Connect with us
Thomas Clatterbuck

Published

on

On this episode of the Thomas Clatterbuck Show, we interviewed Erik Jones. Jones is one of the Democrats running in the 13th Congressional district, which covers most of Springfield.

Jones shared his experiences working for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight. He was directly involved in uncovering the toxic FEMA trailers after Hurricane Katrina. We discussed his inside look at how Congress can work to hold the executive branch accountable.

We went on to discuss the numerous cyber issues facing the nation, including Net Neutrality and control of ICANN, as well as Jones’ views on climate change. The show closed with his response to what political labels he identifies with, and Jones said he’s an “FDR Democrat.” Find out what that means and more the full interview.

You can see all the past episodes of the Thomas Clatterbuck Show on the Springfield Daily Radio page.

You can also learn more about Jones and the other candidates for the 13th on our Campaign Headquarters page.

Senior strategist, statehouse reporter and political correspondent for Springfield Daily. Graduate of District 117 and UIS. Thomas covers stories in both Morgan and Sangamon Counties, as well as statewide politics.

Illinois Govt

Supreme Court Ruling Overturns Ban On Sports Betting

Eric Broughton

Published

on

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey in the case that was formerly known as Chris Christie vs. NCAA (Christie’s name has been supplanted by Phil Murphy, the state’s new governor), striking down a 25-year old federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that largely outlawed sports betting outside of Nevada.

The court overruled a decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, saying PASPA violates the state’s 10th Amendment rights, thereby creating a path for New Jersey and other states to offer sports betting.

“Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own,” the opinion reads. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not.”

What happens next?

New Jersey has been preparing in earnest for legalized sports wagering since 2012, and many locations are ready to move quickly. Monmouth Park — a racetrack on the Jersey Shore — says it could open betting windows within the next two weeks.

It could take other states weeks, or even months, to follow New Jersey’s blueprint, if they choose. One exception is Delaware, said Daniel Wallach, a sports gaming law expert and attorney at Becker & Poliakof, noting that the state already as infrastructure in place and doesn’t require any legislative tweaks.

Which states will be next?

Many state legislatures have been working on bills in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and many were waiting to see whether the court would strike down PASPA entirely. Many places have already concluded their 2018 legislative sessions, which could mean state lawmakers can’t address the matter until next year.

While New Jersey and Delaware could have betting windows open soon, states such as West Virginia and Mississippi are also poised to move quickly. States such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut could be racing to get in the game, as well. Nearly 20 states have introduced bills that could legalize sports betting, and a 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimates that as many as 32 states could offer legal sports betting within the next five years.

What sports will I be able bet on?

The Supreme Court opinion means states can offer the same betting options as any other sports books, including college and professional sports, horse racing, golf, combat sports and non-American sporting events.

Is there anything I won’t be able to bet on?

Some sports leagues have urged states to ban some prop bets, primarily the situational variety that can be easily impacted by a single player or decision without necessarily altering the game’s outcome. For example, the leagues don’t want to see betting lines offered on which player will commit the first foul of a game, or whether the first pitch of a game is a ball or strike.

Most sports books are likely to offer single-game bets, over-under bets, prop betting, teaser bets and parlays, as Nevada sports books do.

Will mobile and online betting be available?

Many bills are encouraging mobile and online betting options. Without these options, gambling advocates warn that bettors will still turn to offshore accounts and illegal bookmakers.

New Jersey sports books will be able to take bets via phone or computer, but not right away. There will be a licensing process that could take weeks — possibly a few months — before books will be able to take bets remotely. Even then, only intrastate wagers will be permitted.

Can I place in-game wagers?

Like many of the details, in the absence of federal legislation, this ultimately could vary from state to state. Some of the proposed bills specifically allow for in-game betting, such as those in West Virginia and New York.

I already have accounts with DraftKings and FanDuel. Will they offer sports betting?

A: Many expect both these companies — the two giants in the world of daily fantasy sports — to quickly jump into this space and offer a large menu of sports betting options. They already have much of the infrastructure in place, and a long list of users familiar with their platforms.

In the meantime, those companies could still partner with specific casinos or venues, particularly on the mobile and online side of the business.

Are the pro sports leagues happy about this?

In 2012, the five biggest sports entities in the United States sued to prevent New Jersey from entering the sports gaming business. But since then, some have altered their stance. The NBA and Major League Baseball have both said some form of legal sports gambling seems inevitable, and have teamed together to urge states to pass bills that would help protect the integrity of their sports – while also directing some profits in the direction of the leagues.

While all of the leagues will likely take on added costs – education, monitoring and investigations, for example – they could also stand to make plenty of money through new partnerships and business opportunities.

What about the NCAA?

The world of college sports, relying on amateur student-athletes, has been resolute in its opposition of sports wagering.

