PDA

View Full Version : Pigs At The Trough


drib
05-28-2014, 04:29 PM
As a NY State resident, I have been surprised that my TwinSpires account stays active while other out of state ADW's closed me out after passage of the state law assessing a 5% surcharge on out of state entities with NY customers. Today's Bloodhorse gives the answer:............

"Ex officio board member Rick Violette, president of the board of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, raised a concern about an advanced deposit wagering partnership between Churchill Downs Inc. and Finger Lakes. He characterized it as an "end run" around a 5% surcharge on out-of-state ADWs for bets made by New York State residents. The proceeds from the 5% fee are split among New York State's off-track betting facilities, the state's Thoroughbred and harness tracks, and the state itself.

Saying that he was "surprised and disappointed" by the arrangement, Kay acknowledged that it's unclear whether the partnership, approved by the New York State Gaming Commission, can be reversed by the commission or whether legislative action is necessary. He indicated that he is in discussions with the gaming commission about the matter."

Only in racing could two behemoths (NYRA and CD) fight at the trough over an unconstitutional law. Here is a full discussion as to why this law would never stand judicial scrutiny: http://thorobros.com/?p=106 Key quote: "The market origin fee in New York directly conflicts with the dormant commerce clause because it favors in-state ADW providers to the detriment of out of state ADW providers. Not only does it directly impose a restriction on interstate commerce, it also indirectly imposes a restriction by subsidizing the in-state competitors of the entities that pay the fee.

Although the law appears to be unconstitutional, it will require a judicial challenge to be struck down. Some entity that pays these fees must be prepared to take on the financial burden of litigating this case. However, once some one decides to do so, this law should be struck down as an unwarranted restraint on commerce."

ultracapper
05-28-2014, 05:24 PM
As a NY State resident, I have been surprised that my TwinSpires account stays active while other out of state ADW's closed me out after passage of the state law assessing a 5% surcharge on out of state entities with NY customers. Today's Bloodhorse gives the answer:............

"Ex officio board member Rick Violette, president of the board of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, raised a concern about an advanced deposit wagering partnership between Churchill Downs Inc. and Finger Lakes. He characterized it as an "end run" around a 5% surcharge on out-of-state ADWs for bets made by New York State residents. The proceeds from the 5% fee are split among New York State's off-track betting facilities, the state's Thoroughbred and harness tracks, and the state itself.

Saying that he was "surprised and disappointed" by the arrangement, Kay acknowledged that it's unclear whether the partnership, approved by the New York State Gaming Commission, can be reversed by the commission or whether legislative action is necessary. He indicated that he is in discussions with the gaming commission about the matter."

Only in racing could two behemoths (NYRA and CD) fight at the trough over an unconstitutional law. Here is a full discussion as to why this law would never stand judicial scrutiny: http://thorobros.com/?p=106 Key quote: "The market origin fee in New York directly conflicts with the dormant commerce clause because it favors in-state ADW providers to the detriment of out of state ADW providers. Not only does it directly impose a restriction on interstate commerce, it also indirectly imposes a restriction by subsidizing the in-state competitors of the entities that pay the fee.

Although the law appears to be unconstitutional, it will require a judicial challenge to be struck down. Some entity that pays these fees must be prepared to take on the financial burden of litigating this case. However, once some one decides to do so, this law should be struck down as an unwarranted restraint on commerce."

It's nothing more than a tariff. Only the feds can impose tariffs, and that's only on other nations. Hogs. Perfect word.

Robert Goren
05-29-2014, 08:08 AM
I don't understand why it be unconstitutional. That said, it is a bad law and should be repel. This requires a political action, not a lawsuit.

ultracapper
05-29-2014, 12:03 PM
It's lawsuit territory. They're imposing restrictions on legal interstate trade. Unconstitutional. Laws are already there. Spelled out in the states rights section of the constitution.

Robert Goren
06-02-2014, 04:38 PM
It's lawsuit territory. They're imposing restrictions on legal interstate trade. Unconstitutional. Laws are already there. Spelled out in the states rights section of the constitution.Going to court is always a crap shoot. There tons of lawyers who thought the courts declare the ACA unconstitutional. They were wrong about the courts. I don't think there a chance that they will declare the law unconstitutional, but I could be wrong. It would probably easier, quicker and cheaper to change the law even if I was. . For those who think going to court is the way, please cite some case law to back up your point, not just point to section of the constitution you think might apply but has never been tested court.

Stillriledup
06-02-2014, 05:03 PM
It's lawsuit territory. They're imposing restrictions on legal interstate trade. Unconstitutional. Laws are already there. Spelled out in the states rights section of the constitution.

Yes, because as we all know, our current govt officials have done an incredible job upholding that very same constitution you mention in your post. In fact, it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. :(

ultracapper
06-02-2014, 05:53 PM
That's true. All involved, Gov't officials, attorneys, judges, they all read the constitution to fit whatever they are trying to accomplish at that time. Giving up your 5th amendment rights when you sign your tax return would make Jefferson, Franklin, and all the rest just barf all over themselves. You have to be proven guilty. Not defend your innocence before your ever even charged with anything.

Irish Boy
06-02-2014, 06:58 PM
That's true. All involved, Gov't officials, attorneys, judges, they all read the constitution to fit whatever they are trying to accomplish at that time. Giving up your 5th amendment rights when you sign your tax return would make Jefferson, Franklin, and all the rest just barf all over themselves. You have to be proven guilty. Not defend your innocence before your ever even charged with anything.
Explain please.