might not end up putting anybody in jail, at least it would in most cases, we think, prevent the continued transmission of this illegal activity into the United States.
So that is the idea anyway, and any technical information that you can provide to us that would help us in that regard would be very, very much appreciated.
Senator DeWine, would you like to go next?
Chairman, thank you very much.
I would like to explore with Attorney General Montgomery and the other members of the panel an issue that has been of concern to me and that is the whole issue of fantasy sports, fantasy baseball.
This read more something that a number of people in Ohio are involved in, and I have worked with Senator Kyl over the last several months on this legislation.
In Ohio, there are a lot of individuals, Attorney General Montgomery, who avidly play these games and I would like maybe your comments about this, whether or not you think these are games of skill and not gambling and what the impact is on Ohio law.
They get in a league; they do it themselves for their own amusement or 10 of them get together, and your friends get together and you pick your own--let's say you pick your own baseball team at the beginning of the season and you select who the players are.
My concern has been that we make sure that whatever we do here does not impact on that type of activity that is enjoyed by an awful lot of our constituents.
Do you have any comments on that?
And I would be interested in any other comments from any other members of the panel.
Senator, we are well aware of the fantasy sports process on the Internet, and frankly we do not see it as being a violation of Ohio law at this point.
As you know, we regulate games of chance versus games of skill.
In this instance, because of the access into fantasy sports--it is an administrative fee; there is an application of intelligence and skill--we have not viewed that as a gambling violation.
We would not oppose an exemption that I know exists in the Kyl bill to allow that to happen.
My understanding at this point is it is in the bill and we would be supportive of that exemption.
Any other panel members want to comment on it?
NAAG has done a survey of some of the States and I think there is some disagreement among the States about whether these are legal or illegal.
NAAG's position has been to support the exemption as long as the fee that is being paid--as I understand, the exemption is essentially one that covers the administrative cost of running this operation; that it would be exempt from the Federal legislation.
It may run afoul of some Is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio laws, but that is for the States to decide.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you, and I might add we have worked with the fantasy sports folks and in our next panel we will click the following article some additional testimony on that which I hope will be helpful.
I think we had some 300 sites.
The number of sites has been increasing.
The last number I heard was 260, and it had gone up from 60.
So it is really climbing rapidly.
It is hard to keep track of the number of new sites coming up, so I appreciate that.
I wanted to ask each of you to comment on a recent article from the BNA publication, Bureau of National Affairs publication story on the gambling commission recommendations which I think are due out in June.
According to written testimony provided to the committee March 18 by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, adolescents comprise the largest proportion of pathological gamblers in the country.
According to statistics compiled by the Council's Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of Pathological Gambling, as many as 1.
Each of you testified in one way or another to the difficulty of knowing who is gambling, of verifying the people that are placing the bets, and in the case of the comparison with the highly regulated States systems, the inability to enforce any particular provisions.
Since one of the people that I cited in my opening statement called the Internet the crack cocaine of gambling for adolescents, could you speak to the question in terms of public policy of all three of the States that you represent--two from the standpoint of attorneys general and one from the standpoint of an official knowledgeable about the effects of gambling when it is not done properly and highly regulated?
Let me start with you, Mr.
Even in a highly regulated system like ours, it is impossible to identify compulsive gamblers.
What New Jersey's attempt has been is to make available machine slot mayan wheel people through whatever agencies or through their own recognition of a problem to get help for these people.
But I just want to tell you that we think it is very difficult to identify these people.
And we are there, our people are there, the Division of Gaming Enforcement is there, and the casino themselves make a claim that they are constantly watching for for classic slot machine android amusing with gambling problems.
And so we have no idea how you could in any way know who a compulsive gambler was through the Internet.
Chairman, Senators, it goes without saying that in each of our respective States we as legislators, regulators, enforcers believe strongly that the public welfare has to make certain rational assumptions.
We in the public field look at regulating, whether it is driving, whether it is smoking tobacco, or in this instance whether it is gambling, particularly with great attention toward our youth, the general assumption being that you as policymakers, we are policymakers or enforcers, understand that the younger the person involved, under the age of 18 particularly, the less likely there may be a connect between kiwame slot machine and consequence.
And it is absolutely critical, it seems to me, in the public policy arena that we make those kinds of assumptions based on our own experience and our own understanding of the effects of regulation on kids.
And I would sit here having worked on at least two antigambling campaigns statewide with now Senator Voinovich putting a plea out to the policymakers that, in fact, if there is a rational basis at all in the public welfare arena, it is in making these assumptions that there are some who need to be protected.
And this policy that you have put into legislation is critical for us to help protect those who, either by age or predilection, have not protected themselves.
Senator, I agree with all that was said, and there are two further points that come to mind about it.
One of them that we deal with with kids and the Internet is the fact that the kids are frequently much more adept at it than the parents, so that even if there are parents in the home, the parents may not know what their child is doing.
We deal in this issue in consumer protection on the Internet.
We deal with it with pornography, sex predators that travel on the Internet, and gambling, where a child can be sitting in his or her room with a home computer traveling to places that their parents just downstairs in the kitchen have no idea that they are going to.
So the concern about children I think is particularly acute with this.
The second point I would like to emphasize is something that you recognized before, Senator, and that is why it is important to act now.
It was important to have acted a couple of years ago because the addictive nature of these games we have yet to really see hit the United States.
The computers aren't fast enough, the modems aren't fast enough, the way to exchange value is not yet fast enough.
But we are all moving in the direction in which the highly addictive video games--we have talked a lot about sports betting here because given the speed of the Internet, that is sort of what has been taking up most of the volume.
But within a number of years, most people look at this and say that every home computer will be an Atlantic City-style video game sitting on your desk at is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio, in which the lemons are spinning around, in which the cherries are coming up, in which the bells are ringing.
Those are the addictive games; those are the really addictive games.
And they are going to be able to be played in your home without anybody else around, without any of the other social interaction that is going on.
So we have yet to see the real addictive nature of this activity reaching right into our homes, but we are right on the verge of it.
And as the Internet gets faster and more powerful, that is what we are going to see.
That is why when you started this a number of years ago it was said we have got to do this now before it really hits, and our window of opportunity is closing all the time.
Thank you for making those two additional points.
Senator Feinstein, any other questions of this panel?
I want to thank this panel very much.
You have been very helpful.
And again, General Doyle, for all that you have done, and your staff, I appreciate it very much.
Thank you very much.
We will go right into our next panel.
I would like to call to the table the three witnesses for panel two.
We have three more experts now to give us a little different perspective.
The first is Mr.
Jeff Pash, executive vice president of the National Football League, in New York; Bill Saum, who is the director of agent and gambling activities of the NCAA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, in Overland Park, KS; and Ms.
Marianne McGettigan, counsel for the National Baseball Players Association, Portland, ME.
We welcome all three of you to the hearing this morning, and again I won't use the lights.
I would like to ask you to try to keep your testimony to about 5 minutes and that will give us plenty of time for questions.
Let's start with you, Mr.
PANEL CONSISTING OF JEFFREY PASH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NEW YORK, NY; BILL SAUM, DIRECTOR OF AGENT AND GAMBLING ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, OVERLAND PARK, KS; AND MARIANNE McGETTIGAN, COUNSEL, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, ME STATEMENT OF JEFFREY PASH Mr.
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here to express our strong support for this legislation.
I had the pleasure, Mr.
Chairman, of testifying before you in 1997 in support of the bill that passed the Senate last year, and we continue strongly to support it.
I should note as a personal matter that as someone who grew up in Phoenix and then in Fresno, I am particularly pleased to testify before you and Senator Feinstein.
And I want to commend you, Mr.
Chairman, and your staff for your leadership on this issue, and thank you for all of the time you have spent and your hard work in bringing this bill forward.
In our judgment, sports and gambling do not mix, and I think that slot machine goldilocks this most fundamental point there can be no disagreement.
Sports gambling threatens the integrity of our games and the values that our games represent, and particularly that is true for young people.
And for this reason, the NFL and all sports organizations have established strict policies relating to gambling and have actively supported Federal efforts to combat sports gambling.
We strongly supported slot machine e videopoker passage of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 which halted the spread of sports gambling in this country.
And the legislation that we are discussing today is a logical and fully appropriate extension of a long, long line of Federal policy with respect to sports gambling.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is necessary because as the State attorneys general testified just a few moments ago, no single State or collection of States can adequately address this problem themselves.
Gambling businesses around the country and around the world have turned to the Internet in what is a clear attempt to circumvent existing prohibitions on gambling and to complicate the efforts of Federal and State law enforcement.
This bill will strengthen existing law and bring it into line with new technologies, and that is something that the Congress has repeatedly expressed its concern about in the past.
