Let’s talk about dominoes.
Not the ones that didn’t fall to the expansion of communism a half-century ago. These dominoes are closer to home and they involve the expansion of gambling across the Northeast.
In the ever spreading world of gambling, Connecticut is nearing a crisis that threatens its two major casinos and the steady stream of revenue that flows into the state treasury. Massachusetts is getting ready to build casinos on our borders; New York is expanding its slots-at-race-tracks model.
New Jersey’s aging Atlantic City gaming strip is under similar pressure from newer Pennsylvania casinos and the Garden State is taking a novel and aggressive approach to the problem: It is pushing into sports betting.
It’s a legal quagmire. Years ago, the feds limited sports betting to Nevada, where it is today a lucrative part of that state’s multi-billion-dollar gaming industry. New Jersey is being sued by the likes of the NCAA and NFL but its legal case — that the feds have overstepped in limiting this form of gaming to one jurisdiction — seems strong. Its economic case is compelling.
And that’s where the dominoes come in.
It seems likely the legal entanglements will stall New Jersey’s hope for cashing in on this football season but the state may well be in business by 2013. And that will shift the competitive balance back in Atlantic City’s favor.
As Brad Kane reports in this issue, Connecticut’s Mohegan Sun is now a part of the New Jersey gaming scene. Once they master sports betting there — and enjoy the lift it gives Atlantic City — it shouldn’t take long for them to show up at the Capitol in Hartford with a plea for a similar boost for its Connecticut interests.
Now, even the prospect of sports betting should mobilize both camps — those who oppose the expansion of gaming on moral grounds and those who see the state’s need for cash and the competitive inevitability as convincing.
No matter which side you’re on, this seems a battle Connecticut would be well advised to join sooner rather than later. Any advantage would be fleeting, but significant.
Our bet is the lure of the extra cash and the buzz from sports bettors will overcome all opposition. It’s not as if sports betting isn’t taking place already, albeit illegally. In the name of competitive pressure, this seems an opportunity for the state to get a cut. Let the debate begin.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a staunch defender of business and a vigilant watchdog opposing the creeping nanny-state mentality in Washington that keeps adding regulatory costs. For those efforts, the group deserves our praise.
Lieberman’s swan song
But from time to time, the short view of avoiding operating costs gets in the way of the long view of economic good. And that’s what’s happening in the chamber’s resistance to a cybersecurity bill being pushed — again — by Sen. Joe Lieberman.
Connecticut’s senior senator is retiring and would like nothing more than to go out with a win on this bill, which he describes as one of the most important he’s ever backed. He sees the writing on the wall — both business and government are vulnerable to cyberattacks and that won’t change without some federal carrot-and-stick pressure for security standards.
His first effort came up short, in part because of chamber resistance to mandates in general. The bill has been watered down — it now relies on a carrot in the form of reduced legal liability to induce voluntary compliance — so much that purists are aghast. But Lieberman knows some progress is better than none.
The chamber must take a step back on this one and see the larger picture. One major cyberattack will be a lot more costly than the steps Lieberman is advocating.
