Carving Up iGaming in DC

A bill regulating iGaming at the federal level that would include a carve-out for online poker was floated last week in Washington D.C. Observers say it has the tacit approval of online gaming opponent Sheldon Adelson (l.) and his company, Las Vegas Sands.

Posted with little comment to his usually verbose website, Nevada political commentator Jon Ralston revealed that a bill was being considered in Washington D.C. that would ban all iGaming in the U.S., except for online poker. The “Internet Gambling Prohibition and Control Act of 2014” mirrors a previous bill crafted by Sheldon Adelson’s Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, except it provides for a carve-out for internet poker. That bill, the “Restoration of America’s Wire Act,” was introduced in the Senate and House by Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah

The IGPCA differs slightly from the RAWA bill, but in important ways. In addition to online poker, it exempts any horserace online betting already approved, a stronger protection for online lottery sales, and activities exempted by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Although the IGPCA doesn’t necessarily have the imprimatur of Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands, Ralston’s singular comment—“I smell a Nevada company”—leads observers to believe that the bill was leaked by LVS.

The bill is similar the Reid-Kyl bill of 2012, and adheres closely to comments made by Nevada Senator Dean Heller earlier this year that would leave a loophole for online poker.

Still, there’s a long way to go even if the company is behind the bill. The inactivity of the American Gaming Association in iGaming—as noted by AGA (and MGM) Chairman Jim Murren back in March and most recently by AGA President Geoff Freeman two weeks ago—makes it uncertain about the support of the industry. And since the support of Native American tribes is essential to any federal gaming bill—and no sense of such support is apparent—the success of the IGPCA is doubtful. And when you add an election year to the equation, it’s unlikely to be even considered.