Eight years ago, for example, in the context of the PASPA legislation, the Judiciary Committee noted the growth of new technologies that facilitate gambling, and the concerns over the use of those new technologies as a way of expanding gambling was an important reason that underlies the passage of that law.
In 1991, those new technologies did not include the Internet, at least not on a widespread basis.
But with its arrival and with its growth, it is fully appropriate for the Congress to act again to have law keep pace with technology.
As other witnesses have discussed, Internet gambling is successful largely because it is both unregulated and requires so little effort to participate.
Unlike traditional casinos, where one is required to travel to the casino and where significant restrictions and protections exist, Internet gambling allows bettors access to wagering opportunities on sports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
It is quick and easy and anonymous, but as we have heard already today, not painless.
The gambling sites, as we have seen, have been designed to resemble video games and are especially attractive to children.
And sports betting, which is, of course, our principal concern, is an enticing lure to the online bettor.
Studies have shown that sports betting is a growing problem for high school and college students, who may develop serious addictions to other forms of gambling as a result of being introduced to sports wagering.
Moreover, the recent sports betting and point-shaving scandals on college campuses, from Arizona State to Northwestern to Boston College, provide compelling evidence of the vulnerability of young people to the temptations of gambling.
And they demonstrate in as clear a way as possible how sports gambling breeds corruption, how it undermines the integrity of the athletics that are being out on the football field or the basketball court, and how they undermine the values that organized college and professional athletics are supposed to represent.
As the Internet reaches more and more college students and school children, the rate of gambling among young people is certain to rise unless we use this opportunity to address the problem early and effectively.
Just as Congress enacted the Wire Act to prohibit the use of the telephone as an instrument of gambling, it should now adopt specific legislation to prohibit the use of the Internet for that purpose.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, through its injunctive relief provisions which are based on existing law and have been carefully reviewed with Internet service providers, would provide an effective mechanism for terminating or blocking access to gambling sites.
In our view, Mr.
Chairman, such a mechanism is essential and we believe your bill provides it.
I listened with interest to General Doyle's remarks concerning the technical feasibility of such a step, and I would note that I have been advised that it is feasible to have such a blocking mechanism, that it would not be a technical problem.
And I will certainly ask that our people be in touch with subcommittee staff to address that problem and that matter in more detail.
Left unchecked, we know that Internet gambling will continue to expand exponentially, and so will the pernicious effects.
Just as Congress has intervened on numerous occasions to address sports gambling, most recently in 1992, we urge it to do so again today.
Chairman, we appreciate your efforts and your leadership in this respect, and again we strongly support the passage of this bill.
Thank you for that excellent statement and for your continuing strong support.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Jeffrey Pash.
I am the Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of the Just click for source Football League, I testified before you in 1997 in support of your prior bill on this matter and am again pleased to appear before you today to express the NFL's strong support for the Internet gambling Prohibition Act of 1999.
We strongly support this bill because it would strengthen and extend existing prohibitions on Internet gambling, including gambling on sports events, and provide enhanced enforcement tools tailored to the unique issues presented by Internet gambling.
We join the State Attorneys General who testified earlier and other sports organizations in urging adoption of this important legislation.
The NFL's policy on these issues has been consistent for decades.
Simply, put, gambling and sports do not mix.
Sports gambling threatens the integrity of our games and all the values our games represent-- especially to young people.
For this reason, the NFL has established strict policies relative to gambling in general and sports betting in particular.
The League prohibits NFL club owners, coaches, https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/mystic-ball-slot-machine.html and anyone else connected with the NFL from gambling on NFL games or associating in any way with persons involved in gambling.
Anyone who does so faces train machine penny slot disciplinary action by the Commissioner, including lifetime suspension.
We have posted our anti-gambling rules in every stadium locker room and have shared those rules with every player and every other individual associated with the NFL.
The League has also sought to limit references to sports betting or gambling that in any way are connected to our games.
For example, we have informed the major television networks that we regard sports gambling commercials and the dissemination of wagering information as inappropriate and unacceptable during football game telecasts.
NFL teams may not accept advertising from gambling establishments.
Commissioner Tagliabue reemphasized this January that gambling and participation in the NFL are incompatible.
A The League also has been an active proponent of federal efforts to combat sports gambling.
We strongly supported the passage of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 28 U.
This 1992 legislation, known as PASPA, halted the spread of sports gambling by prohibiting states from enacting new legislation legalizing sports betting.
The League also worked to promote the passage of the Chairman's Internet gambling legislation in the last Congress.
Like PASPA, the proposed legislation is a logical and appropriate extension of existing federal law and policy.
The precedents for federal action in this area were well canvassed by the full Judiciary Committee in its report accompanying the 1992 legislation S.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 is a necessary and appropriate federal response to a growing problem that, as the State Attorneys General have testified, no single state can adequately address on an individual basis.
Ten years ago, a bookmaker might have used the telephone to call his customers.
Today, he simply logs on.
Gambling businesses around the country--and around the world--have turned to the Internet in an obvious attempt to circumvent the existing prohibitions on gambling contained in Title 28 and PASPA.
Many offshore gambling businesses provide betting opportunities over the Internet, in a clear effort to avoid or complicate an effective federal and state law enforcement.
The bill is needed because it strengthens existing law to facilitate the enforcement of gambling prohibitions in the face of new technology.
But now the Internet is a significant source of gambling activity, and it is appropriate for Congress--as it has done in the past--to ensure that law keeps pace with technology.
The problem of Internet gambling is significant--and growing.
Internet gambling is successful both because it is currently uncontrolled and because so little effort is required to participate.
Unlike traditional casinos, which require gamblers to travel to the casino and place their bets on-site, Internet gambling allows bettors access to on-line wagering facilities twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week.
Gamblers can avoid the difficulty and expense of traveling to a casino, which in many parts of the country requires out-of-state travel.
Internet gamblers also can avoid the stigma that may be attached to gambling in public on a regular basis.
Indeed, Internet gambling threatens to erode the stigma of gambling generally, including sports gambling.
Internet gambling sites are easily accessible and offer a wide range of gambling opportunities from all over the world.
Any personal computer can be turned into an unregulated casino where Americans can lose their life savings with the mere click of a mouse.
Many of these gambling web sites have been designed to resemble video games, and therefore are especially attractive to children.
But gambling--even on the Internet--is not a game.
Recent sports betting and point-shaving scandals on college campuses from Arizona State to Northwestern University to Boston College provide further evidence of the vulnerability of young people to the temptations of gambling.
They also demonstrate how sports gambling breeds corruption and undermines the values of teamwork, preparation and sportsmanship that our game represents.
As the Internet reaches more and more college students and schoolchildren, the rate of Internet gambling among young people is certain to rise.
Because no one currently stands between Internet casinos and their gamblers to check identification, our children will have the ability to gamble on the family computer after school, or even in the schools themselves.
And we must not be lulled by the paper tiger set up by proponents of Internet gambling--that children cannot access gambling web sites because they lack credit cards.
The problem connected with Internet gambling transcend the NFL's concern about protecting the integrity of professional sports and the values they represent.
According to experts on complusive or addictive gambling, access to internet sports wagering dramatically increases the risk that people will become active, pathological gamblers.
The National Council on Problem Gambling has reported that sports betting is among the most popular forms of gambling for compulsive gamblers in the United States.
That means that once individuals become exposed to sports betting, they may develop a real problem with recurrent and uncontrollable gambling.
Conducting a gambling business using the Internet is illegal under the Wire Act 18 U.
But as the prosecutors in that case plainly recognized, asserting jurisdiction over offshore gambling businesses that use the Internet can be problematic.
More significantly, the Wire Act does not include direct mechanisms for ensuring termination by Internet service providers of access to online gambling sites.
Just as Congress enacted the Wire Act to huge slot machine jackpot video the use of the telephone as an instrument of gambling, so Congress should now enact specific legislation to prohibit the use of the Internet as an instrument of gambling.
And just as the Wire Act provides a mechanism for bringing about the termination by telephone companies of service to gambling businesses, so the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999, through its injunctive relief provisions, would provide an effective mechanism for bringing about the termination by Internet service providers of access to gambling sites.
In our view, Mr.
Chairman, providing such a mechanism for ensuring that Internet service providers will terminate access to such sites is critical to any legislation to combat Internet gambling.
In supporting the PASPA legislation to prevent the spread of legalized betting, Commissioner Tagliabue testified: Sports gambling threatens the character of team sports.
Our games embody the very finest traditions and values.
They stand for clean, healthy competition.
They stand for teamwork.
And they stand for success through preparation and honest effort.
With legalized sports gambling, our games instead will come to represent the fast buck, the quick fix, the desire to get something for nothing.
The spread of legalized sports gambling would change forever--and for the worse--what our games stand for the way they are perceived.
Left unchecked, Internet gambling amounts to legalized gambling.
Its effects on the integrity of professional and amateur sports and the values they represent are just as pernicious.
