Now that the u.s. supreme court has left it up to the states to regulate sports betting, what will massachusetts do? Representative joseph wagner is expected to lead the charge as chairman of the joint committee on economic development and emerging technologies, and he joined me in the studio to discuss what it could mean for the state.  that has states now in a position that would want to entertain the idea of looking at implementing laws that would allow for and regulate sports betting to now move forward to go to https://casinoslots-ie.com/skrill.

In massachusetts the speaker and i have had a number of conversations since the decision, and my advice has been, and he doesn’t need me to tell him —  you were very involved in the leadup to whether or not casino gaming would come to massachusetts.  the bill came out of my committee back in 2011. So i think that the approach here is to move this to the front burner, but to not move so quickly that we get it wrong.  and house speaker said recently that this matter will not be taken up during the session. But again, it was pretty much known that the supreme court was going to come down this way. Why didn’t massachusetts look at this issue along the lines of maybe new jersey or other states that really was ready to go when the decision came out?

i would say this about other states that have moved, rhode island has done something, connecticut has done something. In the indication of rhode — the case of rhode island, they have budgeted monies for the coming fiscal year based around a concept that would have a rhode island casinos overseeing sports betting, well, the state lottery would oversee it, but that would it be run through the existing bricks and mortar casino facilities that they have. We’re still looking to see what rhode island will offer in terms of detail. They haven’t enacted a law that supports the conceptual framework, not with standing that the governor put something in the budget. So i don’t think we’re behind the curve on this, and i’m not sure that we’d be any further ahead h. We gone down the road of trying to put something in place without knowing what that decision would have been, we might just have been unraveling something. We didn’t know the court would eliminate the ban in part or in whole.

It was in whole versus in part. So those kinds of considerations we couldn’t really anticipate in a way that had us being able to try to get out front.  a moment ago when you said you were waiting and listening obviously to see what the supreme court did, you said hopefully they would come down on this side. So is that your way of saying you think this is a good fit for massachusetts?

No, i’m not saying that at all. I think when we do a budget every year and we’re looking to balance spending against projected revenues, in all of my years in the legislature that’s been a tremendous challenge.