Last year the Massachusetts House passed a sports betting bill that includes college football, which many consider one of the more lucrative aspects of sports wagering. However, the Senate last week passed a bill that excludes college betting.
Up until recently House Speaker Ron Mariano had said that a bill without college betting was a “dealbreaker.” However, lately he has seemed to soften that stance.
The difference between the two bills is subordinated in many critics’ minds by the way that the Senate vote took place. During a joint press conference by Governor Charlie Baker and Senate President Karen Spilka, she was peppered by questions about why the vote was done by voice, rather than a roll call.
Spilka answered, “That was what the senators went forward with,” she said. “It wasn’t one person or two people. It was a general consensus they were ready to move forward.” She implied she voted against the bill.
It is hard to determine who voted for the bill with a voice vote.
Progressive Mass Policy Director Jonathan Cohn told MassLive the vote appeared to be “intentionally opaque” for a vote on major policy. “It’s almost like they’re designing for failure,” he said.
He added, “There is a fundamental opacity in the legislative process in Massachusetts and a damning lack of transparency here.” He continued, “This is something you see again and again across issues — a tendency to avoid taking difficult votes as a way of asserting power.”
Senator Diana DiZoglio echoed those concerns. She told MassLive, “It’s extremely centralized,” adding “This is yet another example of why we need shared leadership. There should be full transparency and accountability around policy.”
Because leadership controls staff members’ salaries and committee appointments, it has a large influence on what bills are passed. Ella McDonald of Act on Mass, a legislative watchdog group, told MassLive: “That combined with the general lack of transparency means representatives and senators more accountable to the speaker or senate president than they are to the voters.”
Now the real work shifts to a conference committee, which will try to hammer out the differences and produce a bill that satisfies both chambers. Negotiations could be contentious, but, since they will occur behind closed doors, few people will know.
Lawmakers have tried to legalize sports betting for five years, since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the federal ban. The House twice passed bills that later died in the Senate. This is largely attributed to Spilka’s control over the process.
Public pressure may have caused Spilka to relent and allow the vote. Add to that a recent poll showing that 60 percent of the Senate supported legalizing sports betting.
The legislative session ends July 31.
The state’s three casino owners have made their wishes known. They want a lower tax rate than is proposed and with college sports. A joint letter by Penn National Gaming, owner of Plainridge Park Casino, Wynn, owner of Encore Boston Harbor and the MGM Springfield, went to the legislature one day before the Senate debate.
SB 2844 allows for statewide mobile betting on digital platforms tethered to existing casinos and retail sports betting. Profits would be taxed at 20 percent for retail and 35 percent for mobile. College sports are banned. Sports betting advertising would be prohibited during live televised games.
The House bill would tax retail wagers at 12.5 percent and digital bets at 15 percent. It allows college sports bets and doesn’t address advertising during events.
The letter asks the Senate to use the House’s tax rate and allow college bets. Such rates are in line with other states, they wrote. They also ask that promotional play credits be deductible from taxable receipts.
They also asked for multiple skins, as opposed to one operator per casino. Pointing to states that allow multiple skins, the letter adds, “The data relative to existing mobile operations in other states is clear that this model serves the largest possible market, will create efficiencies for the implementation of consumer protections and regulatory control for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and generate more tax revenue.”
One oft-mentioned argument for sports betting is that neighboring states like New Hampshire make a hefty profit from Bay Staters who cross the state line.
Statistics from the New Hampshire Lottery Commission show that Massachusetts bettors account for about 15 percent of mobile bets in the Granite State. However lottery director Charlie McIntyre seems unworried about losing Massachusetts customers. He said in a statement, “We’re not surprised other states would look to replicate our success.”
