When Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo recently revealed his proposed legislation to legalize casino gaming in the Bay State, many in the gaming industry welcomed the news. Speaker DeLeo acknowledged that Massachusetts was in dire need of the additional funds that both the casino licensing fees and the revenue generated from the games would create to fill the state’s depleted tax base. Also, the new casinos would stem the tide of gaming monies that flowed to the large resorts, such as Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, across the border in Connecticut.
One provision of the bill, however, has earned the scrutiny of the online gaming industry. Section 36, Subsection (v) states that “Any person who knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device …for the transmission or receipt of wagering information shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $25,000, or both such fine and imprisonment.”
The provision criminalizing online casino play startled many industry observers. One of those interested parties was John Pappas, the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), a group lobbying for the legalization of online poker. Mr. Pappas said that he had received assurances from Speaker DeLeo and other state officials involved in drafting the bill that the criminalization clause would not be included in the final version.
Mr. Pappas posted a response on the PPA website, which mentioned that the group is not opposed to the expansion of brick-and-mortar casino gaming in the state, but that it stood against the language that would “make it a crime” to play online poker. Last year, a court of appeals upheld a similar measure passed in Washington State, which punishes those convicted of playing online poker with a US$10,000 fine and up to five years in state prison.
The criminalization clause in the Massachusetts bill is buried deep in the 172-page document. Governor Deval Patrick has stated that he will not sign the bill as it stands. He proposed that the bill undergo a public hearing so that “people who have strong feelings on all sides” can air out their opinions.