Several members of the U.S House Judiciary Committee suggested that they would "support new federal regulation of sports gambling, though the specifics remained murky," according to Ben Strauss of the WASHINGTON POST. Over the course of a 90-minute meeting on Thursday, members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security & Investigations "pressed a group of witnesses about various potential legal safeguards" in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to allow states to legalize sports betting. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said, "One thing that all would agree on is that for Congress to do nothing is the worst possible alternative. So this means we have some work to do ... because I'm afraid if we don't, there are some people who will get hurt, and hurt very badly." Pro leagues have "favored federal oversights, while gaming groups have generally preferred state regulation." The NFL was the "only professional league represented" at yesterday's hearing, and NFL Exec VP/Communications & Public Affairs Jocelyn Moore "voiced support for federal oversight." Moore said, "We're asking for core federal standards. We're not asking for sweeping federal legislation." One "sticking point" was the idea of integrity fees. If yesterday's hearing "did not produce any definitive outcomes," it at least "offered a window into some of the issues that lawmakers value" (WASHINGTON POST, 9/28).
GAMBLING GALLERY: ESPN.com's David Purdum noted the hearing room was "mostly full, with more than 100 spectators in attendance, despite the testimony in the public hearing" about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court "talking place at the same time in the Senate side of the building." There was "opposition testimony" from organizations like Stop Predatory Gambling and the Coalition to Stop Online Gambling. Reps for "sports data companies and bookmaking enterprises also attended" (ESPN.com, 9/27).