Just as Congress intervened to stem the spread of legalized sports gambling in 1992, so it must intervene to stem the spread of Internet gambling today.
Chairman, we applaud your efforts and the efforts of your staff to address this important problem.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 will strengthen the tools available to federal and state law enforcement authorities to prevent the spread of Internet gambling into every home, office and schoolhouse in this country, and will send the vital message--to children and adults alike--that gambling on the Internet is wrong.
We strongly support the passage of your bill.
STATEMENT OF BILL SAUM Mr.
Chairman and Senator Feinstein, I am pleased to appear before you today to express the National Collegiate Athletic Association's support for the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999.
The NCAA is a nonprofit association of approximately 1,150 colleges, universities, athletic conferences and related organizations devoted to the regulation and promotion of intercollegiate athletics for over 300,000 student-athletes.
As the NCAA's Director of Gambling and Agent Activities, I am responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program to address gambling issues.
My duties range from developing educational materials for NCAA members and student-athletes on sports gambling topics to conducting investigations related to violations of NCAA rules in this area.
The NCAA opposes all forms of sports gambling because of its potential to undermine the integrity of sports contests, while jeopardizing the welfare of the student-athlete and the intercollegiate athletics community.
Despite Federal and State laws that prohibit sports gambling in 47 States, this activity remains a growing problem on college campuses.
I have witnessed firsthand the negative impact that sports gambling has on the lives of college student-athletes.
Within the last year, the public has learned of point- shaving scandals on the campuses of Arizona State and Northwestern University.
The impact of these cases must not be minimized.
Several of the student-athletes involved were indicted and sentenced to serve time in Federal prison.
Coaches and teammates were betrayed and the two schools involved have seen their excellent reputations tarnished.
It is clear that sports gambling is not a victimless crime.
While there are no comprehensive studies available that analyze the prevalence of sports gambling or gambling in general on college campuses, the preliminary evidence reveals an alarming trend.
A 1998 study conducted by the University of Michigan surveyed 3,000 NCAA female and male student-athletes.
The research revealed that 35 percent of the student-athletes have gambled on sports while in college.
Over 5 percent of the male student-athletes wagered on a game in which they participated, provided inside information for gambling purposes, or accepted money for attempting to perform poorly in a contest.
Furthermore, according to Dr.
Shaffer, Director of Harvard University Medical School's Division on Addiction, research shows that more youth are introduced to gambling in general through sports betting than through any other type of gambling activity.
The high incidence of gambling on college campuses is not just limited to student-athletes; it extends to the general student body.
A growing consensus of research reveals that the rates of pathological and problem gambling among college students are higher than any other segment of the population.
As you can see, there is reason to be concerned about the impact of gambling on today's youth.
It should not surprise anyone that the growth of Internet gambling presents a whole new list of potential dangers on our college campuses.
Internet gambling provides college students with the opportunity to place wagers on professional and college sporting events from the privacy of their campus residence.
Internet gambling offers students virtual anonymity.
With nothing more than a credit card, the possibility exists for a student-athlete to place a wager via the Internet and then attempt to influence the outcome of the contest while participating on the court or playing field.
But the very real potential for point-shaving instances is not the only troubling aspect of Internet gambling.
If left unchecked, the growth of Internet gambling may be fueled further by college students.
After all, who else has greater access to the Internet?
Many college students have unlimited use of the Internet, and most residence halls are wired for Internet access.
Furthermore, college students now have the means to place their wagers over the Internet.
College campuses are being buried with representatives from credit card companies offering free gifts to students in return for filling out credit card applications.
Another concern for the NCAA and college administrators is that despite confusion among students regarding the legality of Internet gambling, nearly every State has laws that prohibit sports gambling.
In my position with the NCAA, I continue to receive questions from students and administrators who received unsolicited E-mails from Internet sports sites.
This practice has become so troublesome that legislation has been recently introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature aimed at protecting youth from the onslaught of unsolicited gambling advertisements via the Internet.
My message to our student-athletes who receive these E- mails is simple.
Not only would your participation in this activity result in a violation of an NCAA rule, but you would likely be furthering the commission of a State crime.
It is especially difficult for students to understand that not everything found on the Internet is legal.
The best way of addressing Internet gambling in this country is for Congress to pass Federal legislation providing for a blanket prohibition of this activity in the United States.
Senator Kyl's bill adopts this approach.
While 18 offshore Internet gambling operators were recently charged with violating Section 1084 of Title 18 of the United States Code, existing Federal law still needs to be updated.
Section 1084 click enacted in 1961 and targeted sports betting via telephone.
Senator Kyl's bill recognizes that the Internet is quickly moving to a link environment and will soon move beyond what is covered under section 1084.
In addition, the criminal penalties found in Senator Kyl's bill will serve as a strong and much-needed deterrent.
The NCAA recognizes that there is no perfect legislative solution in addressing the issue of Internet gambling.
However, Internet gambling is still in its infancy.
As the number of online sports betting sites continue to grow abroad, it is essential that the United States send a clear message that there is no longer any uncertainty.
With the passage of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, it will be a violation of Federal law to accept bets over the Internet from the United States.
A Federal prohibition will send a clear and powerful message to an Internet gambling industry that is still in the early stages of development.
The NCAA strongly endorses the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 and urges members of this subcommittee to move quickly in adopting this legislation.
Saum, thank you very much.
We were just commenting, excellent presentations by everyone, and yours representing amateur athletics is very, very important.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to appear before you today to express the National Collegiate Athletic Association's NCAA support for The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Kyl.
The NCAA is a nonprofit association of approximately 1,150 colleges, universities, athletics conferences and related organizations devoted to the regulation and promotion of intercollegiate athletics for over 300,000 student-athletics.
As the NCAA's director of gambling and agent activities, I am responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program addressing gambling issues.
My duties range from developing educational materials for NCAA members and student-athletes on sports gambling topics to conducting investigations related to violations of NCAA rules in this area.
The NCAA opposes all forms of sports gambling because of its potential to undermine the integrity of sports contests while jeopardizing the welfare of the student-athlete and the intercollegiate athletics community.
Despite federal and state laws that prohibit sports gambling in 47 states, this activity remains a growing problem on college campuses.
I have witnessed, firsthand, the negative impact that sports gambling has on the lives of college student-athletes.
Within the last year, the public has learned of point shaving scandals on the campuses of Arizona State University and Northwestern University.
The impact of these cases must not be minimized.
Several of the student-athletes involved were indicted and sentenced to serve time in federal prisons.
Coaches and teammates were betrayed and the two schools involved have seen their excellent reputations tarnished.
It is clear that sports gambling is not a victimless crime.
While there are no comprehensive studies available that analyze the prevalence of sports gambling or gambling in general on college campuses, the preliminary evidence reveals an alarming trend.
A 1998 study conducted by the University of Michigan surveyed 3,000 NCAA male and female student-athletes.
The research revealed that 35 percent of student-athletes gambled on sports while attending college.
Over 5 percent of male student-athletes wagered on a game in which they participated, provided inside information for gambling purposes, or accepted money for performing poorly in a contest.
Furthermore, according to Dr.
Howard Shaffer, director of Harvard University Medical School's Division on Addiction, research shows that more youth are introduced to gambling through sports betting than through any other type of gambling activity.
The high incidence of gambling on college campuses is not just limited to student-athletes, it extends to the general student body.
A growing consensus of research reveals that the rates of pathological and problem gambling among college students are higher than any other segment of the population.
As you can see, there is reason to be concerned about the impact of gambling on today's youth.
It should not surprise anyone that the growth of Internet gambling presents a whole new list of potential dangers on college campuses.
Internet gambling provides college students with the opportunity to place wagers on professional and college sporting events from the privacy of their campus residence.
Internet gambling offers students virtual anonymity.
With nothing more than a credit card, the possibility exists for any student-athlete to place a wager via the Internet and then attempt to influence the outcome of the contest while participating on the court or playing field.
But the very real potential for point shaving incidents is not the only troubling aspect of Internet gambling.
If left unchecked, the growth of Internet gambling may be fueled further by college students.
After all, who else has greater access to the Internet?
Many college students have unlimited use of the Internet and most residence halls are wired for Internet access.
Furthermore, college students now have the means to place wagers over the Internet.
College campuses are being deluged with representatives from credit card companies offering free gifts to students in return for filling out credit card applications.
A recent Nellie Mae survey revealed that 65 percent of undergraduate students have credit cards, 20 percent have four or more cards.
Another concern for the NCAA and college administrators is that despite confusion among students regarding the legality of Internet gambling, nearly every state has laws that prohibit sports gambling.
In my position with the NCAA, I continue to receive questions from students and administrators who receive unsolicited e-mails from Internet sports book sites.
This practice has become so troublesome that legislation has been recently introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature aimes at protecting youth from the onslaught of unsolicited gambling advertisements via the Internet.
