The other day the SCOTUS said that states could legalize sports wagering if they wanted to, and it appears that many are trying to get it done before the next football season starts. But the leagues, both professional and the NCAA, are seeking federal laws that would lay out a common framework (including their take) instead of having 50 different laws (and takes) to negotiate and then deal with.
I’m not sure the feds have any say in this, for one thing. There is no commerce that’s crossing state lines (unless the casino takes bets across state lines, which I’m pretty sure is still a no-no). And I find the argument that because the game is played in another state that allows the Commerce Clause to be used as justification, but I’ve been wrong about that one before.
I also find the notion that the league has any kind of proprietary intellectual property in the data, considering that it’s given out to anyone who watches the game, who reads about the game in a newspaper or online, etc.
Anyone else been following this and have any thoughts?
In the OP you said twice that you “find” things, without saying WHAT you find them. Do you mean you find them questionable? (That’s what it sounded like to me.)
I’m assuming the missing word is “absurd”, and I agree completely. The results of baseball games is a secret in the same way the shape of the average man on chatroulette’s dick is a secret - they clearly miss no opportunity to shove it in your face. Like, I don’t know how to turn off the app that puts the results of the latest Red Sox game in my facebook sidebar. :rolleyes: (Okay, I’ve just been too lazy to go looking for a way to turn it off, but the principle still applies. )
I find gambling and sports wagering distasteful but I don’t think the government should disallow it. And leaving it up to the states who want it or don’t seems like a better plan than leaving it up to the feds.
I’ve corrected the two sentences here:
And I find unconvincing the argument that because the game is played in another state that allows the Commerce Clause to be used as justification, but I’ve been wrong about that one before.
I also find the notion that the league has any kind of proprietary intellectual property in the data unconvincing, considering that it’s given out to anyone who watches the game, who reads about the game in a newspaper or online, etc.
It doesn’t matter whether the commerce crosses state lines. The Commerce Clause has been consistently interpreted to permit regulation of purely intrastate commerce since the 1940s, after SCOTUS recognized the (obvious) fact that intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce. In fact, some of the Court’s older decisions to the contrary - or at least later decisions refusing to overturn them - are widely ridiculed.
Whether or not casinos take bets across state lines directly, they are obviously going to permit people to travel from out of state to place bets.
But that’s neither here nor there. The federal government should step in on this sort of activity only when it is established that states cannot (or will not) regulate it appropriately themselves.
If a state wants sports gambling banned - including gambling across its lines - I am fine with the feds passing legislation to prohibit other states from allowing the banning state’s residents from gambling online, by phone or mail, or whatever.
However, in general I don’t think sports gambling should be banned. You are not going to prevent match fixing by banning sports gambling; one need only look at the recent spate of fixing investigations in European football to see that (gambling on sports is largely legal in Europe, but the fixing seems to have been done primarily at the behest of black market bettors in Asia). And of course we had Tim Donaghy fixing NBA games.
Nor do you actually protect the morals of The People - assuming such a thing is a proper goal of legislation - since they can go to Indian casinos, backroom poker games, or lottery ticket sellers perfectly legally.
In short, sports gambling bans are a solution in search of a problem.
Couldn’t online gambling technically be considered inter-state commerce if the servers/HQ of the gambling corporation are located in one state but the corporation takes online bets from computers anywhere in the 50 states of America - indeed, from any nation in the world?
That is a very dangerous thought because it could theoretically apply to the entire internet and that isn’t something very many people want.
I take a simpler approach. It is none of the Fed’s business and never should have been in the first place. I don’t do sports gambling myself but I can’t see how they have a dog in this race.
Hijack: Why wouldn’t they want that? If any government entity should regulate the internet it should be the federal government. I see no way that a state government could regulate the internet within its state without affecting citizens of other states, and without federal oversight there is no way to prevent a state from doing so.
There is no “technically” about it. Given the current jurisprudence around the commerce clause, there would be no barrier whatsoever for Congress to regulate sports gambling, or any other kind of gambling. If Congress wants to, they are free to do so.
No, PASPA did not make sports betting a federal crime. It made unlawful
(1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact, or
(2) a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote, pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,
a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly (through the use of geographical references or otherwise), on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are intended to participate, or on one or more performances of such athletes in such games.
Essentially, PASPA dictated to states what laws they could or could not pass. That’s why it was a violation of the 10th. If Congress stepped in and made various things a crime, etc. then that would be fine under the commerce clause. What they can’t do is direct states to allow or disallow a thing.
And in addition the majority opinion distinctly stated that Congress could make a federal gambling law if it pleased (it just couldn’t commandeer the states into doing so).
Ah, ok. Thank you very much for that excellently concise explanation.
Aye; I saw that, I just couldn’t quite figure out where the distinction was. When I was reading articles about this I had the same question I asked Bone. Thank Og I frequent a place where someone would be able to explain it.
I think that when it comes to “vices” that people choose to engage in, especially when they so choose in large numbers, that the default position should be to allow it, regulate it, and allow Uncle Sam a cut.
)