Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

[managra]

Quoted from the article in Agamemnon's post:

""Edmondson today also warned consumers that in addition to violating state law, Internet gambling poses a significant risk to consumers’ personal and financial information.

“These sites require consumers to give a credit card number to be able to play,” Edmondson said. “Who’s to say the person running that website won’t use that information to clean out your accounts?” ""

This is so pathetic since US players cannot even use a credit card for online gambling. Webwallets at the netellers and firepays are pretty safe imho. Ironic, too, that horserace betting (specifically exempt from the proposed legislation!) does not pose this risk on consumer's personal and financial information!

What is a risk to consumer's personal and financial info is making haphazard online purchases without first checking out the trustworthiness of the site selling merchandise. The politicians don't have a problem with this though as long as they can get the sales tax from such transactions.

What is really the biggest danger "destroying the moral fabric of this country" is not online gambling but those crooked politicians (maybe the word crooked is redundant) who know so well to line their own pockets with illegal contributions and gifts at the expense of the American public.

[Cynthia777]

Quoted from the article in Agamemnon's post:

""Edmondson today also warned consumers that in addition to violating state law, Internet gambling poses a significant risk to consumers’ personal and financial information.

“These sites require consumers to give a credit card number to be able to play,” Edmondson said. “Who’s to say the person running that website won’t use that information to clean out your accounts?” "".

Statements such as those above, are, in my opinion (and I'm sure many would agree), merely "speculation tactics"...that some politicians/lobbyists use to try to persuade their colleagues and constituents. If a statement as such were used in a court of law, it would very likely be ruled out as "speculation". They can use it, however, but are coming to have to come up with a much stronger argument and valid case points than this. We (opponents) of prohibiting online wagering are going to have to come up with strong arguments to counter their case points as well. They are trying to capture the attention of citizens who are naive to the online gaming world or non-participants, with speculative matter such as this.

When it comes to debate on the issue, we will need to counter-point their reasons for banning online casino betting..for example: When they argue that gambling "leads to the deterioration of families" in a financial aspect, the response (since that argument is of a "potential, speculative" nature, would be: "The spending of money on gambling and control of such behavior and personal finances is a matter of personal responsibility and limitation...such as the intake of alcohol, investment in stocks, and many other institutions which are legal, under specified guidelines and regulation." Financial security on the Internet, as well, is a matter that can be considered with any form of purchasing online, and should not be used as a "scapegoat" defense to simply try to do away with Internet wagering.

[Simmo!]

Slightly OT, but an example of how the EC could teach the US a thing or two:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04...betting_probe/

[Cynthia777]

Can anyone enlighten me on how Internet wagering came about being banned in other countries (i.e., Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands..etc.)? How much of a struggle/timeframe there was, when it was effective, and how is it even regulated (example, do the governments in other countries block ISPs, etc)? (I tried to do brief research on the web, but seems like it is not a brief process). I read through the article Simmo! provided, and was surprised that it was already deemed illegal in various other jurisdictions

[jetset]

Much of the litigation in the European region is based on so-called "sovereignty" disputes where governments try to protect state monopolies in things like lotteries by denying cross border (Internet) access by companies from other EU states.

It's a dynamic field. Just recently we've seen the Swedish government launch a state monopolised poker site in addition to other online gaming operations, the French have gone international with a state online lottery, there have been constitutional rulings in Germany and ISP blockades in Italy mostly on pretty tenuous grounds.

There have been various important cases, because big gambling groups from EU countries are determined to assert their (EU) rights to offer services across EU borders without let or hindrance.

The *investigative* arm of the EU has this week served notice on several EU states indulging in this sort of exclusion that it is investigating them.

Generally speaking, it's all warming up and getting more and more interesting.

[LisasLuck]

Here is an email response I received from my congressman:

April 5, 2006


Ms. Lisa XXXXX
XXXX Avenue, Apartment XXX
XXXXXXXX, CA XXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 4777, the
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to your concerns.

Introduced by my colleague, Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, H.R.
4777 would prohibit the placing of bets or wagers over the internet.
Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by
the States. The numerous gambling websites from outside our borders are
unlicensed and unregulated and thus violate the laws of all 50 States
in the Union. Gambling is an issue for the States to decide and
internet gambling has taken away the State’s power to regulate.

I have joined 126 of my colleague’s in the House in co-sponsoring
H.R. 4777. Currently, this bill is awaiting action in the House
Committee on Judiciary. Although we do not agree on this issue, I
appreciate your input and I will certainly remember your concerns as this bill
continues to move through the legislative process.

Once again, thank you for getting in touch with me. In the
future, do not hesitate to contact me on this or any other issue that is on
your mind.


