Connecticut online lottery bill dies in committee
News on 19 Mar 2017
News on 19 Mar 2017
The Connecticut Lottery Corporation’s bid to obtain legislative permission to sell a wide range of non-instant games online died without a vote in the state House Public Safety and Security Committee this week when members killed off HB967…but the lottery’s interim president, Frank Farriker, suggested the request may be repeated at some point in the future.
Like several other US state lottery chiefs concerned about declining ticket sales, Farriker is looking for a new demographic to expand sales, and the millennial age group that immediately suggests itself is firmly locked into online transactions on almost everything.
However, self-interested opposition from traditional convenience store retail ticket sellers remains strong, and many older lawmakers have trouble leaping the technological divide to fully understand the online environment and its precautions against underage and problem gambling. That means that thus far in the US, only a handful of states have approved online lottery activity.
There’s also an element of hypocrisy, where some forms of gambling are favoured whilst others are rejected; in Connecticut, for example, off-track race betting is permitted online in a bid to save a declining industry.
A number of lawmakers have made the general complaint that when it comes to the complexities of legislating on relatively new technologies and environments like online gambling, they are often faced with a barrage of conflicting perspectives from legal, business and technical experts wheeled out by lobbyists to influence political hearings.
Some have suggested that under those circumstances a better way could be the appointment of independent commissions of enquiry tasked with carrying out a thorough study and making unbiased professional recommendations.
Our readers will recall that last week the Connecticut House Public Safety and Security Committee advanced two gambling expansion bills despite having reservations regarding their impact, with some lawmakers admitting that they voted the bills forward because they felt the matter sufficiently complex and serious to warrant wider debate in the Assembly.
