Anti-Gambling Bill

[TigerCat_Tania]

US House panel clears anti-Internet gambling bill
Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:42 PM ET

WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) - A U.S. House committee on Wednesday approved a bill aimed at stamping out the $12 billion Internet gambling industry by stopping businesses from accepting credit cards and other forms of payment.

The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions.

Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law.

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would impact offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

The legislation carves out some exceptions, including wagering on horse races, governed under another U.S. law, and fantasy sports.

The bill now moves to the House floor for consideration.

Major professional sports organizations supported the legislation, including the National Football League and Major League Baseball, saying in a joint statement that sports betting "threatens the integrity of our respective sports."

But Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House committee, opposed the bill. He said Congress should not seek to control how adults spend their money just because some lawmakers oppose gambling.

"Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do," he said.

A group called the Poker Players Alliance opposed the legislation as well.

"It is disingenuous to oppose Internet gambling and then write a bill that makes select forms of online gambling legal," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the group.

U.S. efforts to outlaw Internet gambling also have been opposed by the Caribbean state of Antigua, which has been trying to build up its Internet gambling industry as a way to make up for sharply declining tourism revenue.

[Romanowski]

The Leach bill (H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) outlaws financial transaction for internet gambling. It exempts certain government favorites but clearly makes financial transactions with offshore sportsbooks and casinos illegal.

The time is now to stand up and let your voice be heard. Please call or write your Representative and tell them you are opposed to the Leach bill, H.R. 4411, and the Goodlatte bill, H.R. 4777, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.

It's probably best to call today (AND write if you have time).

Call (202) 224-3121 and give them your zip code. They will connect you to your Representative's office.

To write follow the instruction at this link:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IS ON THIS COMMITTEE, THE EARLIER YOU CALL THE BETTER.

http://financialservices.house.gov/members.asp

[TigerCat_Tania]

INTERNET GAMING BILL PASSES OUT OF COMMITTEE

March 15, 2006 – The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (HR 4411) on Wednesday passed out of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.

Due largely to efforts by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the language of the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), protects Internet and account wagering on horse racing.

“We’re pleased that HR 4411 passed through the Financial Services Committee, and we look forward to working with Congress on issues related to Internet wagering,” said NTRA chief operating officer Greg Avioli.

A second Internet gaming bill, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (HR 4777) will likely be considered next. Introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), the bill has more than 100 co-sponsors. According to a release issued by NTRA, the organization worked with Goodlatte to ensure that the bill included language that protects online and account pari-mutuel wagering.

[TigerCat_Tania]

House Panel Passes Anti-Internet Gambling Bill
Date Posted: 3/15/2006 4:49:18 PM
Last Updated: 3/15/2006 4:49:18 PM
A U.S. House committee approved a bill aimed to curb the Internet gambling industry by stopping business from accepting credit cards and other forms of payment.

The bill, heard by the House Financial Services Committee March 15, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers, and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions, according to Jay Hickey, president of the American Horse Council.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, now moves the House floor for consideration.

"H.R. 4411 will create strong tools to help federal and state governments enforce existing gambling prohibitions," Leach said in a statement. "Unlike in brick-and-mortar casinos in the United States where legal protections for bettors exist and where there are some compensatory social benefit in jobs and tax revenues, Internet gambling sites principally yields only liabilities to Americans."

The legislation does include exceptions for horse racing, which is governed under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, allowing for simulcasts across state lines as well as account wagering via phone lines or the Internet in states in which it is legal. Fantasy sports are also listed as an exception in this bill.

Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites and any other online wager made or received in a place where such bet is illegal under federal or state law.

The committee approval of this bill follows bipartisan legislation, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, introduced into the House in February by Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Democrat Rick Boucher, that would outlaw Internet gambling, but again allow for an exception for horse racing.

It would also set a maximum prison sentence of five years, up from two years, for a violation of this act. The legislation allows states to continue to regulate gambling within their boarders.

[TigerCat_Tania]

The Web: Wagering on 'March Madness'

By GENE KOPROWSKI
UPI Correspondent

CHICAGO, March 15 (UPI) -- This spring, the annual ritual of the NCAA basketball tournament -- colloquially known as "March Madness" -- begins once again. Online, a similar, high-stakes rite commences once more too: gambling by fans on the outcome of the prestigious collegiate basketball tournament. Experts tell United Press International's The Web column that online betting volume will "dwarf" that seen earlier this year during professional football's Super Bowl.

