Internet gambling bill still up in air

Erin Neff

Thursday, April 26, 2001 | 11:12 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Assembly may experience deja vu this morning as it reconsiders two critical votes on Internet gaming.

Although Assembly Bill 296 -- a measure allowing state gaming regulators to license interactive gaming -- passed Wednesday, a companion measure that establishes the fee structure for such businesses did not.

As a result those who voted on the prevailing side of both measures have asked to reconsider the votes -- setting up a decision today about whether Nevada could become the first state to head into cyberspace gambling.

The first trouble emerged quietly during the vote on AB296, sponsored by Merle Berman, R-Las Vegas.

Assemblymen John Lee and Chris Giunchigliani, both D-Las Vegas, voted against the measure without comment.

Although there was no debate on the first bill, when the companion bill, Assembly Bill 578, came up, questions flooded the chambers from both parties.

Both Lee and Giunchigliani expressed concerns about Internet gaming in general, citing social problems that arise when people have easy access to high-stakes gambling.

"This issue needs more study," Lee said. "It needs more protection."

AB296 enables state regulators to license interactive gaming after they determine the state is ready for such business and that federal legal concerns have been rectified.

AB578, originally brought by the state Gaming Control Board but amended in the Assembly Judiciary Committee by Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, would impose a fee structure for casinos that enter into interactive gaming and for manufacturers of devices used in such activities.

The bill mandates gaming establishments submit a $100,000 fee when they file an application for Internet gaming. Before a license is granted, the establishment would be charged $1 million up front for a two-year license. Manufacturers would pay smaller fees on a sliding scale based on revenues.

The vote on AB578 was 21-18, seven shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass a measure that imposes fees.

But Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, who spoke in favor of the measure, actually cast a vote against it so that he could ask for today's reconsideration.

Anderson, who voted for both measures, asked to reconsider AB296 -- which passed 37-2 -- because he said he cannot allow the state to embark on interactive gaming without the fee structures.

"Both bills are linked," Anderson said. "Without (AB578), we've left the question of what the Gaming Control Board does about the fees, up to them.

"That should be set by the Legislature, not the Gaming Control Board," he added.

Berman voted against AB578, in another effort to force a reconsideration of the measure.

Lawmakers watch an electronic tote board as votes are tallied and can tell whether a particular bill is headed for passage. As such, some wait until late in the tally to vote, or actually change their vote to enable reconsideration.

Since both bills are linked, trouble with one could spell difficulty for the other. That's why gaming lobbyists scurried into the chambers as the debate on AB578 continued.

Afterward, they vowed to help supporters of AB578 to gather the seven votes they need to pass the measure.

"It's not our bill, but we're going to support it, because at the end of the day we're going to pass an Internet gaming bill," Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, said.

Those voting against AB578 were Sharron Angle, R-Reno; Beers; Berman; David Brown, R-Henderson; John Carpenter, R-Elko; Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas; Vonne Chowning, D-North Las Vegas; Marcia de Braga, D-Fallon; Giunchigliani; Don Gustavson, R-Sun Valley; Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville; Ellen Koivisto, D-Las Vegas; Lee; Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas; Bob Price, D-North Las Vegas; Debbie Smith, D-Sparks; Sandra Tiffany, R-Henderson and Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas.

Joe Dini, D-Yerington, abstained because he owns a small casino. Greg Brower, R-Reno, abstained because his law firm helped work on the bill. Vivian Freeman, D-Reno, was absent.

"We just need to get the votes up," Beers said afterward. "We have 24 hours."

Beers was one of several supporters who said if Nevada is going to succeed in Internet gaming, it must impose fees to enable regulators to monitor the business.

Lee said AB578 was "an extortion" on the gaming industry because of the high fees proposed.

"Only an elite few will be able to be involved in this," Lee said.