Anti-Online Gambling Bill gets Negative Feedback

[The Judge]

OnlineCasino-News.com
August 21, 2007

Two members of America’s House of Representatives have published an editorial in the New York Times stating why regulation of the online casino industry is much preferable to prohibition. Representatives Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Republican Pete King were original co-signers of Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA), House of Representatives Bill 2046.

The representatives stated that the Treasury Department is, and should be concerned with a number of jobs, including protecting the President, investigating counterfeit money and tracking terrorist financing and should not be made to look after the ban on online casinos. The Treasury Department is now being asked ‘to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial, people who play cards from their home computers’, the two Long Island Representatives wrote. The article, Web Gambling: Tax, Don’t Ban, even pointed out that ‘years ago, the Treasury's Secret Service agents used to help Harry Truman put poker games together in the White House. Now they'd be locking him up. Frankly, Federal law-enforcement officials have bigger fish to fry’, the Congressmen affirmed.

Frank's Bill would see online gambling licensed and regulated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and exempt from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) with players having to pay tax. “Simply taxing web betting would generate significant revenues that could be used for a variety of domestic priorities,” the duo pointed out.

As US residents will always find ways to gamble online, Israel and King said that the ban is misdirected and unenforceable and, ironically, leads to an increase in the unprotected environments that UIGEA claimed to address.

This is because, the two claim, a bans pushes businesses into the hands of ‘scam artists and grey market entrepreneurs’ based in unregulated offshore locations.

The piece ends by saying, ‘In the end, there is the question of how much we want Government to be involved in our private lives. For many, playing poker with friends on the Internet is a way to unwind at the end of the day. Technology aside, web gambling isn't so different than the way Americans have relaxed and enjoyed the company of friends for decades.’

[Chicago RED]

Good read Judge.

[The Judge]

WEB GAMBLING: TAX, DON'T BAN
By STEVE ISRAEL & PETER KING
New York Post

August 14, 2007 -- THE Treasury Department is charged with a number of law-enforcement jobs - protect ing the president, investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing and more. But now, thanks to a legislative "rider" passed last year, Congress has told Treasury officials to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial - people who play cards from their home computers.

Frankly, federal law-enforcement officials have bigger fish to fry.

In the final hours before Congress went out of session last October, anti-gambling lobbyists got their "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" attached to our port-security bill. The move allowed their measure to ride the coattails of our vital legislation and become law.

The ban on Internet gambling is misdirected - and it's also probably unenforceable. People will still gamble on the Web, just without the protections that a legal framework could provide to ensure age-verification and protection against fraud. And online gambling now generates $13 billion a year; under the ban, online gamblers won't send a portion of that cash in tax dollars to the Treasury - instead, it'll go to scam artists and gray market entrepreneurs.

The Internet poses new challenges and problems. When the music industry ignored the massive and growing consumer desire to access songs online, a piracy industry blossomed. Similarly, our bans on Internet gambling have been effective only in pushing the business off U.S. shores and out of the hands of scrupulous businesses. By contrast, simply taxing Web betting would generate significant revenues that could be used for a variety of domestic priorities.

Of course, some serious issues need to be addressed. Children, gambling addicts and those who would try to use gambling sites for illicit purposes absolutely need to be restricted from these Web sites. But it is far easier to put in common-sense protections when the industry is controlled by law-abiding businesses than when it operates as an illegal market. Thankfully, technology now allows companies to address these issues. In Britain, where Internet gambling is legal and regulated, technology checks ensure that gamblers are of age and are not problem gamblers; watch lists work to prevent money-laundering.

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which we've cosponsored, uses fines and revokes licenses for Web sites that don't sufficiently police against improper use. That's the right approach. Rather than simply repeal the ban on Internet gambling, our Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act would create a regulatory framework that ensures operators are licensed and protects consumers against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money-laundering, identity theft and fraud.

In the end, there is the question of how much we want government to be involved in our private lives: For many, playing poker with friends on the Internet is a way to unwind at the end of the day. Technology aside, Web gambling isn't so different than the way Americans have relaxed and enjoyed the company of friends for decades.
Years ago, the Treasury's Secret Service agents used to help Harry Truman put poker games together in the White House. Now they'd be locking him up.


Reps. Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Peter King, a Republican, represent Long Island.