"While buzzer beaters and upsets grab the headlines, what really captivates millions is their vested interest in office pools, rather than the performance of their favorite team or alma mater," said Simon Noble, founder of PinnacleSports.com, an online sports book service based in St. John's, Antigua. "For every person who enters an office pool, there's a good chance you will find another placing a bet on the tournament games over the Internet."

According to PinnacleSports.com, there are 182 sports booking outlets in Nevada, where gambling is legal, and $90 million in bets are expected to be made on the NCAA tournament. But online book makers are expected to record $1.3 billion in bets during the monthlong basketball contest. About $600 million was wagered during the Super Bowl. "As more consumers realize the safety and convenience online sports books provide, the Internet will continue to be the destination of choice for betting on major sporting events like the NCAA tournament," said Noble.

Many in the U.S. government, however, do not think the growth of online gambling, where bets from $1 to $30,000 can be placed, is ethical or moral. They also think it should be made explicitly illegal. Last month at a news conference in Washington Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., introduced a bi-partisan bill that will rein in online gambling, called the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. The lawmakers are concerned about gambling that crosses over state lines. There are worries about gambling that is conducted offshore and that uses the Internet over conventional phone lines. The fear is that the online gambling trend is a cover for money laundering and other illicit activities that harm families. "Our children have been placed in harm's way as online gambling has been permitted to flourish into a $12 billion industry," Goodlatte said last month.

The proposed law seeks to amend the Wire Act to cover all kinds of interstate gambling -- and to account for the emergence of new technologies. Currently, under U.S. federal law it is not clear whether using the Internet to operate a gambling business is, in fact, illegal. The Wire Act, however, prohibits gambling over telephone lines, but that law was written decades before the commercial emergence of the World Wide Web.

"The Internet has provided a means for gambling operations to evade existing anti-gambling laws," Boucher said last month during the news briefing.

The bill would not regulate lotteries conducted by state governments, which are run within their own state borders.

"Illegal online gambling doesn't just hurt gamblers and their families, it hurts the economy," said Goodlatte. "It's time to shine a bright light on these illegal sites and bring a quick end to illegal gambling on the Internet."

Advocates for Internet gambling, like the Gambling Portal Webmasters Association (www.worlds-best-online-casinos.com), do not think the legislation will pass. "It will never have enough votes to pass," said Ken Blechdom, president of www.onlinecasinos.cd, an online gambling site. Prohibition "didn't work for alcohol in the '20s, and it will not work for gambling," he added.

The Gambling Webmasters Association also said that it is their belief that the federal government is also exceeding its jurisdiction in pushing such legislation.

There may also be privacy concerns -- depending upon where the gambling portal is located. Servers can gather data about where a customer logged on and can also contain customer accounts and histories -- information that could be useful in an investigation by law-enforcement authorities. Computer experts tell The Web, however, that storage technology has been developed that enables those who run networks to discard the data quickly, as well as store it long term. There are firms, like law firms, that don't want to keep certain information around too long, lest it be subpoenaed, Zachary Schuler, president of CalNet Technology Group, based in Northridge, Calif., told the Web.

There's been a lot of growth lately in the storage industry among customers, like media clients -- and Internet sites -- who need flexible storage solutions, Carter George, vice president of storage products for PolyServe, a systems integrator, told The Web.

Gambling-industry experts tell The Web they are expecting their industry to grow, as high-rollers, those with a lot of money to gamble, are coming online. One site, ValetNoir.com, is said to be a close partner with dozens of casinos around the world, and even has a database of high rollers, numbering 500,000 gamblers. The chief executive officer and founder is George Nasset, and he is the former chief information officer at HotJobs.com.

Firms like InterCasino, the oldest and one of the largest online casinos in the industry, are, meantime, vocally advocating for the legalization and regulation of Internet gambling in the United States. This comes as the World Trade Organization deadline next month looms for the U.S. government to state its position on Internet gambling.

--

[TigerCat_Tania]

sorry there are websites... I only copy and pasted didn't realize... it was part of the news tho...

