Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has caught a lot of heat lately because of his recently proposed bill that would bring in land-based casino gambling to Massachusetts while outlawing online casinos gambling. Not long after Patrick proposed the bill, the Poker Player’s Alliance caught on to the small paragraph that outlines the punishment for engaging in online casino gambling. Then, beyond just the internet gambling debate, other Massachusetts state politicians question the legitimacy of figures and statistics in Patrick’s bill.
The online casino related portion of the 28 page proposal comes right at a point where internet gambling is in a transition period in the U.S., and many politicians are still fence sitters in the whole debate. Washington State has legislation in place that is similar to the legislation proposed in the Patrick’s bill, the “Act Establishing and Regulating Resort Casinos in the Commonwealth," but no other U.S. state has attempted to weigh-in on this nationwide online casinos related debate.
What many find hypocritical Patrick’s bill is that though he proposes significantly increasing land casino gambling in the state, Patrick severely restricts online casino gambling. Most ask, for what purpose? To create a land-based casinos monopoly? And why did Patrick chose to bury the clause? The PPA pointed out the one paragraph out of the 28 pages that would criminalize online casinos gambling for the average Mass. gambler.
It reads: "Any person who knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, Internet, local area network, including wireless local networks, or any other similar device or equipment or other medium of communication, or knowingly installs or maintains said device or equipment for the transmission or receipt of wagering information shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not more than $25 000, or both."
Then, beyond the debate about the online casinos, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association contended that the numbers and predictions were overstated and that other assertions in the bill were not credible. |