Sincerely,

Jerry Lewis
Member of Congress

[Pirateofc21]

Here is an email response I received from my congressman:

April 5, 2006


Ms. Lisa XXXXX
XXXX Avenue, Apartment XXX
XXXXXXXX, CA XXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 4777, the
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. I appreciate the opportunity to respond
to your concerns.

Introduced by my colleague, Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, H.R.
4777 would prohibit the placing of bets or wagers over the internet.
Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by
the States. The numerous gambling websites from outside our borders are
unlicensed and unregulated and thus violate the laws of all 50 States
in the Union. Gambling is an issue for the States to decide and
internet gambling has taken away the State’s power to regulate.


Sincerely,

Jerry Lewis
Member of Congress

First, OG is illegal unless regulated by the states. UH, so remind the states that they can set up regulations for Operators that would be within the states as well as outside. Even if you refuse out-of state operators you could still put Americans to work and let's not forget those tax $$$, license fees etc.


Second, "The numerous gambling websites from outside our borders are
unlicensed and unregulated ..." Well, not by the US anyway. Just another reason to create our own.

Next, "Gambling is an issue for the States to decide and internet gambling has taken away the State’s power to regulate." I'm lost on this one!? How did it do that? How can something that exists in violation of State law have any "power" at all.?

[Casinomeister]

This is a scary moment. Now we can understand why so many Congressmen were duped into believing in WMD's etc. They rely on other's comments and don't bother to follow-up or do their own homework.

The numerous gambling websites from outside our borders are unlicensed and unregulated and thus violate the laws of all 50 States
in the Union. Gambling is an issue for the States to decide and
internet gambling has taken away the State’s power to regulate.

I guess he means "licensed and regulated by the US". He fails to acknowledge that there is a big world out there that is effectively licensing and regulating casinos based in the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Malta, Australia, etc.

So in essence, he just gave all of us the solution - it needs to be licensed and regulated within the US. Unfortunately for people like this, it's just a lot easier to try and ban something and drive it underground instead of being progressive and regulate it.

Jerry Lewis
Member of Congress

It's tempting, but I won't comment here..

[jetset]

Good comments here.

This politician (and presumably his colleagues sponsoring this Bill without doing their own homework) ignores the factual evidence that the various opinion polls are increasingly throwing up: that a significant number of Americans - the people who put him in power - do not want online gambling outlawed.

I hope this guy reads the recent WSJ debate between Leach and Carruthers.

And he seems to be turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of allowing some forms of Internet betting but not others, all the while pontificating about the dangers of Internet betting to the morality of US citizens.

QUOTE: So in essence, he just gave all of us the solution - it needs to be licensed and regulated within the US. Unfortunately for people like this, it's just a lot easier to try and ban something and drive it underground instead of being progressive and regulate it. UNQUOTE

This talk of depriving individual states of power is so much twaddle imo - look at the Nevada situation - a couple of years back they were all set to move toward regulating online gambling until the D o J made a fuss and they decided to hold on it. Every time a progressive state moves in the direction of regulation there's another fuss from the DoJ.

Many of the big groups have repeatedly stressed their preparedness to be regulated and pay taxes in American states, because big business prefers to be above board in a legal sense.

By taking the regulation route the States could bring on major, reputable, safe and experienced American brands to the benefit of the player and the industry, especially if a reasonable tax regime was imposed.

I think the antipathy to these latest banning moves is starting to gather momentum - there are some interesting times ahead as it develops.

[Simmo!]

Here is an email response I received from my congressman:

I'd send him a polite email back, with something like:

Dear Mr Lewis,

Thank you for your swift response. I can understand why state authority is a concern of yours, however as an elected congressman, I'd like to question whether in fact this should be the driving force behind your support for the Bill.

My understanding was that we elected you to represent our opinions on US law rather than to take a personal view on what is wrong or right for us. That aside, what also strikes me as odd, is that 126 congressmen prefer to simply ban something rather than look at ways of controlling it. This strikes me as penalising everyone to protect a few.

By way of example, we would never consider banning driving so that the few that drink-drive, or drive carelessly, can no longer do so. And we are happy as a nation to allow firearms in the home on the basis of regulation, yet we are not prepared to enter into agreements with other nations regarding the emission of greenhouse gasses, which has a far greater effect on our lives, and those of future generations, that internet gambling ever could. So why is online gambling so much more of a threat to us?

I struggle to see why I should be banned from spending my hard-earned money on a form of entertainment I enjoy, simply because a few people oppose morally, or others cannot follow a passtime in moderation. Education is a far better solution than prohibition. Our 20th Century History has taught us that.

I'd seriously ask you to consider whether your support for this Bill is indeed in the interests of the majority of your electorate, or whether it is simply politically, or morally, motivated.

Kind regards

<me>

------------------------------------------------------------