Put a cork in any Special Session enthusiasm: Speaker G. Mark Mickelson says South Dakota will play follow-the-leader on sports betting:
“I think something like this will take some time. In a state like South Dakota, we tend to be pretty cautious.”
Mickelson, a Sioux Falls Republican not running for re-election, says after Iowa or Minnesota or some other states legalize sports betting, then South Dakota lawmakers who look to see how it goes and then, perhaps, move forward in Pierre [Mark Russo, “South Dakota Lawmakers May Go Slow on Sports Book,” KELO Radio, 2018.05.15].
The next governor, whoever that will be, won’t be in a hurry to pick up that ball and run, either. Billie Sutton says, “We need to take the time to hear from the general public, those impacted by gambling, and our state’s tribes.” Kristi Noem says “…I’m opposed to expanding gambling, but this issue will ultimately be decided by voters since it will require a constitutional amendment.” Marty Jackley isn’t staking out a position beyond repeating the need for voters to amend the constitution first.
The hesitance to get out in front on this issue is disappointing. Senator Sutton and his fellow legislators could hear from the general public by calling a special session and placing the constitutional amendment on the ballot. We have more than five months to talk it over before voting in November, and a vote on a constitutional amendment would be the clearest, most democratically valid way to determine whether the public wants the Legislature to establish regulations and derive revenue from yet another industry of debatable moral worth. Finding out this year in an honest election whether South Dakotans want to exploit this new economic opportunity opened up by the United States Supreme Court or whether we are sick of gambling would help the 2019 Legislature form better gambling and taxing policy sooner rather than later.
Don’t procrastinate, South Dakota. Put this matter on the ballot, and let’s have it out!
p.s.: Speaker Mickelson rushed our vote on Amendment Y (just three months’ notice) to hasten the still unknown, uncalculated savings on Marsy’s Law. The $18 million (and that’s a conservative estimate!) we could make taxing sports betting could pay for all of the added expense that Marsy’s Law has created and that will remain even if we pass Amendment Y. Why would Mickelson rush for a partial fiscal solution but not for a total solution?
The first step is to stop.
~ My suggestion yesterday to ban internet gambling was because of this peculiar and regressive Republican trait, in Pierre.
~ Building something like a framework for sports betting takes multiple layers of thought and planning, which is hard. Not doing something only takes one thought. “Whatever might happen we don’t have to think about it because we’re just stopping whatever it might be.”
~ In short … getting the Pierre Legislature to ban something is a hundred times easier than getting them to even think about doing something new. Once the synapses in the brain get clogged with fat cells and liquor it’s pretty hard to get them moving again. #SAD
~ What Speaker Mick is thinking is, “Let Vegas put in internet gambling and send us the taxes from our Vikings fan’s bets. We’ll set up a commission with high salaried officers to decide how to spend the money. Republicans win!!”
I have never supported gambling when it’s on the ballot. I have gone to Deadwood, where my limit was losing $20. Those were games of chance, but some sports betting takes skill.
If you are betting on the winner or loser of a game, or of a series of games, your bet could be based on emotion, or chance or analysis or some mixture of the three. I admit I have bet on sports, but usually it’s for the honor of someone else getting me a Subway sandwich when I inevitably win. Or it is involved in our fantasy football league, which my brother pays for as a Christmas gift. Hey, I might be turning my brother in here, since it is technically illegal, I think. Ooops. Sorry, Bob. I’ll bail you out.
And that’s the thing. Betting on sports among family and friends is not something that is not going to be controlled, and the sports betting crowd in Los Vegas are dreck, in my opinion. Why invite that element into betting on sports? Pass laws to make it clear such betting under a certain amount is legal among friends and family and at workplaces. I’d bet a $5 Meatball Sandwich that something like that could pass the Legislature.
Agreed, Don. Gambling among friends is fun. I’m in two football fantasy leagues for money and four (football, baseball, hockey and basketball … and sometimes golf) for free. That’s why it’s illegal to have a poker game in a hotel room in Vegas. The house doesn’t get a cut. But every city in SoDak has a couple bookies who take bets (minimum $100) for football games and most make a living on the vig. As Cory said on the radio, it’s a billion dollar business and “If it’s gonna rain you might as well put out the bucket.”
SD will be 49th or 50th to adopt “legal’ sports gambling. In so doing will leave hundreds of millions on the table.
I’m cool with sports betting because I believe in freedom, and liberty, in the United States of America. It is just that simple.
In Europe they can bet on elections. It works. The people and bookmakers demand truth in political advertising. The election cycles are only 90 days and honest elections are controlled by the betters and the bookmakers. Let’s try it because the lies and deceit and cheating and foreign countries involved in USA elections is making our process stink!!
Curious: is sports betting superior to video lottery because of its social aspects? I don’t engage in either form of gambling, but it seems you can have a lot more fun with your friends studying teams, putting together brackets, and watching the games than you can sitting and punching the screen on the video lottery machine.
The newest most popular form of sports betting is situational betting and it’s done with computers for speed. e.g. You can bet $25 that Kirk Cousins will throw two interceptions in his first five possessions. OR for a longshot you can bet that Stefon Diggs will get more receptions than Adam Thielen in the first quarter at 3 to 1 odds.