Regulating Casino Gaming: A Checklist for States Considering It

In his essay - Regulating Casino Gaming: A Checklist for States Considering It – by Leonard E. Goodall, Professor of Management and Public Administration, College of Business and Econornics, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Professor Goodall initially states: “Since various states are likely to continue to debate the issue of the establishment of legal casinos, and since states considering legal casinos must also decide how best to regulate them, the author discusses the similarities and contrasts in the regulatory systems already in operation.” Certainly not all states have solicited casino gaming, or what people generally refer to as gambling, but many have and the list is growing. If casinos are to be, and indications are that many more states will endorse gaming as a source of revenue, then regulating them must follow as a matter of due course says the author. Keep in mind this essay was written in 1988, and the actuality of casino gaming has indeed come to fruition in many states. “Nevada, having legalized casino gaming in 1931, has over a half-century of experience with the regulatory process,” Professor Goodall informs. “When New Jersey approved the establishment of casinos in Atlantic City in 1976, state officials studied the Nevada system carefully and adopted many of Nevada's procedures.” Professor Goodall bullet-points at least 7 key elements that states wanting to pursue gaming should, or in the cases of Nevada and New Jersey, have already addressed in regard to regulation of the industry. Goodall parses, in more detail, those essentials. The ultimate form of regulation is ownership Goodall says. Either state run, or private are the logical options. “The arguments for private ownership have been both pragmatic and political,” Goodall says. “Legislators, like the general public, are skeptical of the ability of state bureaucracies to run big businesses in an efficient manner. Many of them also believe regulation can be more effective if there is at least an arm's-length distance between regulation and ownership,” the professor opines. Additionally important to consider is the purpose of legalization, says Goodall. Are the proceeds earmarked for general funds, or to be used specifically? Geographic considerations are key, Goodall points out. “This decision will depend partly on a state's reasons for having casinos in the first place,” he expands. “New Jersey's policy, for example, is obviously consistent with its goal of using casinos to reinvigorate Atlantic City.” “In both states, one of the most important functions of the regulatory agencies is that of licensing, the process of investigating individuals or organizations and then authorizing them to participate in the gaming business,” Goodall provides. In closing, Goodall says there is no need for ensuing states to reinvent the wheel when it comes to casino gaming regulation. Nevada and New Jersey already provide two good designs from which to emulate and/or build upon.

The Nevada Gaming Debt Collection Experience

In the discussion - The Nevada Gaming Debt Collection Experience - by Larry D. Strate, Assistant Professor, College of Business and Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Assistant Professor Strate initially outlines the article by saying: “Even though Nevada has had over a century of legalized gaming experience, the evolution of gaming debt collection has been a recent phenomenon. The author traces that history and discusses implications of the current law.” The discussion opens with a comparison between the gaming industries of New Jersey/Atlantic City, and Las Vegas, Nevada. This contrast serves to point out the disparities in debt handling between the two. “There are major differences in the development of legalized gaming for both Nevada and Atlantic City. Nevada has had over a century of legalized gambling; Atlantic City, New Jersey, has completed a decade of its operation,” Strate informs you. “Nevada's gaming industry has been its primary economic base for many years; Atlantic City's entry into gaming served as a possible solution to a social problem. Nevada's processes of legalized gaming, credit play, and the collection of gaming debts were developed over a period of 125 years; Atlantic City's new industry began with gaming, gaming credit, and gaming debt collection simultaneously in 1976 [via the New Jersey Casino Control Act] .” The irony here is that Atlantic City, being the younger venue, had or has a better system for handling debt collection than do the historic and traditional Las Vegas properties. Many of these properties were duplicated in New Jersey, so the dichotomy existed whereby New Jersey casinos could recoup debt while their Nevada counterparts could not. “It would seem logical that a "territory" which permitted gambling in the early 1800’s would have allowed the Nevada industry to collect its debts as any other legal enterprise. But it did not,” Strate says. Of course, this situation could not be allowed to continue and Strate outlines the evolution. New Jersey tactfully benefitted from Nevada’s experience. “The fundamental change in gaming debt collection came through the legislature as the judicial decisions had declared gaming debts uncollectable by either a patron or a casino,” Strate informs you. “Nevada enacted its gaming debt collection act in 1983, six years after New Jersey,” Strate points out. One of the most noteworthy paragraphs in the entire article is this: “The fundamental change in 1983, and probably the most significant change in the history of gaming in Nevada since the enactment of the Open Gaming Law of 1931, was to allow non-restricted gaming licensees* to recover gaming debts evidenced by a credit instrument. The new law incorporated previously litigated terms with a new one, credit instrument.” The term is legally definable and gives Nevada courts an avenue of due process.