Roles in the Government Protection Model
One of government's role in the Government protection Model is to promote, and defend the gaming industry.
This requires to take an active interest in convincing the outside world that the regulatory system has successfully excluded organized crime, and is protecting the honesty of the games.
When the industry is attacked, government staunchly defends it against its critics.
The final role that government plays in the Government protection Model is to provide a means for solving the industry's problems.
For example, no single casino may be capable of testing equipment or games sold by distributors to ensure that they cannot be manipulated or cheated to the casino's, or the gambler's detriment.
Equipping and maintaining a lab and trained personnel would be too costly for a single operation, so government, through collective funding from casino taxes, may finance and operate a games laboratory to provide this service.
Another example is expert law enforcement to detect and apprehend individuals who cheat the casinos.
This may require intelligence, agents trained in cheating detection, and special laws to address the peculiarities of the gaming industry.
However, the Government Protection Model does not concede the gaming industry any more influence over the regulatory process than any other model does.
Government often creates agencies whose goals are to promote, and support a particular industry or its participants.
For example, worker's compensation programs are designed to assist workers who are injured on the job. Often, these programs provide monetary rehabilitation and placement services for injured or disabled workers; yet the workers rarely are seen as having the ability to influence the system.
If the gaming industry is able to gain significant influence over the regulatory process, this is despite the system not because of it. In contrast to the Gambler Protection Model, regulations are a balance of regulatory and economic consideration.
Likewise, enforcement is distinctly regulatory as opposed to prosecutorial.
Moreover, because this system is most likely associated with a gaming industry whose tax revenues are important, if not critical, to the government, stronger methods to ensure against 'capture' are often applied.
When the National Commission of the Study of Gambling reviewed the Nevada regulatory system, it did so with a critical eye.
Because tax revenues from gambling made up about half of the state budget, the commission was influenced by the perception that the state regulators might yield to every request of the industry, but it found otherwise.
The Commission concluded that serious questions arise as to whether a state that relies so heavily on a single industry for its revenue needs is truly capable of regulating that industry properly. The Nevada control structures have stood the tests of time, and, often, bitter experience.