In an all day training session similar to that which the Nevada Gaming Commission recently had, members of the New Jersey Assembly Commerce, Tourism, Gaming and Military and Veterans Affairs Committee learned the ins and outs of internet gaming.
Chairman Joe Azzolina noted in opening remarks that this "public hearing in the assembly is a first step only. It should not be interpreted as an absolute green light for internet gambling in New Jersey. I have promised from the outset a fair and in-depth hearing. Whether our findings lead to introduced legislation remains to be seen. But, in order for us to set policy and open dialogue with the executive branch regulators, the private sector and others, we surely need education of this issue."
Presentors included: attorneys from both Nevada (Tony Cabot of Lionel Sawyer Collins) and New Jersey (Nick Cassiello of Sterns Weinroth); Mark Falcone of Bear Stearns; Canadian internet gaming software developer, Fernando DiCarlo; Sue Schneider of The River City Group and Chairman of the Interactive Gaming Council; Ed Looney of the New Jersey Council on Compulsive Gambling; J.P. Suarez of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and Chairman Jim Hurley of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission.
As expected, much of the discussion revolved around the debate of prohibition vs. regulation of the activity. Legal and technical issues were covered as well as international developments in the field.
J.P. Suarez started out his presentation by saying that he was likely the "killjoy" among the presentors. He continued by saying clearly said that any discussion of the feasibility of a regulatory model being considered in New Jersey was "premature." He offered a thorough laundry list of the obstacles to internet gambling regulation. A solid list, the items covered such areas as: fairness of the games; auditing; dispute resolution; problem gambling; screening out players from jurisdictions with prohibitions in place; confidentiality of bettors' info; money laundering; tax revenues and sanctions for those in violation of the law. He added other concerns such as the ability for an impersonating casino site to mirror a legitimate licensed site, the concern that internet gambling will not benefit the community and the possible cannibalization of the land-based gaming operations.
In a question and answer session toward the end of the day, it was clear that the legislators were trying to assimilate the wealth of information and ideas they'd been hearing all day. Assemblyman Gregg began the questioning by asking for a clarification of "e-cash" as a financial transaction option in the future. The concept of such anonymous transactions was new to some of the legislators and they found the concept a bit disturbing.
Committee members kept busy trying to determine what aspects of internet gaming they had control over and what they didn't. Speakers made distinctions about if and how the activity could be blocked via ISPs and/or through limitations on financial services to the industry. They asked questions about the legality in New Jersey of internet gaming as an activity by the gamblers. The interplay between the federal government and state law was a topic of much discussion and debate with legal clarifications abounding.
One could watch the legislators struggle with issues, first posing concepts to support one argument and then another point of view. Definitely, all options were being explored. For example, Assemblywoman Previte brought up concerns about the players who may have compulsive gambling problems and whether or not, by regulating, the state may be opening up more players to problems. She also noted that player protections may be more easily achieved through a regulatory system. The complexity of the issue was evident to this legislator who might be used to things being more black and white. She repeatedly said that she found the issues "squishy."
Carrying the mantle of the attorneys general who support an internet gambling ban, Mr. Suarez, the lead gaming regulator in New Jersey was asked by another panelist under what conditions he might consider regulation. He stated forthrightly, "Let's try prohibition first."
As the chairman noted, this is simply the beginning of a process in the state. The committee members in attendance seemed to take in all of the information in a way that showed that they seemed to have to no preconceived notions of what is the best approach for the state. But, it was clear that they realized that internet gaming was a reality in their state and that they were beginning the journey of grappling with its complex issues.