Six years after purchasing 1,200 acres of land just north of Rochester, the Prairie Island Indian Community has secured federal approval to recognize a portion of the land as sovereign tribal territory.
The decision, announced this month by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, puts 400 acres of the Elk Run property the tribe owns into a federal trust, granting the tribe the tax benefits and other protections afforded to tribal lands. It also raises the possibility of the site being used for a casino.
While the tribe said it has no immediate plans to develop the land, its application noted the potential need to build an “emergency gaming facility” on the site in the event a disaster impacts operations at Treasure Island, the casino and resort it owns near Red Wing.
The United States Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on sports wagering on December 17, titled “America’s High-Stakes Bet on Legalized Sports Gambling.” A mouthful with a clear bias. The chair, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D), opened the meeting with a summary of the state of sports betting as he sees it.
He detailed the Supreme Court decision that “opened the floodgates of gambling” and the subsequent spread of sports betting and its impacts. Durbin enumerated three issues: athlete harassment, betting scandals, and the dangers of problem gambling. And he pointed to the big issue on many people’s minds: “It is virtually impossible to watch a sporting event today without being barraged by ads encouraging you to bet or hearing from celebrity endorsers about the latest parlay you should try.”
The first speaker was the president of National Collegiate Athletic Association, Charlie Baker. Baker sought federal regulation to protect athletes from gamblers. He said that while disgruntled fans have always existed, prop bets featuring individual players made the problem much worse. Baker spoke in favor of a federal law banning proposition bets in college sports. He was followed by Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.
Whyte pointed out that with its spread to 38 states, most at-risk people in the country were exposed to legalized sports betting. Whyte believes that the federal government and Congress have a role in protecting the at-risk and in funding treatment programs. He suggested an excise tax on gambling for that purpose and some form of federal sports-betting regulation.
Johnson Bademosi, an NFL player representative, spoke third. Bademosi was most concerned with the dangers to athletes from angry and aggressive gamblers, a problem that has become much worse since his playing days and the Supreme Court decision in 2018. He advocated for legislation to protect players and to limit bets that singled out individuals.
David Rebuck, a former New Jersey regulator, presented a different approach. Rebuck was head of New Jersey regulation at the key period between the first online casino gambling in 2013 through the legalization of sports betting in the state in 2018. Unlike the others giving testimony, Rebuck didn’t think federal legislation isthe answer. He cited and was proud of the regulations in New Jersey and his agency’s ability to assure compliance. Rebuck made a states’-rights argument, saying the states were clearly capable of regulating all forms of gaming. And while they might welcome cooperation from federal agencies like the Department of Justice, the states did not want or need federal laws to assist them.
Dr. Harry Levant, director of Policy with Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northwestern School of Law, is a self-professed recovering gambling addict. He is passionate about his cause. He says we are in the early stages of a public-health crisis. And while he sees all forms of gambling as addictive, Levant’s prime target is online gambling. In particular, Levant sees mobile sports wagering as the most dangerous form of gambling. He asked Congress to step up and regulate online gambling to protect the vulnerable.
Following the presentations, the committee members were allotted five minutes each to ask questions. North Carolina Senator Thom Tills used most of his five minutes to detail the use of gambling funds by the Eastern Band of Cherokee in North Carolina to fight federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe. It was a very thin line to gambling, but he concluded by saying that he endorsed the idea of an independent commission to study sports gambling and make recommendations to Congress.
Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal used his time to seek support for a bill he cosponsored, the SAFE Bet Act. The SAFE Bet Act would require states offering sports betting to ensure operators comply with minimum federal standards in three categories: advertising, affordability, and artificial intelligence. Blumenthal concluded by surveying each of the witnesses, asking if they could support his bill. Most did, but with qualifications. Rebuck was the exception, maintaining as he had in his presentation that the issue was a states’ right and the states were more than capable of regulating sports betting.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana had another agenda. Kennedy made an argument based on fairness that transgender athletes should not be allowed to compete in college sports. Missouri Senator Joshua Hawley followed up on Kennedy’s line of questioning. Hawley grilled Baker on the NCAA rules and federal law. It was tense and adversarial. But Kennedy did the best; he made a show of his five minutes, challenging the NCAA and Baker. At one point, he asked Baker why he did not go online to buy a spine from Amazon and show some leadership. The chair of the committee ultimately called time on the show.
The hearing did not produce a result. But it did air some of the issues in sports betting. It highlighted the conflict between state and federal regulation. The significance of athlete harassment probably received the most focus. It certainly was at the core of the NCAA testimony. Artificial intelligence generated some emotional responses from Levant. Had it existed, he would have been a perfect target. Advertising, targeted marketing, and throttling were discussed, but actually attracted less attention than the 10 minutes devoted to transgender athletes.
Congressional hearings are almost as entertaining as the prime minister question-and-answer session of British Parliament.