[OneDogg]

BURn these bastards !!!!!!!

Its ok to have horse betting and a Casino in every friggen major city ...yeah thats ok no prob ... but they dont like online sports betting ??

Its A ok when they can get there sticky fingers in on the cut but as soon as there might be the possibility of an average Joe of making a buck they decide to cut it out ...

How about cigerettes ? they kill millions of people every year yet thats ok .... guess it has something to do with the milliones they make in taxes every year from them huh .

The government can goto HELL in a bread basket !!!

Maybe we should remind them how WE THE PEOPLE vote them into there cozy ****ing Jobs in the first place !

Funny how they can come into government for 4 years and get a pension for the rest of there lives even if they **** everything up !

[Dr. Peebody]

so whats the bottom line here.....?

is it now impossible to deposit $$ in the ways mentioned?

can payouts be made?

is "the man" gonna come knocking on my door any time soon?

[jonnyblaze]

That'll teach those degenerates

[TigerCat_Tania]

House Seeks to Cut Cash Flow to Online Gambling
By Roy Mark
March 16, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A House panel today took a stab today at the heart of the offshore gambling business: U.S. cash flow.

Approved on a close voice vote by the House Financial Services Committee, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (H.R. 4411) requires financial institutions to identify and block payments to offshore casinos, sports book and other online gambling sites.

The narrowly targeted bill contains no provisions prohibiting gambling itself. Instead, it attempts to limit the opportunities of Americans to gamble by narrowing the access of the offshore sites to the U.S. financial services industry.

The legislation exempts horse racing gambling over the Internet and online and remote gambling on Indian reservations. In addition, exemptions are made for online and remote gambling taking place within a state such as Nevada.

"For nearly a decade, many in Congress have sought to deter Internet gambling. But, time and again, the issue has been stymied - often in ways that reflects imperfectly on this institution," bill sponsor Jim Leach (R-Iowa) said.

"While Congress has failed to act, the illegal Internet gambling industry has boomed."

According to Leach, Americans are projected to gamble approximately $6 billion through offshore sites. Worldwide, the total is projected at $12 billion.

Leach said online gambling characteristics are "unique" in that players can gamble 24 hours a day; children often gamble without sufficient age verification; and credit card gambling undercuts a player's "perception of the value of cash."

Those liabilities, Leach said, leads to "addiction, bankruptcy and crime."

"Unlike brick-and-mortar casinos in the United States where legal protections for bettors exist and where there is some compensatory social benefit in jobs and taxes, Internet gambling sites principally yield only liabilities to America and to Americans," Leach said.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was the only committee member to speak against the bill, although a number of Democrats voted against the legislation.

"The fact that people bet more than they should…should not be a matter of legislative interest," he said. "This is motivated by an interesting convergence of liberals and conservatives who disapprove of it [gambling] personally. Therefore, they want to make it illegal.

An organization billing itself as the Poker Players Alliance issued a statement at the hearing also opposing Leach's bill.

"The Leach bill unfairly prohibits online poker, while it gives special protections to other activities such as intrastate gambling, online lotteries, betting on horse racing and certain fantasy sports," the organization stated.

"It is disingenuous to oppose Internet gambling and then write a bill that makes select forms of online gambling legal."

Leach's bill is separate from legislation introduced last month that aims to make it illegal for Americans to use the Internet for gambling.

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would authorize law enforcement officials to stop credit card payments and other forms of electronic payments. Violators would be subject to up to five years in prison.

"Technology has allowed for new types of electronic gambling, including interactive games on the Internet such as poker and blackjack, which may not clearly be included within the types of gambling currently made illegal by the Wire Act," the bill summary states.

The Leach bill now goes to the whole House for a floor vote, while the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act awaits a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

[TigerCat_Tania]

GOP Misses Mark on Internet Gambling Ban

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

By Radley Balko

Three bills aiming to “prohibit” Internet gambling are now winding their way through Congress.

Internet gambling is already prohibited, at least in most forms. The companies that operate casino, sports betting, and poker websites are all based offshore, and most of their executives risk arrest if they ever step foot on American soil.

But web-based gambling is still a $12 billion industry. And so just as has happened every other time our government has attempted to ban vice (see illicit drugs, prostitution, and alcohol), efforts to ban online gambling have not only failed, they’ve created more problems than they’ve solved.

