Nevada Representative Describes SAFE Bet Act as “Misguided”

The recently proposed SAFE Bet Act just got its first critic in Congress.

Influential Nevada Representative. Dina Titus recently spoke out against the recently proposed federal legislation targeting sports betting regulations in the US. The lawmaker, whose district includes Las Vegas, described the bill as a “misguided approach” to curb problem gambling. 

Titus became the first member of Congress to oppose the bill, which her fellow Democrats proposed.

Titus Acknowldges Intentions Behind Bill

While Titus believed the current proposal was overreaching, she thought New York Representative Paul Tonko and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal had the right intentions when writing the bill. She acknowledged something must be done to help stop the rise in problem gambling, but this bill isn’t the right way to do it. 

“I don't think that's the way to approach it,” Titus said of SAFE Bet Act. “I certainly support responsible gaming. The industry does. They've taken bold steps, going back to the 90s, to regulate themselves, and I think that's better to have self-regulation or state regulation, not have the federal government get involved at this level.”

While the Nevada lawmaker is the first to speak out against the bill, her status in the House means more will soon join her. Many of those will be Democrats, likely meaning the proposal is doomed to fail. 

Industry’s Stigma is Unwarranted

While Titus is responsible for protecting her district’s most significant industry, she has also seen the good that can come from it. That includes creating jobs and massive tax revenue that can be used to support schools, tourism, problem gambling funds, and much more.

Sweeping regulations like the ones proposed in the bill could threaten those benefits, costing the states money and jobs for their residents. That is a big sacrifice for a bill that may not do much to stop problem gambling.

Titus Joins AGA in Opposition

The American Gaming Association has also expressed opposition to the bill, describing it as a “slap in the face to the states.” The AGA argued that the legislation would waste the money and time states have invested in developing their own regulations. 

In addition, state lawmakers are better in tune with their markets than the federal government. We have seen states create unique regulations and rules around the industry, meaning a blanket approach may not work.