My message to student- athletes who receive these e-mails is simple--not only would your participation in this activity result in a serious NCAA rules violation but you would likely be furthering the commission of a state crime.
It is especially difficult monopoly slot machines in students to understand that not everything found on the Internet is legal.
The best way of addressing Internet gambling in this country is for Congress to pass federal legislation providing for a blanket prohibition of this activity in the United States.
Senator Kyl's bill adopts this approach.
While 18 off-shore Internet gambling operators were recently charged with violating section 1084 of Title 18 of the U.
Section 1084 was enacted in 1961 and was targeted at sports betting over telephone lines.
Senator Kyl's bill recognizes that the Internet is quickly moving to a wireless environment and will soon move beyond that which is covered under section 1084.
In addition, the criminal penalties found in Senator Kyl's bill will serve as a strong and much needed deterrent.
more info NCAA recognizes that there is no perfect legislative solution in addressing the issue of Internet gambling.
However, Internet gambling is still in its infancy.
As the number more info on-line sports betting sites continues to grow abroad, it is essential that the United States send a clear message that there is no longer any uncertainty-- with the passage of The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act it will be a violation of federal law to accept bets over the Internet from the United States.
A federal prohibition will send a clear and powerful message to an Internet gambling industry that is still in the early stages of development.
The NCAA strongly endorses The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 and urges members of this Subcommittee to move quickly in adopting click the following article legislation.
Marianne McGettigan, counsel--well, I will let you go ahead and introduce yourself in your statement.
Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF MARIANNE McGETTIGAN Ms.
Chairman, Senator Feinstein, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the Major League Baseball Players Association.
I do have a complete statement and I would ask that it be included in the record in full.
All of the statements will be included, and thank you for summarizing.
I am here today to express why it is that the Players Association no longer has any objection to the passage of the Kyl bill.
I am glad to be here in this capacity and not---- Senator Kyl.
I am glad you are here in that capacity.
For the reasons set forth in my testimony, we have no objection to Senator Kyl's most recent draft bill.
This change in our position is based on our understanding that, first, this new language applies the sanctions of the bill only to those involved in the business of gambling and not to individual participants.
Second, fantasy sports games and contests that are currently legal in a State will continue to be legal both as a matter of State law and as a matter of Federal law.
And, third, to state it another way, because this will be a Federal law, this proposal nonetheless is not intended to make unlawful under Federal law activities that are currently lawful under the law of certain States.
In other words, it retains the status quo.
I would also say that if that is a correct understanding, we are confident that the National Football League Players Association and the National Hockey League Players Association will join us in removing our previous objections to the legislation.
Before I briefly state our underpinnings for our objections to the previous bills and the changes in the new proposal that appear to cure those objections, I would like to pose three questions for the record that stem from our reading of the new proposal, and I would hope that at some point in the legislative history there would be some attempt to address these questions, even if just briefly.
In other words, if the legality of a sports game or contest is determined on a State-by-State basis, we hope that it is not the case that if a fantasy sports game is illegal in only one State, it is therefore illegal under this bill in all other States.
We trust that is not the construction that was intended by this phrase.
Second, does the bill require the conclusion that a certain fantasy sports game may be a violation of Federal law in one State where it violates State law, but not a violation of Federal law in another State?
In other words, the very same game could be a violation of Federal law in Wisconsin, but not a violation of Federal law in Iowa.
That leads to the conclusion that what is the Federal violation is that you have violated State law, not that it is any particular construction of a game.
And, third, is the refusal of the sponsor to permit a participant to claim a prize if the participation is undertaken in a State in which a fantasy game is illegal sufficient to protect the sponsor from prosecution under this law?
We trust that the answer to that is yes, and that is partially the basis for the removal of our objections.
Unless anyone has any questions about why we are interested, I will simply state for the record we have two interests.
One is that we do license these fantasy sports sites because they are using the identities of players, and we do get some licensing revenue from that activities.
But in the course of all the licensing activity we do, it is a very small amount and that is not the principal concern we have with regard to fantasy sports.
Our concern is that these participants represent our most avid fans.
They follow the sports page everyday.
They are interested in players, whatever team they may be on, and we would hate to see anything that would dampen their enthusiasm for the game.
As a former assistant attorney general for now Senator Gorton, former Attorney General Gorton, I am very understanding of the position of the attorneys general in terms of enforcement.
And I must say that one of the problems I have had with this all along is I viewed the Internet gambling issue as one of a broader class, and that is consumer protection on the Internet.
I think the attorneys general will be coming back at some point saying that they have the same type of problem enforcing their laws in regard to things such as false advertising or ordering groceries on the Net and paying for them with your credit card and then not getting the groceries, or ordering a camera or a computer and not getting the product, or having a problem with the product and not having a warranty that is alleged to be there honored, et cetera.
So I think this is merely a subset of what will be a greater problem, and I think it is worth noting that the reason for this is unlike anything we have ever had in the past.
Those who are lawyers in the room remember from first year civil procedure the notion of doing business within a State.
Jurisdiction of a State was premised on whether or not the merchant made a purposeful decision to go and do business in a State.
As opposed to what we used to big bad wolf slot machines, it is no longer the merchant that decides to do business in the State; it is the consumer who decides whether the merchant will do business in the State.
The consumer, via the Internet, pulls the merchant into a State even if the merchant does not intend to be there.
And that is one of the problems you have with enforcement.
It is not enough for the merchant to say, I don't want to do business in Wisconsin.
If a person in Wisconsin attaches their modem and gets online, they are doing business in Wisconsin whether they want to or not, and that is one of the enforcement problems that will occur.
One of the ways that we think we have been helpful in that with regard to fantasy sports is before these fantasy sports games lawfully can use the likenesses of players and the names of players and their statistics, they must be licensed by the Association.
Just like what you heard from New Jersey about what is done in terms of making sure that these are appropriate vendors, we do the same with sites.
We make sure that they are reputable sites before we allow them a license to use the likenesses of the players.
If people are playing fantasy games and they understand that, they will avoid sites that do not have the license of the Players Association visible on the page.
And they will be assured that if it is visible that they will have certain consumer protections afforded them or that license will be revoked.
And the final thing I wanted to say is that all along, as a matter of public policy, our concern has been why would Congress want to regulate fantasy sports.
I heard this quote alleged to have been made by the chairman, and I don't want to---- Senator Kyl.
The quotation is correct, although it didn't have specific reference to fantasy sports.
Click the mouse, bet the house.
I stole that from somebody else and forgot who, but it was a great sound bite.
I thought it was an excellent way of summarizing our first concern, and that is that we see two prongs to public policy in this regard.
One is that you don't want the participant playing any game on the Net to potentially lose the house.
And I suggest that given the small amounts involved in fantasy sports, I made the comment facetiously in my testimony noting that I thought it was a very good quote that in our case it is click the mouse, bet a lunch.
It is that degree.
It is not that anyone can ever get online and lose all this money from simply playing fantasy sports.
The second is that there is no threat to the integrity of the game, and I think Mr.
Pash would agree with me on this.
We agree with the NFL and the other leagues.
We do not support gambling that in any way threatens the integrity of professional sports.
But we do not think that fantasy sports threatens the integrity of those games.
There is no incentive for anyone to attempt to change the outcome of any one game, the performance of any one player.
Conversely, there is no incentive for anyone to change their performance over a season or in any particular game.
So we don't think there is really any public policy that should be of concern to Congress.
In conclusion, we appreciate the Senators' willingness to work with us and to listen to our concerns and respond to them.
We think that it has been done, assuming the answers that we think are known to those three questions are correct, and we would be willing to work with the chairman and members of the subcommittee and the full committee in any way possible in the future.
Thank you very much.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Marianne McGettigan.
I represent the Major League Baseball Players Association MLBPA.
I am here today to address the affect of Senator Kyl's proposed legislation to prohibit Internet gambling on what is commonly referred to as fantasy or rotisserie sports leagues.
For reasons I will explain below, unlike the case with previous proposals, the Major League Baseball Players Association has no objection to Senator Kyl's most recent draft bill dealing with Internet gambling.
The proposal retains the status quo.
The following testimony, and our support for this proposal, is premised on this understanding.
And, if this understanding is correct, we are confident that the National Football Players Association and the National Hockey League Players Association will join us in removing our previous objections to Senator Kyl's legislation.
The MLBPA understands the concerns of Congress with respect to the growth of gambling on the Internet and the frustration of the state attorneys general in attempting to enforce state law when the Internet is involved.
The Internet is a truly remarkable medium and we all have much to learn about how best to use it as well as what social ills it may foster.
But in attempting to address what some states believe to be a problem, i.
Both were overly broad and criminalized conduct that should not be criminalized, including fantasy sports leagues, and in the case of S.
The Players Association opposed both those bills, at least in the form they were introduced, because the bills threatened the existence of many fantasy baseball games or contests on the Internet.