Because the government has banned the “bet taking” side of online gaming, gambling proprietors have simply set up shop in countries where gambling is legal. That keeps them out of reach of U.S. laws, but thanks to the Internet, still well within the reach of U.S. customers. That makes the people who play these sites highly susceptible to fraud, with no recourse in U.S. courts should they be bilked out of their money.

It also makes offshore gaming a prime target for organized crime and international terrorism, given that there’s no U.S. government oversight.

For now, the “bet placing” side of Internet gambling is still legal (there’s some debate on this point, but most experts agree that the government can’t and won’t arrest you for placing a bet from your computer). Which is why, despite that it’s illegal, Americans still wager billions of dollars online.

That’s where this trio of congressmen comes in. Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, and Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa are all upset that there are some people out there who still see gambling as the moral transgression they do. So each has proposed a bill to go after the “bet placing” side of Internet gambling.

The bills are complicated, and what finally comes out of Congress is likely to be some sort of compromise between the three. But it’s safe to say that none of the Congressmen are interested (yet) in arresting actual gamblers. However, that doesn’t make what they’re proposing any less disturbing. Instead, the bills aim to “deputize” companies like banks and Internet service providers (ISPs) to sniff out the illegal activity of their customers.

For example, Congress may end up asking ISPs to block out gaming sites from their customers, to ban websites on their server from linking to gaming sites, or to monitor the browsing habits of their customers.

Or they may force your bank to closely monitor where your money goes, and to block any transaction not only with an offshore gaming site, but with companies that facilitate transactions between banks and gaming sites.

The privacy implications of such measures are disturbing enough. But there’s also something troubling about asking private companies to become de facto law enforcement agencies (a practice that started with aggressive money laundering laws).

Depending on which version of the various Internet gambling prohibition bills passes, these companies could also end up bearing staggering compliance costs. Which, of course, they’ll then pass on to consumers.

These are important issues, and they deserve an honest debate. Unfortunately, the supporters of the three bills currently under consideration aren’t interested in honest debate. All are pushing their bills as part of “lobbying reform,” or the GOP’s attempt to save face after many of its members have succumbed to their own moral failings.

Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyle in particular have attempted to push their bills as “anti-Jack Abramoff” measures, referring to the now-disgraced lobbyist. I debated Rep. Goodlatte on his bill a couple of weeks ago, and was surprised when he spent most of his time talking not about the merits of his legislation, but about how passing his bill would send an important message to the American people about lobbying and corruption in Congress.

If you’re wondering what slapping a ban on the millions of Americans who wager money online has to do with the Republican Party’s moral shortcomings in Washington, well, so was I.

Apparently, the reasoning goes something like this: “Because of Jack Abramoff, Congress’ previous attempts to ban Internet gambling failed. So Congress should ban Internet gambling to show that it’s not under the influence of Jack Abramoff.”

The odd thing is, contrary to what the anti-gambling folks would have you believe, Abramoff didn’t want to legalize Internet gambling. He wanted to prohibit it--but in a way that carved out exceptions for his high-rolling clients. (Abramoff’s clients were a company that helped state lotteries sell tickets online, and the Indian casinos.) The various bills now under consideration are remarkably similar to the bill Jack Abramoff wanted passed.

As I mentioned, the current gambling bills are complicated. But knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate generally agree that by the time all is said and done, none of these three bills will actually ban Internet gambling. They’ll ban gambling for all but those gambling interests that have politically powerful allies in Congress. Which is exactly what Jack Abramoff wanted.

State lotteries, for example, will almost certainly be able to continue to sell tickets online (it’s curious how addicted state governments have become to the money generated from those “evil” games of chance, isn’t it?). Horse racing is also widely expected to escape any attempt at prohibiting online bets (the anti-gambling crusader Mr. Goodlatte, interestingly enough, has taken some $10,000 in campaign contributions from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association).

Online fantasy football will stay safe, too (previous attempts to ban this growing hobby have met with furious opposition).

The funny thing is, online gaming sites are begging to be legalized and regulated. A better approach would be to allow them to set up shop in the U.S., contribute to the U.S. economy, be regulated by U.S. markets, and be subject to U.S. courts.

