If you’ve heard about new efforts this week to ban online gambling, you’re probably wondering what that means for your office March Madness pool. Your answer, if that’s the sort of thing you’re concerned about, should be: “What March Madness pool?”
You see, while online gambling was pretty much legalized on the federal level in a 2011 Justice Department decision, the ruling came with one exception: sports betting. DOJ’s legal counsel “has analyzed the scope of the Wire Act … and concluded that it is limited only to sports betting,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in December of that year.
So while the feds won’t crack down on online poker (at least for the moment), putting money on your bracket is technically illegal, in addition to being foolish (and definitely not something this reporter has wasted untold dollars on).
While Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Jason Chaffetz try to restore the Wire Act’s far-reaching online-gambling ban, other legislation adds to the confusion. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, passed in 2006, allows games of skill such as poker and fantasy sports (apparently predicting athletes’ statistics is a skill game, while predicting game outcomes is not).
Currently, three states — Delaware, New Jersey and Nevada — have sanctioned online gambling. That would plummet to zero if the Graham-Chaffetz bill goes through. At the other end of the spectrum, Rep. Peter King proposed a bill last year that would legalize and standardize online gambling.
In the meantime, the online gaming world remains a mixed bag of state regulations and little-understood, scarcely enforced federal laws. So even though the letter of the law says your March Madness wager could carry two years of prison time, you probably have nothing to worry about — except for that upset you never saw coming.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."