Hillary vs Trump: what it all means for gaming

What a Hillary win would mean for gaming

A Hillary Clinton victory in November is expected, if the election polls are anything to go by, and this would leave an element of uncertainty as to where the industry stands in the eyes of the country’s leader. The issue does not appear to be black and white when looking into the Democratic candidate’s historical association with the subject which would indicate that Clinton will at least be open to both sides of gambling debates.

There do not appear to be any particular areas of Clinton’s manifesto that single gambling out, but it can be brought in with other industries with regards to policies on elements such as tax and workers’ rights. Clinton said in March 2016: “I’ve always believed that when unions are strong, families are strong and America is strong.”

Land based

It is the topic of workers’ rights that was on the agenda when Clinton gave a speech in front of the now closed Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in July, following strikes at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Hotel over a loss of benefits regarding pensions and health insurance after the casino was taken out of bankruptcy. The casino, sold by Trump Entertainment Resorts to Carl Icahn in February, was set to close in September, around the time this issue goes to press.

“

“

Clinton said: What he did for his businesses and his workers is nothing to brag about. In fact, it’s shameful. We’re standing in front of the old Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. Donald Trump once predicted it would be the biggest hit yet. It’s now abandoned

”

“Things got so bad [with the Trump Taj Mahal], the new management cancelled workers’ health insurance and pensions, and now those workers are on strike and we should all support them in getting a fair deal.”

Trump is no longer directly involved with the management of any casinos, but Clinton, who was reported by the Wall Street Journal to have met with the striking workers after her speech, has used her competitor’s history in this area to attempt to gain an advantage. It will be interesting to see if much can be read into her empathising with the workers of his former casino if and when she moves into the White House.

As explained, it would not be fair to say that Clinton seems pro or anti-gambling, as her previous views on casino expansion do not tip the balance one way or another. As Arkansas’ First Lady, she openly opposed a ballot to bring casino gaming to Arkansas. Whether this was simply out of support for her husband is unclear.

Contrastingly, in 2000, Clinton did support plans for a tribal casino in the Catskills, the year she was elected as New York Senator.

Online

With regards to i-gaming, Clinton’s most significant call on this front was to vote in favour of the SAFE Port Act/Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This does not necessarily mean that Clinton is entirely against online gambling, it could be more of a suggestion that Clinton would like for the market to be regulated, as she was reported by the Las Vegas Sun in 2008 to support the idea of studying internet gambling to attempt to find out whether it could be regulated.

“

“

There is little to suggest that the issue of expanding US i-gaming will either accelerate or decelerate under a Clinton leadership, it would likely continue to be a slow-burner

”

The Restoration of America’s Wire Act, a bill that would restore the terms of the Federal Wire Act of 1961 and ban all forms of online gambling, was reintroduced to the Senate by then Republican presidential prospects Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham in June 2015. The bill was submitted to the House of Representatives in February 2015.

Not only is it highly unlikely that the bill could be successful, but it is also unlikely that Clinton would support the bill, particularly with funding for it being provided by Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson.

The current climate

It is worth remembering that Nevada and New Jersey, the two US states associated more heavily with gambling than any other, have both voted in favour of Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama in the last two elections. In fact, New Jersey has been shaded in blue on the voting map in each of the last six elections. New Jersey, Nevada and the remaining 48 US states will make their decision on 8 November.

What a Trump win would mean for gaming

“My life has been about winning. My life has not been about losing,” Donald Trump told TIME Magazine in a 2015 interview. Whatever your stance on the man and his politics, his triumph in making his name synonymous with wealth and success is undeniable. Pinning that name to towering resorts and casinos has no doubt been a factor here. While Trump no longer has control of the casinos which bear his name, and moved to sue in 2014 to remove his name from the properties run by Trump Entertainment Resorts on the basis that they fail to meet agreed upon standards of quality, he has built up a bevy of experience in the industry, opening Trump Plaza and Casino in Atlantic City in 1984. He also teamed up with Mark Lasrey in 2011 to create Poker Ventures LLC, which received a vendor’s license from the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement just after the New Jersey online casino industry launched.

The stance of the wider Republican Party on online gambling has been clear for some time.

“

“

On the GOP website, under section 6 of the party platform, which is titled in characteristically grandiose fashion as Renewing American Values, sits the sub-heading Making the Internet Family-Friendly

”

The Republicans are hardly the first group to take the “think of the children” line in their opposition to online gambling, and their platform reads: “We support the prohibition of gambling over the internet and call for the reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to internet betting.” A limp effort to this end was made in June 2015, with the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, backed by then Republican presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham. It was reintroduced to the Senate to limited fanfare.

This is an area, however, where Trump may break from the established party line. In 2011, on the subject of legalised online gambling, Trump stated that: “This has to happen because many other countries are doing it, and like usual the US is being left behind.” Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, has fought a running battle with the federal government to see sports betting allowed at racetracks and casinos in the state, and endorsed Trump for the presidency in February 2016. 10Bet Marketing Director Ron Zlluf was quoted as saying by Forbes in 2015: “We suspect that Trump is the most likely candidate to be in favour of the proliferation of online gambling in the US. While Chris Christie may take a similar approach, he seems too far out of contention at the moment to be taken seriously.”

As such, it is far from a stretch to see Trump distancing himself from this aspect of the Republican platform.

“

“

While he may not actively promote the spread of online gambling, given that denouncement of gambling is an asy way of courting the religious conservative vote, it is probable that Trump, if elected, would not place himself in the way of such developments

”

Indeed, the Republican Party itself has reportedly quietly dropped its backing for an online poker ban. In an email sent to the membership of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) in late July, PPA Vice President of Player Relations, Rich Muny, relayed the news that a ban on internet poker had been removed from the GOP platform.

This would, politically speaking, chime far better with Republican preference for small government, even if it might lead to the odd awkward moment around the political water cooler with Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson, who has plunged millions into the Republican Party whilst stating his determination to see online gambling stopped.

The water is muddied by the position of Mike Pence, running mate to Trump, who contrasts with Trump in having sought to oppose the expansion of gambling at every opportunity afforded to him.

By way of example, Pence voted for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which made it illegal for financial institutions to process online gambling transactions. Furthermore, in 2006, Pence voted for the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act, which failed to pass the House by a vote of 247-171. The Obama administration granted 2.67 land in trust applications a year for Native American casinos, against a rate of 2.37 for all years prior. The stance taken by Pence in this vote underlines that this rate would in all likelihood contract under a Trump administration.

While Pence is of course junior to Trump, his significant position in a potential Trump administration highlights that such a presidency’s stance on the expansion of online gambling would be far from black and white.