The interest of the Association in fantasy or rotisserie baseball is twofold.
First, we currently license eight providers and are in negotiations with others.
Although the licensing revenue generated by these games is appreciated, it is only a very modest part of our licensing program and not our principal concern with this legislation.
Rather, our second and primary concern is that a prohibition of otherwise lawful fantasy baseball games would be a disservice to many of baseball's most avid fans.
We encourage the devotion of these fans to the game and would hate to see that interest threatened, particularly when we see no countervailing public purpose being served.
As most sports fans know, fantasy sports leagues are not a commercial invention but are instead the product of the ingenuity of fans.
Long before the Internet, these fans chose to test their baseball managerial skills by putting together an otherwise nonexistent team, one that played no games, but was nonetheless comprised of active players at least on paper.
The fan would manage this team over the course of a season and have a simulated, but nonetheless somewhat realistic, means by which to measure his or her managerial skill against the others in the fantasy league and template slot machine big league managers.
Because of the need for ongoing and timely statistical analysis, the onerous job of daily and weekly number crunching was routinely rotated among the players in a read more />Soon web sites began offering to do number crunching for a modest fee, promising greater accuracy, a greater range of information, and also providing the opportunity for individuals who might want to play, but who are not in a position to be part of a league, to join with other individuals through the unique ability of the Internet to link people together from all different locations.
In other words, whereas before the Internet, my fantasy sports league might be comprised only of my friends who work inside the beltway, my Internet fantasy sports league may link me with friends from Montana, Canada and the UK, or, if I had no one to play with, the Internet would link me with enough other interested fans formerly unknown to me to form a league.
If that were all the Internet web site sponsors slot made out of cardboard, however, there would be no need for me to be here today, for all that would be involved would be https://chakefashion.com/slot-machine/queens-day-tilt-slot-machine.html purchase of statistical and communications services on the Internet.
What has triggered the casting of the gambling net over this harmless hobby of fantasy sports leagues is the provision of a prize by some of these web sites for the participant demonstrating the most skill over the course of the sports season.
The willingness on the part of some individuals and public officials to subject fantasy sports leagues to the same prohibition as on-line casino gambling is, we believe, misplaced.
The rationale for prohibiting this hobby has never been explained to us in terms of any principle of public policy that would be served by doing so.
To date, the only explanation offered has been that some are willing to label this activity gambling without further review and to conclude that if it is gambling it must be banned.
But labels, without more, are not an acceptable basis for making public policy.
The first is the need to protect those who cannot, or will not, protect themselves from risking more than money, or other valuables than they can afford to, the so-called problem or pathological gamblers.
While it is true that playing in a fantasy league takes a considerable investment, it is not one of money, but of time and interest.
Over the course of a season the actual monetary investment is de minimis.
The Chairman has been quoted, accurately or not, on this aspect of public policy.
First, no bet is made in fantasy sports.
Rather, consideration is rendered for the statistical services and analysis provided by the sponsoring web site and any prize awarded is done so on the basis of skill, not chance.
Hardly a danger of the kind or magnitude that has prompted the Subcommittee's review.
The second legitimate governmental concern is to protect the integrity of the game or contest itself.
But, because of the structure of fantasy sports leagues, no individual baseball player's performance or team's performance can ever be influenced by the existence of a fantasy sports league.
There is absolutely no incentive for any participant to attempt to influence the outcome of a game, or a baseball player's performance.
If these principles of public policy are reviewed in the context of fantasy or rotisserie sports leagues I believe the Is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio will agree with the Players Association that fantasy or rotisserie sports leagues are not within the scope of activity that ought to concern the government.
After reviewing the proposal of Senator Kyl for introduction in the 106th Congress, it appears that the Senator has reached the same conclusion.
In particular, the borderless nature of the Internet has created significant jurisdictional problems for the state attorneys general.
The Major League Baseball Players Association does not condone gambling.
Sports gambling is a threat to the very sport that employs our members.
Whereas legal concepts involving commerce have always been based on a choice by the merchant of the geographical locations in which to conduct business, that premise is no longer a valid one when the Internet is involved.
The customer now controls where business is conducted and the challenge to the merchant is to identify those customers it chooses not to do business with notwithstanding the mobility of computer and the fact that anywhere there is a phone line there is a potential violation of a state law.
First, the Association does not consider participation in watch dogs slot machine available not baseball leagues to be gambling.
Some prior bills have cast a net of prohibition too broadly and have, in fact, made illegal some currently legal activity for no apparent public policy reason.
For that reason, we have been greatly troubled by the language in prior bills which we thought created a chilling effect on what are today legal Internet fantasy sports leagues in many states in order to assist certain other states in prohibiting online gambling by individuals within their borders.
We saw no public policy being served by purposefully, or inadvertently, prohibiting such leagues where they are currently permitted.
Indeed, we see no public policy being served by the prohibition of such leagues in those states that currently prohibit fantasy sports leagues.
As stated above, participation in fantasy sports leagues neither threatens the fiscal well-being of the participant nor the integrity of any player of the sport or the outcome of any game or series of games.
What, therefore, is the good that is served in prohibiting them?
We have reviewed Senator Kyl's proposed bill for introduction in this Congress.
Unlike prior bills, it has been written so as to remove the vagueness and doubt about its application to fantasy sports leagues on the Internet.
It neither legalizes games or contests that may be considered to be illegal under the law of some states, nor does it criminalize fantasy games or contests that are otherwise legal.
In other words, it appears to preserve the status quo.
It creates no omnibus federal law prohibiting fantasy sports leagues, but provides necessary enforcement tools for state attorneys general to enforce the public policy of their states with respect to activities that would otherwise be within their jurisdiction in the normal course, but for this new technology.
That is how it should be.
The Internet should not be a safe haven for otherwise unlawful activity.
Neither should the use of the Internet alone, make illegal otherwise lawful activity.
Based on this reading of Senator Kyl's bill, we have no objection to the legislation and will not oppose it.
Having said that, it would be inappropriate for the Association to comment on the other aspects of the bill that may continue to be disputed.
But with respect to the interests of the Association, article source prior objections have been addressed.
We neither seek nor suggest that any gambling prohibited by current law should be permitted because of the use of the Internet.
Although the MLBPA does not believe that participation in fantasy sports leagues--over the Internet or otherwise--constitutes gambling, we understand the resolve and authority of state attorneys general to enforce the laws of their states.
Nonetheless we will continue to oppose any effort to criminalize what is currently legal activity in other states.
Senator Kyl's most recent legislative proposal both recognizes our position and clearly addresses it.
It preserves the status quo.
It neither legalizes activity on the Internet that would be illegal under state law, nor does it make illegal otherwise legal conduct under state law simply because Internet is the medium used.
Moreover, because it applies only to those in the business of gambling it would relieve our fans of the threat of prosecution.
This is a very significant point.
And, those businesses providing services to our fans, although not in the business of gambling as far as we are concerned, can nonetheless protect themselves, as many already do, by prohibiting participants from being eligible for a prize in those states which consider such games to be illegal gambling.
If we understand this construction correctly, we have no objection to this legislation and support it insofar as it protects the integrity of the game of baseball and the performances of baseball players, while preserving the rights of fans to continue a popular hobby in these states which now permit it.
We greatly appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to our concerns and address them in his current proposal and thank him for the opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the testimony of all three of you.
Gambling Finds a Home on the Web.
I think the story says 2.
So it seems to me that this is a very contemporary problem.
It is not one that is hypothetical.
It is very real and it is the reason for our attempt to ensure that what Congress decided back in 1961 when it passed the Wire and Telephone Act is still good policy today in the year 1999, but needs to be brought duel dragon slot machine to date because of the fact that it is now fiber optic cable and microwave transmission that are largely accounting for the transmission of this data.
First of all, I think we can answer the questions, Ms.
McGettigan, for the record.
Obviously, for example, it is certainly the case that you would have to have prize consideration and chance for gambling.
Well, if there is no prize, then there can't be gambling.
At least that is the way I look at it, and that is the way I think any State attorney general would look at it.
Clearly, if it is illegal in a State and there is no prize offered, then I see absolutely no reason why anyone would contend that it is gambling.
But we will make sure we are in accord with respect to all three, but your understanding is correct as far as I am concerned that we are not attempting to make illegal by this legislation fantasy sports activity that would be legal in States.
And so I am pleased that previous opposition has been removed, and would also like to insert into the record a couple read article that we have.
And there will be others that we will get as well from other entities read article have expressed support.
On March 23, the Commercial Internet Exchange Association, including US West, America Online, and U.
Telephone Association, expressed their appreciation for the approach that we have taken to working with them to resolve the issues that they had.
And based on that experience, they are confident that the remaining service provider liability issues will be resolved.
Those are the issues that I referred to earlier with respect to the obligations that we would place on those entities to assist in enforcement of storm machine big windows law, obligations which we in no way want to inhibit them either economically or technically.
