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

[Cynthia777]

IMO this is a fair and reasonable stand that Fahrenkopf takes on the issue. Particularly since he is an advocate of, and associated with primarily B&M casinos (where the issue of online gaming may be a touchy subject with most B&Ms).

Here is an informative link on Fahrenkopf, and, interestingly enough, his daughter Leslie is associate counsel to George W. Bush:

http://www.leadingauthorities.com/23...Fahrenkopf.htm

[Chatmaster]

I have to agree with you Cynthia. Fahrenkopf clearly is a diplomatic person and also is knowledgeable enough from both points of view to deliver a very neutral and realistic perspective on the issue.

I believe, regulating the online gaming industry is the way to go, BUT I have issues with a part of his interview where he explains the amount of information available in online gaming. This implies that they are considdering infringing on personal information on the internet. Also by implying that the entire online gambling industry is unregulated, is very far from the truth. I have done my research on this issue and can say confidently that this is not the truth. Many of the reputable online casinos are properly regulated.

[Cynthia777]

Chatmaster,

Yes, Fahrenkopf does seem to make those implications, but perhaps it is his "overly cautious" way of staying "neutral" on the subject. From reading over his and the AGA's stances on other issues (i.e. Indian gaming), he tends to try to emphasize his neutrality/objectiveness possibly because of his position (has members who support and members who do not support various issues).

I do hope, however, that he and the AGA can be a powerful influence where this is concerned (in a positive way for online gaming).

As the chief lobbyist for gambling, he made this strong point about the Abramoff scandal:
(according to http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/...ntentID=156612 ) :

"He's being portrayed as the number one lobbyist in Washington, and before this scandal broke, nine out of 10 people in this city never heard of Abramoff," Fahrenkopf said. "Someone in the media really should focus on the 99.9 percent of lobbyists who follow the law, are very hard working and educate legislators on the (Capitol) Hill."


And his proposal could be the ice-breaker for those "hard-nosed" opponents of online gambling. According to ( http://gamingtoday.com/index.cfm?art...538&AIN=652596 ) :

Supporters of a federal ban on Internet gambling were not receptive to the AGA’s proposal.

"We don’t need another study to demonstrate what is already known to be fact," said Sen. Mark Pryor, a supporter of Kyl’s bill. "Instead, we need to enforce the laws already on the books that prohibit online gambling."

Supporters, however, of online gaming, especially in the international market, applauded the AGA’s call for a federal study.

[Chatmaster]

Cynthia777

I realy hope you are right. I also feel that Fahrenkopf is worth every cent he gets paid, he seems to have thought through all sides of the story and actually seem to have a true neutral approach. The one thing that they are missing is that they seem to feel that if the casino is not licensed inside the US it is unregulated. But they never ask themselves why the casino is not licensed in the US. Goodlatte, Kyl and Leach are completely blinded to the fact that their bills will simply put the US back to where they are at the moment, infact worse! Not to mention the fact that they have been found guilty by the WTO. For some reason I get the idea that someone needs to make a few people coffee so they can smell it

[spearmaster]

House Committee Passes Goodlatte and Leach I-Gaming Legislation

http://www.igamingnews.com/index.cfm...sting&tid=6702

[buck]

Interesting that the WTO, which had previosly objected to such a ban is rarely mentioned.

Also this SITE would be required to be blocked by US ISP.

Good Bye,


Buck

[silcnlayc]

Talk about absolute hypocrisy. You either ban all gambling online or you don't. Geezes...talking about speaking from both sides of the mouth. Lets allow horse race betting and maybe allow dog race betting if they pass a bill, but not internet gambling...now, just what is horse and dog race betting if not gambling online? Oh my....who voted for these numbskulls? I sure didn't!

[buck]

.now, just what is horse and dog race betting if not gambling online? Oh my....who voted for these numbskulls? I sure didn't!

HuH
The issue is both dogs and horses are pari mutual with the non exotic betting the track taking about 15%. Of the take it covers purses, track profits,
AND -------TAXES-----. about 1/2. Need I say why it is the Sport of Kings.

Funny thing is the only tracks that are increasing handles on site are those that have added casinos to the facilities.

To wager on horses or dogs via the net, you must reside in a state that allows it.

Interesting tha Washington state has been tough on poker, but one of the publicly traded horse betting sites, YouBet, use to run handle through a site in Washington. Probably because of lower takes from the handle.

Also Illinois is looking to privatize their Lottery system for a few Billion USD.
LOL

I think this stinks that Freedom of Speech allows all the Perverts to be on line.

I honestly think the WTO will come down harder than hell on the US if they do this. They need to get with the program just like the UK has.


Maybe someone from Italy can tell us how their policy has been working.



Buck

[kmartinusa]

Interesting that the WTO, which had previosly objected to such a ban is rarely mentioned.

Quick dose of reality: The US Congress could care less what the WTO or any other foreign entity thinks about legal matters that might affect US citizens within US borders.

Althought I disagree with any ban on online betting and my leisure activities will most certianly be completely turned upside down were internet gambliing to be made illegal for US citizens, I absoultuely agree that no outside entity (WTO or anyone else) has any authority to tell me or my country what is legal or not.

I can and will vote for who speaks for me. Sometimes it takes years or worse decades to get what's right done, but our system has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years or so thus far. Kinda explains the lines waiting to get in.

kmartinusa

[buck]

Wrong if they want to export.