"How does state's contract with the two Indian tribes operating casinos apply to Internet gambling?

The tribes seem to construe the contract as giving them a monopoly on casino games played on the Internet as well as a monopoly on casino games played in casinos, a monopoly for which they pay the state 25 percent of their slot machine revenue. State government still can authorize its lottery agency or private companies to undertake Internet gambling, but only by risking the slots revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

While Attorney General George Jepsen is unsure about the requirements of the contract, the governor seems to construe it as the tribes do and so wants to renegotiate it to allow state government to get into Internet gambling or receive tribute from anyone who does so in the state, presumably starting with the tribes themselves, while preserving the state's slots revenue. But that revenue is a diminishing asset, since in a few years Connecticut's casino tourism likely will be cut off, what with Massachusetts having just authorized casinos, Rhode Island planning a referendum on casino gambling, and New York's governor having just proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize casinos statewide."

Get the Story:
Chris Powell: Is it time to end special treatment for tribes? (The New London Day 1/15)

Also Today:
David Collins: When gambling is a click away (The New London Day 1/15)