for Nevada’s 1st congressional district, gave testimony in 1998 for the Nevada state ethics commission that is consistent with Adelson’s perception of his power to influence. In her testimony she explained, “Adelson seeks to dominate politics and public policy through the raw power of money.” Berkley worked for Sheldon Adelson in the 1990s. When he is speaking on the record, Adelson maintains that his vehement opposition to legalizing online gambling is rooted on moral grounds. Online gaming would be a corruptive influence on society, Adelson says, citing the ease with which criminals and hackers could fix online games to launder money. He believes, or so he says in public, that having casinos readily available on the smartphone in one’s pocket will also increase pathological gambling and make it easier for underage kids to gamble. And yet, if criminals do in fact pose a threat to the integrity of internet gaming, a sustained ban would make all those problems worse by moving online gambling into the black market. Statistics recorded by the American Gaming Association (AGA) supports the logic that a prohibition on online gaming will result in the increased patronage of black market gaming outlets; Americans spent 2.6 billion dollars on illegal offshore gaming websites in 2012. Notably, other prominent casino operators, including Caesars Entertainment and MGM Resorts, disagree with Adelson’s views and seem to be open to the legalization of online gaming. Advocates of online gaming emphasize that it represents the future structure of the industry and that it has potential as a marketing and economic strategy to attract more business. Of course, the convenience and digital cache of offering a legal outlet to gamble online would almost certainly increase demand for gaming opportunities, particularly among younger customers. Adelson’s movement, it can be said, opposes new technologies and exploits his political influence to thwart his gambling empire’s competition within the industry. A racing and wagering law expert and former executive for New York City Off-
Track Betting Corporation elucidates the matter of consumer choice, explaining how adults who frequent Adelson’s casinos prefer to decide for themselves how they would like to spend their own time and money. “Notwithstanding Adelson’s ability to spend large sums on lobbying for federal legislation, he risks frustrating his loyal clientele who have an appetite for gambling from their computers and mobile devices,” says the former Off-Track Betting Corp. executive, “His money would be better spent on expanding resources for people who engage in problematic gambling behavior.” In other words, letting consumers choose how they want to gamble is better for business and Adelson’s stance isn’t customer-friendly. Is Sheldon Adelson a small-minded octogenarian luddite resisting 21st century technology? Or is it more accurate to understand his motives as those of a self-serving gaming czar seeking to protect his own interests and casino investments? Considering that the retail industry hasn’t been destroyed by offering online commerce and services (people still enjoy real-world shopping), or, for instance, people continue to attend professional sports games (even though they are televised), it makes sense that Adelson is criticized by members of the iGaming industry for his views, which are seen as div isive and out of touch. Lega lizing online gambling seems like the logical next step and an unavoidable development, too, for the gaming industry.
of Congress, opponents of the ban with a degree of notoriety, such as John Pappas, who is the executive director of the Poker Player’s Alliance (PPA), continue to be vigilant of Adelson’s political maneuvers. “The expected House hearing on the Sheldon Adelson-backed legislation to ban internet gambling was called off...but the fight is not over as there is still a very real chance this legislation could be tacked on to a non-relevant, must-pass bill at the last minute,” Pappas said in a November 21 PPA press release. Republican leaders “decided it was too heav y a lift” to move the bil l through the House Judiciar y Committee and onto the f loor in the limited amount of time surrounding Congress’ Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses. Without regard to the postponement of the bill, Adelson is likely to show up at the next session of Congress in an effort to push the bill through. What will his next move be? It will be interesting to see how Adelson’s efforts unfold in the coming weeks. Because he is fervently opposed to online gaming and because he is Sheldon Adelson, he is likely to make his voice heard again soon. CHIPS ON THE TABLE: Gaming mogul Adelson wants you to play his way.
On November 17, The Poker Player’s Alliance stated in a tweet, According to @ p p a p o k e r, t h e r e will be no hearing to ban Internet gambling du r i n g t he l a me du c k session. Although the bill that proposed the internet gaming ban didn’t make it to the floor during the lame duck session
SOUTHERNGAMING.COM
|
17