Gaming control board

She said, not the Municipal League, not the...

Gaming Commission and not the AG's office.

None of them would put it in writing telling her that they're legal, illegal, or what.

So even the AG's office, even the people that are supposedly making these determinations all over the news and declaring they're illegal, won't put it in writing for a city clerk.

I've talked to the Municipal League.

I've talked to the Missouri Attorney General.

I've talked to the Gaming Commission.

All of them have given me information.

And, you know, I guess it would be easy or – it would be safe to assume, given what we've seen from this government, that they're to blame for what's happening or not happening here.

I just wonder, is it a different dynamic in the U.S.? Like how much in Michigan, for example, does the Gaming Control Board there, do they have, or the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, like do they have kind of free reign when it comes to dealing with reporters? Or again, is there a real close connection with elected officials?

You know, I think it... as is always the answer in the united states it varies widely state to state you know some organizations for example in louisiana the gaming commission is housed in the ag's office so in theory you know they kind of do have to report up to the ag and things like that some regulators don't have that problem you know like the massachusetts gaming commission works with the ag but like they have their own pr person they're very willing and capable of disclosing information I do want to say, like, I'm going to very much make a distinction between IGO and AGCO.

I can't, you know, Tom Nightingale was the one at SBC doing the communication with AGCO primarily.

Well, you know, I've done some events with her, private events, and that lady is, A, one smart person, and she is no nonsense.

I mean, as a former regulator, the former head of the Gaming Control Board, this is not somebody to mess with.

No, absolutely.

So I think she would be very interesting.

But the justices said no, having already given the legislature four months to do it.

That was back in June when the court ruled skill games are subject to the Gaming Act and the Crimes Code, so anyone operating a skill game machine has to be licensed by the state gaming control board.

In the ruling, the court delayed the effective date to give the legislature a chance to develop regulations.

And that didn't happen.

And so it made me wonder, well, what happened? And the long and the short of it was it wasn't submitted to a court.

What really had happened was Paysomatic, which had been through this process in several other states already, trying to figure out A, what kind of game could they put in a state without getting in trouble? And then B, how could they make it legal? And they were pursuing it in Pennsylvania, starting in 2013.

Well, Pennsylvania doesn't have a process to submit a game to either The Gaming Control Board, only casinos and video gaming terminals at truck stops can do that, or to the courts.

Some states have a procedure where you could submit something like that to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General could say, well, I think this is legal, or I think it is not.

But part of the community mitigation payments are supposed to take care of that.

So those payments are judged by the Gaming Commission and decided back in Boston.

So we fund them, and then it's distributed, right?

Yeah, it's part of the oversight of all the casinos in Massachusetts when that became law in Massachusetts.

He got blocked.

By the Gaming Commission and Steve Wynn.

And so the legend has it they hated each other forever.

And then somehow Steve Wynn ended up being... like Republican finance chairman or whatever, for a while there for the first round of Trump.