John Kyl, Chair, Subcommittee on Technology and Terrorism, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: We are unable to testify at the March 23rd Subcommittee hearing on your Internet gambling bill.
We write, however, to express our appreciation for the cooperative, open approach that you and your staff have taken to revising the service provider liability portions of the bill.
We received the latest draft of your new bill today, and appreciate in the context of this particular issue the basic approach it takes to service provider liability related to illegal Internet gambling.
The technological and practical issues related to the role of service providers in Internet communications are complex, and we very much appreciate the time and effort that you and your staff have already devoted to listening to our concerns and working with us on them.
We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with you and your staff on several refinements before the bill moves forward to Subcommittee mark-up.
Based upon our experience working on the bill thus far this year, we are confident that these remaining service provider liability issues will be resolved in a form that merits Senate passage.
Sincerely, Commercial Internet eXchange Association, United States Telephone Association, America Online, USWest.
Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is Ralph Sims.
I am pleased to appear before you to testify on behalf of the Commercial Internet eXchange Association CIXwhich includes over 150 members, as well as the Oregon Internet Service Providers Association and the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers, collectively representing 100 independent Internet service providers serving approximately one million users.
I am Director of Research and Development for WinStar Broadband Services and have been a provider of Internet services since 1987.
I would like to take a few moments today to offer some information about the difficulties and realities involved in attempting to prevent illegal gambling traffic on the Internet.
The associations of which I am a member in no way condone illegal Internet gambling.
Their member companies, who are primarily small businesses, take action against customers whom they learn are using their services for such activities.
However, there are clearly defined limits to what service providers can do in this regard.
For your information, I attach a memorandum that provides additional detail concerning the technological limitations I will discuss today.
It is not possible to block illegal traffic Many more info have the mistaken impression that Internet service providers, or ISPs, act as a traffic officer that can easily block or otherwise control information travelling to or across their networks.
They imagine that problems of illegal content on the Internet could be resolved if ISPs assumed the role of traffic cop.
This could not be further from the truth.
Unless content is stationary and publicly displayed on an ISP's network for example on a web sitethe ISP has virtually this web page ability to control it.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Internet is highly flexible and dynamic.
The various computers on the Internet--whether the one that hosts the National Gambling Impact Study Commission's web site, the supercomputers at research facilities, or your laptop--are all assigned numerical addresses when they access the Internet.
These numerical addresses are issued to an organization such as an ISP for use by those using its services.
While the machines that make the Internet function can handle these numbers quite effectively, people can't.
For instance, a computer's IP address may be 152.
It can be compared to an open global telephone book in which anyone can make changes to any entry with minimal effort and without knowledge from the organizations tasked with maintaining the entries.
Furthermore, a single Internet domain can map to a large number of IP addresses.
For example, in reality, www.
Similarly, a single IP address may map to a large number of Internet domain names.
While a gambling site may be located at one Internet address one day, it can be at another on the next.
Simply, put, sites--legal or otherwise--move.
And they can move quickly--often within minutes.
To use the telephone book analogy further, it's as though you could change your telephone number repeatedly in a single day without the permission, or even the knowledge, of your local telephone company, and the telephone network would automatically send calls to these changing phone numbers so that your friends could continue to reach you.
The techniques to do this are readily available today as commercial products from IBM, F5 Labs, Cisco Systems, and others.
They are used by reputable companies to provide extremely high reliability and redundancy in the event access to a particular Internet address--either its IP address or its domain name--is interrupted or severed.
For example, IBM's product came out of its method used to keep the web sites of the Atlanta Olympics highly accessible during times of severe network congestion and overload.
An illegal gambling site would have no difficulty obtaining and implementing these techniques to evade blocking attempts by Internet service providers.
These techniques--and there are many of them--make it impossible for Internet service providers to block sites effectively.
As soon as the blocked site moves to another Internet address, the original filter is no longer useful.
Furthermore, an ISP's blocking efforts would work only for its network.
Thus, if an Internet service provider's blocking efforts could somehow overcome these obstacles, they would be effective only on that service provider's network.
Unless all ISPs in the United States took the same steps, millions of others users would still have access to the illegal site.
Blocking efforts impose unjustifiable costs on lawful users and ISPs Although blocking is ineffective against sites such as illegal gambling sites that expect to be the targets of blocking efforts, it can impose significant costs on lawful users of the network, as well as on Internet providers who might be asked to implement blocks.
First, blocking efforts can prevent users from obtaining access to unsuspecting legitimate sites that share the same IP address or Internet domain with an illegal, blocked site.
For example, if one AOL user decided to run an illegal NCAA pool from his personal home page, and all other Internet providers were ordered to block that address, the home pages of nearly a million innocent AOL users would likely also be blocked.
Second, blocking efforts slow down a network for all users.
The more blocks an ISP must put in place, the slower the ISP's network.
Every time an Internet user requests access to a site, the network must cross-check that site request against the blocked site list.
As you can imagine, it would not take very long before the blocked site list gets quite large trying to keep up with the shifting list of addresses that illegal gambling sites will use.
Soon, valuable time will be lost on each site selection to process the cross-check--without any assurance that the blocking effort will even be effective.
In extreme cases, a very long list of sites to block could cause network failure.
As a growing number of users are coming to rely upon the Internet for important business communications--even for telemedicine and other uses connected with human safety--it is very is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio to justify reducing the performance of the network in order to engage in the futile task of attempting to block illegal sites.
Finally, programming computers on an ISP's network to implement and update blocks--not to mention the difficult and costly exercise of trying to figure out which Internet domains and IP addresses illegal gambling sites are using--is expensive and time-consuming.
These sorts of costs are ordinarily borne by law enforcement, not by commandeering the resources of innocent private parties.
It is not possible to prevent third parties from posting such illegal content in the first place.
There are a great number of fora on the Internet--including web sites, chatrooms, and newsgroups--where millions of users are able to post material of their choice without editing by the service provider.
The only way to stop such postings is almost always to close down these fora completely.
For example, AOL alone has tens of thousands of chatrooms and provides its customers with the opportunity to create their own web sites.
There are over 6,000 ISPs in this country, most of whom are small businesses who compete in a highly competitive market by providing low- cost service with lean staffing.
These providers have neither the staff nor the resources to monitor posting that others have made to their computer servers.
However, when ISPs are notified by law enforcement that illegal gambling content has been posted on their servers and of the location of that content, they stand ready to act to remove the content from their servers.
Where the illegal content was posted by an ISP's subscriber who turns out to be operating a gambling business, the ISP also can terminate the account of this illegal business.
This approach can ensure that illegal gambling content is promptly and effectively removed at its source.
At a minimum, it should make possible the removal of illegal gambling content from all computer servers in the United States.
Chairman and members of the Commission, Internet service providers are willing to play a constructive role in helping law enforcement address illegal gambling activity.
Many ISPs already work with law enforcement and government agencies to prevent other illegal activities over the Internet.
However, it is impossible for our industry to stop illegal Internet gambling traffic for the reasons I have outlined.
We could not comply with legislation that required a technical solution to prevent illegal gambling, or other illegal activities, on the Internet.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this dilemma further, and to respond to any questions you may have.
Jon Kyl, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: The American Horse Council AHC is pleased to support your Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999.
The AHC includes the major associations of race tracks, breeders groups and horsemen's organizations, which collectively comprise the pari-mutuel horse racing and breeding industry in the U.
We commend you for both your initiative in proposing the legislation to address the important social issues presented by Internet gambling and for your willingness to work with the horse industry in addressing our concerns regarding regulation in this area.
The proposed legislation addresses the use of interactive technology with respect to live horse racing in a manner see more we believe will advance the goals of the legislation, while taking into account the unique structure of regulation to which our industry is, and has long been, subject to under both State and federal law, particularly the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 15 U.
On behalf of the AHC, which represents all segments of this industry, we pledge to support your bill in its present form in its entirety and are committed to working for its enactment in both houses without any material change.
I would like to ask Senator Feinstein if she would like to begin the questioning.
Well, believe it or not, Mr.
Chairman, I have no questions, but really just a comment.
I think you are to be commended on this bill.
I think this hearing is about as good as it gets in terms of revealing a very substantive block of support for the legislation.
McGettigan, I think your comments were particularly helpful today because you indicated that one kind of outstanding area had been settled, and that was the fantasy sports area.
I think now having the attorneys general, the National Football League, the NCAA, the NFL--I think all of that indicates that there is a very strong bulwark of support.
I think one of the puzzling things to me has been that you can pass something through the U.