Of course, that approach would require Congress to treat Americans as adults, and understand that we ought to be free to spend our own money as we please. Even in ways some morally crusading Congressmen happen to find distasteful.

[TigerCat_Tania]

Some news updates

March 21, 2006

Anti-Gambling Crusade a Bad Bet

by Radley Balko

Radley Balko is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Online gambling is already illegal in the United States. Proprietors of gaming sites are all incorporated overseas. Yet Internet wagering is still a $12 billion industry.

History has shown us that prohibiting private, consensual behavior has never made that behavior go away. Because consensual crimes take no victims, vice laws are difficult to enforce. Police have to use informers and undercover work and sometimes need to break the very laws they're trying to enforce.

Consequently, America's various attempts at prohibiting sinful behavior have bred corruption, organized crime, black markets and significant erosion of our civil liberties. The story's no different with gambling.

Here are the three chief reasons why Congress' latest vice crusade is misguided:

Feds not our baby-sitter

What we do with our own money on our own time ought to be our own business. The idea that government is somehow obligated, or even authorized, to protect us from our own vices and "bad" habits simply isn't compatible with a free society.

If five poker enthusiasts want to voluntarily play online, and if a private company wants to provide the technology for that to happen in exchange for a fee, why do members of Congress feel obligated to prevent that from happening?

Like many bad laws, gambling prohibition is often justified in defense of "the children." But for a minor to wager online, he'd need a credit card or access to a bank account. It isn't as if children are easy prey for gambling sites.

It's naked hypocrisy

Last month, police in Fairfax, Va., conducted a SWAT raid on Sal Culosi Jr., an optometrist suspected of running a sports gambling pool with some friends. As the SWAT team surrounded him, one officer's gun discharged, struck Culosi in the chest and killed him. In the fiscal year before the raid that killed Culosi, Virginia spent about $20 million marketing and promoting its state lottery.

The scene is similar in other states. Charity and barroom poker games, for example, are being shut down by police departments across the country. Meanwhile, state lotteries are cashing in on the poker craze with Texas Hold'em-style scratch-off games.

Congress isn't immune from the double standard. The new anti-gambling bill sponsored by Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte contains a gaping loophole that lets state lotteries continue to sell their tickets online. And just as Goodlatte, Arizona Sen. John Kyl and others in Congress have been earnestly lecturing us on why we need our politicians to protect us from our own peccadilloes, 28 states, including Arizona, were cashing in on the hyped $365 million Powerball jackpot.

Which makes all these efforts to ban private gambling sound more like a protection racket than good government.

It won't work

As noted, despite prohibitions against Internet gambling, it's still a billion-dollar industry. Prohibitionists have argued that a law preventing credit-card companies from allowing their services to be used in conjunction with gaming sites will prove to be the death knell for online wagering.

Hardly. In fact, several state attorneys general already have gone after the credit companies and online payment services like PayPal, threatening them with Patriot Act charges for doing business with gaming sites. Consequently, third-party vendors such as Neteller, also located offshore, have sprung up to facilitate transactions between gamers and gaming sites.

Congress can keep passing laws. But so long as there is demand, innovators will continue to use technology to find ways around them.

On CNBC three weeks ago, Goodlatte pointed out that because gambling companies themselves are offshore, they aren't subject to U.S. laws and regulations. But that's an argument against his own bill. Goodlatte's bill won't stop Internet gaming. Instead, it will not only keep gaming companies offshore, it will facilitate the rise of offshore financing services, too.

That means U.S. consumers will be more susceptible to fraud and will have no legal recourse when a shady offshore outfit bilks them out of their money.

Not to mention that offshore, black-market outfits present prime funding opportunities for organized crime and international terrorism.

A more sensible policy would be to legalize online gambling and let credible gaming companies do business within the reach of U.S. law. The good ones are already begging to be regulated.

They understand that legitimately setting up shop in the United States will give them an advantage over their competitors. Consumers will be more likely to place bets on sites governed by U.S. laws and subject to U.S. courts.

Unfortunately, Congress seems more interested in pushing a moral agenda than taking a realistic approach to a habit that is as old as human nature.

This article appeared in The Arizona Republic on March 12, 2006.

]