* Click here for background if you need it. WCIA…
On Monday, Decatur’s City Council voted to ban electronic sweepstakes machines. […]
“They say that they’re a free play, so you don’t actually have to put any money in. But we’ve found through investigation that you do end up having to put money in to end up getting any sort of prize,” Decatur Communications Coordinator Ryan Huffer said. […]
“Some businesses have been approached here about having them located in the City of Decatur, so we wanted to get ahead of that,” Huffer said.
- Baloneymous - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 9:13 am:
Doesn’t Johnson need to pay for his $830 million ($2 billion) bond deal? Solution?
- Alton Sinkhole - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 9:56 am:
You’d think so @Baloneymous but that would require Johnson to anger some of his donors something he has shown zero willingness to do. Even if it is better for the people he was elected to serve. Even if it is the moral and just thing.
All of that is secondary.
And I’m not blaming this whole boondoggle solely on him, this should’ve been fixed awhile ago.
- Unionman - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 9:57 am:
Someone should read the appellate court decision in: Clair v. Vill. of Hanover Park, 2021 IL App (1st) 190515-U.
It makes it pretty clear that these machines are illegal gambling machines.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 10:02 am:
Johnson is fine adding more speed cameras, but not this.
- Lurker - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 10:06 am:
@Unionman, if that is so, then why doesn’t the governor ban them statewide?
Actually, I have the same question about the human-trafficking message parlors.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 10:22 am:
It absolutely mystifies me that, no matter the era, some people still can’t get there is no such thing as a free lunch.
But hey, grifters got to eat to.
- Homebody - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 10:33 am:
@Unionman / @Lurker - Definitely a weird enforcement gap. Looks like no one wants to spend the resources to actually prosecute any cases, despite them directly competing with state sanctioned licensed and regulated businesses.
- Garfield Ridge Guy - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 12:59 pm:
==if that is so, then why doesn’t the governor ban them statewide?==
We already have the law: “Section 35(a) of the [Video Gaming] Act provides that as of August 18, 2012, it is a felony to operate or possess video gaming or electronic raffle devices not licensed by the IGB that award credits and contain a circuit, meter, or switch capable of removing and recording the removal of credits when the award of credits is dependent upon chance. The IGB has jurisdiction to enforce Section 35(a) of the Act.”
The sweepstakes machines have cute little mechanisms to try to call the “credits” something other than “credits”–like “sweepstakes entries” or the such–but I seriously doubt those would hold up to actual legal challenge.
The actual solution for Chicagoans, of course, is to just opt into legalizing VGTs. Until then, the IGB should step up here.
- Leslie K - Wednesday, Mar 5, 25 @ 1:49 pm:
==@Unionman / @Lurker - Definitely a weird enforcement gap. Looks like no one wants to spend the resources to actually prosecute any cases, despite them directly competing with state sanctioned licensed and regulated businesses.==
It’s a little more complicated than just resources. Lang got a change into the state law in 2013 (effective 2014) that introduced enough vagueness to make jurisdictions hesitant to pursue prosecution. Lots of subtle arguments that make it difficult. But there is no oversight of these things, no control over the payout %, no taxes paid, and lots of shady ownership issues.
Good for Decatur. If people want video gaming, do video gaming with all the attendant consumer protections and tax benefits for the jurisdiction (I don’t personally agree with expanding gaming). But ban these sweepstakes machines explicitly.