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

Ownership of slot machines, used or otherwise, is illegal in those states.. These states include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. The other states have specific guidelines based on the age of the machine.


Enjoy!
Ohio Gambling Laws | Gambling Law US
Valid for casinos
Legal-Age Gambling Opportunities and Restrictions - Pathological Gambling - NCBI Bookshelf
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Up until the 2010s, legal gambling options in Ohio were limited to pari-mutuel horse race betting legalized in 1933lottery games 1974and bingo 1975.
Construction of Vegas-style casinos was authorized in 2009, when both the lawmakers and the voters realized that Ohio gamblers were spending their money in,and.
Three years later, Ohio racetracks were allowed to install VLTs.
Participating in unlawful gambling as a player is usually classified as a minor misdemeanor.
Most gambling-related matters are covered by Ohio Revised Code, section 2915.
The minimum gambling age is 18 for horse racing, bingo, and lottery games and 21 for casino-style games.
A All promises, agreements, notes, bills, bonds, or other contracts, mortgages, or other securities, when the whole or part of the consideration thereof is for money or other valuable thing won or lost, laid, staked, or betted at or upon a game of any kind, or upon a horse race or cockfights, sport or pastime, or on a wager, or for the repayment of money lent or advanced at the time of a game, play, or wager, for the purpose of being laid, betted, staked, or wagered, are void.
Money lost at games may be recovered; exceptions.
If a person, by playing a game, or by a wager, loses to another, money or other thing of value, and pays or delivers it or a part thereof, to the winner thereof, such person losing and paying or delivering, within six months after such loss and payment or delivery, may sue for and recover such money or thing of value or part thereof, from the winner thereof, with costs of suit.
Neither this section nor section 3763.
Suit by third party.
If a person losing money or thing of value, as provided in section 3763.
A person, liable under sections 3763.
Upon discovery and repayment of the money or other thing, the person discovering and repaying it, with costs, shall be acquitted and discharged from further punishment, penalty, or forfeiture, for winning such money or thing discovered and repaid.
Recovery of losses in lotteries.
A person who expends money or thing of value or incurs an obligation for the purchase of or to procure a lottery or policy ticket, hazard, or chance, or an interest therein, in or on account of lottery, policy, scheme of here, game of faro, pool or combination, keno, or scheme of gambling, or a person dependent for support upon or entitled to the earnings of such person, or a citizen for the use of the person so interested, may sue for and recover from the person receiving such money, thing of value, or obligation, the amount thereof, with exemplary damages, which shall not be less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, and may join as defendants in such suit all persons having an interest in such lottery, policy, or scheme of chance, or the possible profits thereof, as backers, vendors, owners, or continue reading />Chapter 2915 contains the Penal Code provisions on Gambling.
Under the chapter, all forms of gambling and activities in aid of it are illegal if carried on as a business, or for personal profit, or as a significant source of income or livelihood.
Otherwise, no form of gambling is illegal.
Gambling in public is prohibited to avoid enforcement problems, and this represents a partial exception to the general rule in the chapter.
Cheating as such was not an offense under former law, but is an offense under Chapter 2915.
For penalty purposes, cheaters are treated much the same as thieves under new section 2913.
The one or more winners of the raffle are determined by drawing a ticket stub or other detachable section from a receptacle containing ticket stubs or detachable sections corresponding to all tickets sold for the raffle.
A player may punch or draw the numbered slips of paper from the holes or receptacles and obtain the prize established for the game if the number drawn corresponds to a winning number or, if the punch board includes the use of a seal card, a potential winning number.
A card for the purchase of gasoline is a redeemable voucher for purposes of division UU 1 of this section even if the skill-based amusement machine for the play of which the card is awarded is located at a place where gasoline may not be legally distributed to the public or the card is not redeemable at the location of, or at the time of playing, the skill-based amusement machine.
An individual utilizing a machine that involves a single game, play, contest, competition, or tournament may be awarded redeemable vouchers or merchandise prizes based on the results of play.
The cost of the contest, competition, or tournament participation may be greater than a single noncontest, competition, or tournament play.
A device is a sweepstakes terminal device if any of the following apply: a The device uses a simulated game terminal as a representation of the prizes associated with the results of the sweepstakes entries.
A No person shall do any of the following: 1 Engage in bookmaking, or knowingly engage in conduct that facilitates bookmaking; 2 Establish, promote, or operate or knowingly engage in conduct that facilitates any game of chance conducted for profit or any scheme of chance; 3 Knowingly procure, transmit, exchange, or engage in conduct that facilitates the procurement, transmission, or exchange of information for use in establishing odds or determining winners in connection with bookmaking or with any game of chance conducted for profit or any scheme of chance; 4 Engage in betting or in playing any scheme or game of chance as a substantial source of income or livelihood; 5 Conduct, or participate in the conduct of, a sweepstakes with the use of a sweepstakes terminal device at a is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio terminal device facility and either: a Give to another person any item described in division VV 123or 4 of section 2915.
Redeemable vouchers shall not be redeemable for a merchandise prize that has a wholesale value of more than ten dollars.
B For purposes of division A 1 of this section, a person facilitates bookmaking if the person in any way knowingly aids an illegal bookmaking operation, including, without limitation, placing a bet with a person engaged in or facilitating illegal bookmaking.
For purposes of division A 2 of this section, a person facilitates a game of chance conducted for profit or a scheme of chance if the person in any way knowingly aids in the conduct or operation of any such game or scheme, including, without limitation, playing any such game or scheme.
C This section does not prohibit conduct in connection with gambling expressly permitted by law.
D This section does not apply to any of the following: 1 Games of chance, if all of click here following apply: a The games of chance are not craps for money or roulette for money.
No person shall receive any commission, wage, salary, reward, tip, read more, gratuity, or other form of compensation, directly or indirectly, for operating or assisting in the operation of any game of chance.
E Division D of this section shall not be construed to authorize the sale, lease, or other temporary or permanent transfer of the right to conduct games of chance, as granted by that division, by any charitable organization learn more here is granted that right.
F Any person desiring to conduct, or participate in the conduct of, a sweepstakes with the use of a sweepstakes terminal device at a sweepstakes terminal device facility shall first register with the office of the attorney general and obtain an annual certificate of registration by providing a filing fee of two hundred dollars and all information as required by rule adopted under division H of this section.
Not later than the tenth day of each month, each sweepstakes terminal device operator shall file a sweepstakes terminal device monthly report with the attorney general and provide a filing fee of fifty dollars and all information required by rule adopted under division H of this section.
All information provided to the attorney general under this division shall be available to law enforcement upon request.
G A person may apply to the attorney general, on a form prescribed by the attorney general, for a certificate of compliance that the person is not operating a sweepstakes terminal device facility.
The form shall require the person to include the address of the business location where sweepstakes terminal devices will be used and to make the following certifications: 1 That the person will not use more than two sweepstakes terminal devices at the business location; 2 That the retail value of sweepstakes prizes to be awarded at the business location using sweepstakes terminal devices during a reporting period will be less than three per cent of the gross revenue received at the business location during the reporting period; 3 That no other click here of gaming except lottery ticket sales as authorized under Chapter 3770.
The filing fee for a certificate of compliance is two hundred fifty dollars.
The attorney general may charge up to an additional two hundred fifty dollars for reasonable expenses resulting from any investigation related to an application for a certificate of compliance.
A certificate of compliance is effective for one year.
The certificate holder may reapply for a certificate of compliance.
A person issued a certificate of compliance shall file semiannual reports with the attorney general stating the number of sweepstakes terminal devices at the business location and that the retail value of prizes awarded at the business location using sweepstakes terminal devices is less than three per cent of the gross revenue received at the business location.
H The attorney general shall adopt rules setting forth: 1 The required information to be submitted by persons conducting a sweepstakes with the use of a sweepstakes terminal device at a sweepstakes terminal device facility as described in division F of this section; and 2 The requirements pertaining to a certificate of compliance under division G of this section, which shall provide for a person to file a consolidated application and a consolidated semiannual report if a person has more than one business location.
The attorney general shall issue a certificate of registration or a certificate of compliance to all persons who have successfully satisfied the applicable requirements of this section.
The attorney general shall post online a registry of all properly registered and certified sweepstakes terminal device operators.
I The attorney general may refuse to issue an annual certificate of registration or certificate of compliance to any person or, if one has been issued, the attorney general may revoke a certificate of registration or a certificate of compliance if the applicant has provided any information to the attorney general as part of a registration, certification, monthly report, semiannual report, or any other information that is materially false or misleading, or if the applicant or any officer, partner, or owner of five per cent or more interest in the applicant has violated any provision of this chapter.
J The attorney general may take any necessary and reasonable action to determine a violation of this chapter, including requesting documents and information, performing inspections of premises, or requiring the attendance of any person at an examination under oath.
K Whoever violates this section is guilty of gambling, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
If the offender previously has been convicted of any gambling offense, gambling is a felony of the fifth degree.
Notwithstanding this division, failing to file a sweepstakes terminal device monthly report as required by division F of this section is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio the semiannual report required by division G of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
A No person, while at a hotel, restaurant, tavern, store, arena, hall, or other place of public accommodation, business, amusement, or resort shall make a bet or play any game of chance or scheme of chance.
B No person, being the owner or lessee, or having custody, control, or supervision, of a hotel, restaurant, tavern, store, arena, hall, or other place of public accommodation, business, amusement, or resort shall recklessly permit those premises to be used or occupied in violation of division A of this section.
C Divisions A and B of this section do not prohibit conduct in connection with gambling expressly permitted by law.
D Whoever violates this section is guilty of public gaming.
Except as otherwise provided in this division, public gaming is a minor misdemeanor.
If the offender previously has been convicted of any gambling offense, public gaming is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
E Premises used or occupied in violation of division B of this section constitute a nuisance subject slot machine alice abatement under Chapter 3767.
A No person, with purpose to defraud what slot machine theme knowing that the person is facilitating a fraud, shall engage in conduct designed to corrupt the outcome of any of the following: 1 The subject of a bet; 2 A contest of knowledge, skill, or endurance that is not an athletic or sporting event; 3 A scheme or game of chance; 4 Bingo.
B No person shall knowingly do any of the following: 1 Offer, give, solicit, or accept anything of value to corrupt the outcome of an athletic or sporting event; 2 Engage in conduct designed to corrupt the outcome of an athletic or sporting event.
C 1 Whoever violates division A of this section is guilty of cheating.
Except as otherwise provided in this division, cheating is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
If the potential gain from the cheating is five hundred dollars or more or if the offender previously has been convicted of any gambling offense or of any theft offense, as defined in section 2913.
Corrupting sports is a felony of the fifth degree on a first offense and a felony of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense § 2915.
A No person, except a charitable organization that has obtained a license pursuant to section 2915.
This division does not apply to a raffle that a charitable organization conducts or advertises.
B Whoever violates this section is guilty of conducting illegal bingo, a is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio of the fourth degree.
The we publish are for informational purposes only.
We do not provide legal advice, nor are with associated with any.
Gambling laws vary and.
If you have questions is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio concerns about the legality of live or in your local jurisdiction you should contact a licensed attorney.