There has been talk that the leagues will want a percentage of the money wagered? Is that happening? Does it impact bettors?

Major League Baseball and the NBA have proposed states mandate a 1 percent kickback to the leagues for assuming added risk. They liken to this to an “integrity fee,” or a “royalty to the league.” Some states have balked and the leagues have expressed a willingness to take less than 1 percent.

Some gambling advocates say cutting into sports books’ profits with such fees could force them to offer tighter odds, which could push bettors back to the illegal markets to make their wagers.

How big is the sports gambling industry?

While it’s probably impossible to accurately estimate, experts suggest that illegal betting in the United States is a $50-150 billion business – perhaps significantly more.

According to research by UNLV’s Center for Gaming Research, legal sports betting in Nevada totaled nearly $5 billion last year, led by football — both college and professional — which accounted for $1.76 billion.

A 2017 report from Eilers & Krejcik Gaming estimated that legal sports gambling could be a $6 billion industry — perhaps as much $16 billion if more states eventually get onboard.

Could this lead to corruption or scandals?

That has certainly been the big fear, which has prompted the leagues to dig in their heels on this issue for so long. The leagues know they’ll have to take on added costs to educate players and monitor betting trends to guard against any suspect activity.

But gambling advocates are quick to point out that sports gambling already takes place on a massive scale, meaning the leagues are already vulnerable to corruption.

What happens to that federal law that largely banned sports betting outside of Las Vegas?

Even with PASPA struck down, Congress could still move to establish federal guidelines that would produce uniformity from state to state.

On Dec. 7 — the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case — Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., introduced the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement Act, or GAME Act. His proposal doesn’t set federal guidelines, per se, but it does aim to remove obstacles and provide the legal framework for states to adopt sports betting.

What will Illinois do? Is there a plan and desire to allow for sports gambling in this state?

The gambling industry wants to capitalize on what’s long been a valuable black-market industry. They contend strict state regulations and high taxes could keep legal businesses from being able to compete with illegal bookkeepers, saying they already have incentive to make sure games stay clean to preserve their own bottom line.

Will Green, an official of the American Gaming Association, said high taxes could “burden a legal sports book with unnecessary costs” and make legal businesses unable to meet the higher payouts of illegal companies that currently operate offshore.

“It will cut the legs off of legal sports betting, quite honestly, before it has the chance to walk,” he said.

Opponents, though, say expanded gambling does more harm than the potential tax money could do good. Anita Bedell, executive director of Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems, said online gambling is a “gateway” that could get kids hooked, saying children are already “bombarded with gambling ads” on social media.

Gambling industry officials estimated sports betting could net the state about $85 million in taxes.

Illinois is was not the only state betting on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the federal ban. Similar legislation to regulate and tax sports betting has been proposed in at least a dozen states across the country, including Indiana, Missouri, California and Massachusetts. State legislatures in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Mississippi also passed laws in recent months.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

2018 Election

Rep. Bustos endorses Londrigan in the 13th

Thomas Clatterbuck

Published

on

Democratic candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan picked up another endorsement. Speaking at the Springfield Mel-O-Cream Donuts shop, Illinois Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-17) endorsed the Democratic challenger in the 13th. Bustos is the only Democratic Congressional representative from Central Illinois. During her speech, Bustos spoke in favor of unions as key to growing the middle class. The event was attended by around 50 people.

To learn more about Betsy Dirksen Londrigan and the other candidates in the 13th, check out our Campaign Headquarters page.

 

 

Continue Reading

National Politics

Congressman Darin LaHood: Trade with China is good for U.S., Illinois

Published

on

A central Illinois congressman says there is a split inside the White House on trade, and he’s picking a side.

Congressman Darin LaHood said there are some hard-line trade isolationists in President Donald Trump’s administration and there are some global traders.

Right now, they seem to be battling over trade and tariffs.

LaHood is among the global trade group. He said trade with China is good for America and great for Illinois.

“When I look at a district like mine, 40 percent of the corn or soybeans grown in McLean County, or Logan County, or Peoria County go somewhere else around the world,” LaHood said. “They get put on a barge, go down the Illinois River or the Mississippi River, go down through New Orleans, through the new Panama Canal, and go anywhere in the world.”

The same thing goes for Illinois hogs, John Deere tractors and heavy equipment from Caterpillar.

LaHood said that he has some concerns that Trump’s tariffs will be met with Chinese tariffs, as has already happened with hogs and soybeans.

“The last time these kind of tariffs were put in place, under the Bush administration, we lost 30,000 jobs in this country,” LaHood said. “Nobody won in that trade war. And nobody is going to win in this trade war.”

LaHood said he hopes that the tariff tit-for-tat cools between the U.S. and China as both countries sit down and talk.

 

Article by the Benjamin Yount, for more INN News visit ILnews.org

 

Continue Reading

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored

Trending