Nevada's Senate Judiciary Committee met for more than three hours this morning and much of the agenda related to AB 578, a bill that would legalize online gaming in Nevada.
More than two hours of discussion centered on the bill. Sides weighed in with proposed amendments, all of which the committee will now explore in a work session scheduled for later this week.
Advocates of regulating Internet gambling can feel good about their cause after the meeting, although there was some speculation raised by committee members regarding the initiative.
It was suggested that some prior amendments to the bill as passed by the Nevada Assembly be struck, namely the one that would have enabled operators to apply for a license just 90 days after the bill is passed. Other suggested amendments included a consideration be made for rural hotels and casinos that offer RV spaces to factor into the room-count policy. (Under the terms of the bill, only resorts would be able to gain an online gambling license, and a hotel must have 100 rooms to qualify as a resort.)
There were also some sticking points among committee members in regards to where the federal government stands on Internet gambling and some wording in the bill regarding the Gaming Control Board's role in the process.
Danny Wade, an official with MGM Mirage, told the committee that the bill must be passed for Nevada to maintain its reputation as a leader in the gaming industry.
"We believe that Nevada is the No. 1 gaming state in the Universe," he said. "We have studied this issue and feel this bill is a must in order for that status to be maintained."
There is some wording in the bill that states that the Gaming Commission has to make sure the policy is in compliance with current policy. Some members of the committee took exception to that wording, arguing that the burden should be placed on the legislature, not a commission.
Brian Sandoval, the head of the Gaming Control Board, stressed that no operator will be given a license until the federal government weighs in with its stance.
"We have to get some meeting or opinion from the Justice Department before we can unleash this to the public," he said. "We don't want to give our licensees the OK and then have them be indicted by the federal government."
But Internet gaming law expert Tony Cabot testified that recent developments in the federal courts indicate that the Federal Wire Act won't effect online casino-style gaming.
"The federal courts have said the Wire Act doesn't apply to games of chance," he said, referring to a recent decision handed down in the New Orleans Federal Courts.
Cabot echoed Wade's sentiments in pulling for the bill to be passed.
"Clearly we can adequately regulate Internet gaming," he said. "The system we have in the United States and Nevada will allow for a safe place for gamblers to go and know they are going to get paid if they win."
Cabot also pointed out that, regardless of what happens in Nevada, there will be plenty of other unregulated gaming sites on the Internet, but there is little the government of the Unites States can do about it.
"Unregulated Internet gambling will continue to exist," he said. "It is not feasible to say we can regulate what goes on in Costa Rica."
Judiciary Committee Chairman Mark James, R-8, admitted that the state needed to act, but warned that all the proper steps must be taken.
"We have to proceed with the utmost of caution," James said. "We are taking a leap of faith and I don't want to get burned on that leap of faith."
Committee member John Porter, R-1, agreed that legalizing Internet gambling shouldn't be done just for the sake of legalizing the activity.
"For the last half century we (Nevada) have driven the market," he said. "It appears now the market is driving us. This needs to be a policy of Nevada, not the industry."
Porter acknowledged that the Internet is a fast-moving and growing sector.
"It is like dog years, two years are like 14 years," he said. I would hate to see us rush to judgment."
The majority of the amendments were minor and none changed the main goal of the bill.
The committee now takes the measures under consideration in work sessions; a final version of the bill is expected to be hashed out within two weeks. It's believed that the bill will go before the full Nevada Senate by the end of the month.