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

(3) A deck of cards, dice, gaming table, roulette wheel, slot machine, or other... Code and includes any firm or any other legal entity, however organized.... (5), or (6) of this section, acquire, possess, control, or operate any gambling device.


Enjoy!
Buying a slot machine - Slots - Gambling - Page 1 - Forums - Wizard of Vegas
Valid for casinos
Law You Can Use: Ohio allows skill-based amusement games | Editorials | chakefashion.com
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Marijuana Minute, 09-30-2015: Legal Weed in Ohio? Cannabis State Stores and Casino Resorts?

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Not all types of online gambling are fully legal even in states that do have more... Notable are terms such as, "Any slot machine, simulations or variation.. The State of Ohio outlaws the public playing of games of chance not ...


Enjoy!
Legal – Blue Tip Gaming
Valid for casinos
Legal – Blue Tip Gaming
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio

A67444455
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Las Vegas discussion forum - Buying a slot machine, page 1.. However, the legality of slot machine ownership is determined at the state level. In Oregon it's illegal to own. There are a lot of dealers in Ohio for some reason.


Enjoy!
Ohio Gambling Laws | Gambling Law US
Valid for casinos
Slotlike gaming machines fall in gray area of the law - News - The Columbus Dispatch - Columbus, OH
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio

G66YY644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the.... Each state in which gambling is legal has set up its own commission to regulate.


Enjoy!
Collecting Antique Slot Machines - A Budget Friendly Guide
Valid for casinos
Slotlike gaming machines fall in gray area of the law - News - The Columbus Dispatch - Columbus, OH
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio

CODE5637
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

In Ohio, legal forms include charitable gaming such as instant bingo, bingo, raffles and. Some examples of illegal forms of gambling are slot machines, dog fights,. of funds beyond state borders is what creates problems related to legality.


Enjoy!
Ohio Gambling Laws | Gambling Law US
Valid for casinos
Legal-Age Gambling Opportunities and Restrictions - Pathological Gambling - NCBI Bookshelf
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
How to Start a Slot Machine Business

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
50 xB
Max cash out:
$ 200

The terminals aren't illegal under any Ohio law, but they're not legal, either.. So the video raffles are designed to look like slot machines, even ...


Enjoy!
Ohio Casinos & Gambling Laws - USA State Casinos
Valid for casinos
The Legality of Online Gambling in the US
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
10 Tips to help you win at slot machines.

B6655644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 500

A growing trend in the United States that has reached parts of Kentucky. A version of the illegal slot machines is being operated under the guise ...


Enjoy!
Casinos in Ohio | Get Info on All Ohio Casinos from American Casino Guide
Valid for casinos
- INTERNET GAMBLING
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
My personality owned aristocrat Buffalo slot machine payback percentage info

JK644W564
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
60 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

It doesn't matter if you've been in the slot machine industry for years or you. of business you own (or plan to open) is one of the types of locations allowed to ...


Enjoy!
- INTERNET GAMBLING
Valid for casinos
New games let bar patrons cash in, but aren't considered gambling machines - The Virginian-Pilot
Visits
Dislikes
Comments
Thank you for reading!
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to continue reading.
Logan, OH 43138 Today Partly cloudy.
Winds WSW at 5 to 10 mph.
Tonight Partly cloudy skies.
Winds W at is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio to 15 mph.
Are these skill games legal?
Skill-based games have been legal in Ohio for decades.
Ohio requires that the opportunity to win a prize in amusement games must be based on the skill of the player and not on a chance event.
Answer: Is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio prizes can be awarded for successfully solving the skill game but the prizes cannot be cash, gift cards, or any equivalent, plays on games of chance such as slot machines or crapsstate lottery tickets, bingo, instant bingo, firearms, tobacco or alcoholic beverages.
There is also a limitation on the size and value of the prize.
Examples of prizes that can be awarded legally are gas cards, gold coins, gold, silver not silver coins and vouchers from stores for store monster luck machine />Question: How do skill-based amusement games differ from forms of gambling like the Ohio Lottery games, casino games or electronic games at racetracks?
Answer: Skill games are different from legal gambling operations in Ohio because currently no state sponsored agency is exclusively responsible for regulating them and allotting licenses.
A person must be issued a license from the Ohio Lottery Commission to operate lottery games such as instant lottery or the Powerball.
The Ohio Racing Commission issues licenses to persons who are engaged in gambling associated with horse racing.
Horse race tracks can also operate electronic video lottery terminals as licensed by the Ohio Lottery Commission.
Bingo licenses are regulated by the Ohio Attorney General and are granted only to charitable organizations.
It is likely that the Ohio Casino Commission will soon read article jurisdiction over skill games.
Assuming the Ohio Casino Commission receives this authority, it will issue licenses to those who wish to operate skill games.
Right now, anyone can own and operate skill-based amusement games.
Currently there are no state limitations to the location or number of games that an individual can own and operate.
The Ohio Casino Control Commission was given the authority several years ago to regulate skill games, but the Commission has yet to exercise that authority.
Ohio House bill 491, which granted additional regulatory power to the Commission, failed to pass the Ohio Senate in 2014.
The bill is expected to be reintroduced in 2015, so it is very possible that the Commission will soon be licensing skill games.
Answer: Currently only the four casinos can operate slot machines because of the voter approved change in the Ohio Constitution.
These machines are similar to the slot machines and video lottery terminals.
Although these are the only venues in which slot machines or video lottery terminals can be legally operated for profit, it is legal to possess a slot machine at your home if it is operated for amusement and not for profit.
It was prepared by Columbus attorney Kurt Gearhiser.
Law You Can Use is a weekly is it legal to own a slot machine in ohio provided to The Logan Daily News.
The views of the column do not necessarily reflect that of the newspaper.
Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
Contact Information The Logan Daily News 72 E.
Main Street Logan, OH 43138 Phone: 740-385-2107 Email:.