THU, 27TH APR 2017

In-Depth Analysis for the gaming industry

NEWS 15 November 2016
AGA optimistic about working with Trump's administration
By Caroline Watson
American Gaming Association President and CEO, Geoff Freeman, has released a formal statement outlining the industry body’s objective on working with the Donald Trump administration.

Freeman claims that Trump’s Presidency will mark “the dawning of a new era in Congress”, as the AGA champions the gambling industry and its stakeholders.

Freeman explained that the AGA will “promote favourable public policies and block overzealous federal efforts that add unnecessary costs and inefficiencies to our businesses.

“The gaming industry is well positioned to thrive in this new environment because of the important steps we have taken over the last several years to unify around issues of common cause, work collaboratively with government officials and highlight our enormous local economic and social contributions to develop Congressional champions.”

Although Trump is yet to make any statements on federal gambling laws, speculation surrounds the notion whether he would oppose online gaming expansion due to his acceptance of major campaign funding from Sheldon Adelson. The Las Vegas Sands Chairman is a vocal opponent of online gambling and has funded a major lobbying effort to stop its expansion.

Nonetheless, Freeman remains optimistic that the Trump administration will be “significantly more restrained federal agencies than what our industry (and many others) experienced over the last eight years”.

In promoting the commercial and civic benefits of the US gambling sector to the wider USA, the AGA expects to gain some “important victories” for its US-wide stakeholders in the coming years.

RELATED TAGS: Legal & Regulatory
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE
IN-DEPTH 21 April 2017
Casino cheating laws: Is clarity being lost?
According to US and UK courts, world-renowned poker player Phil Ivey’s recent methods of winning at a casino game were on the wrong side of the law. However, the decision drastically split the judges in the UK Court of Appeal; so was this truly an open and shut case?
READ MORE
PREMIUM CONNECTIONS