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

[paul1]

BTW for anybody who hasn't yet voted on the Wall Street Journal poll, the current results are:

Against a ban: 6941 (85 percent)

For a ban: 1252 (15 percent)

Thanks for your great reporting, Jetset. But I've got a question. When I clicked the Wall Street Journal link a few days ago, it says that I voted "no". But I never even voted. What's up with that? Of course, I would have voted "no." But I didn't. I didn't get a chance. How does that page figure I voted "no" already? Is it psychic?

[jetset]

Damned if I know, Paul - it worked OK when I voted (btw the votes over there are over 8 200 now) Perhaps a techie glitch? Have you tried more recently?

Here's the link direct to the poll:

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/mess...sages&msg=3828

[spearmaster]

Thanks for your great reporting, Jetset. But I've got a question. When I clicked the Wall Street Journal link a few days ago, it says that I voted "no". But I never even voted. What's up with that? Of course, I would have voted "no." But I didn't. I didn't get a chance. How does that page figure I voted "no" already? Is it psychic?

On some webpages on some sites, if you don't directly vote but instead view the results, it records you as a "no vote" even though these numbers aren't shown.

[Cynthia777]

When we write to our Rep. should we also mention our strong opposition to any bill that would indirectly prohibit us to gamble online?

In the case of S. 2402 (concerning tightening legislation on prohibition of money laundering), we don't want to express opposition to the proposed bill altogether, but to the vagueness in some of the proposed amended text in the bill, as would relate to alternative payment methods used in online gambling. We don't want to give the supporters of prohibition of online gambling any reason to misconstrue our views.

(Example, think of an attorney in court, hypothetically.. one says, "I am opposed to S. 2402 as well.." The attorney replies..."So- you do not wish to see a stop to, or enforcement, of crimes relating to money laundering, and possibly financing terrorist activities??) Although they know better, you do not want to give them any reason to turn this whole thing around (implying corruption, especially after the incident with Abramoff), and I am certain that Sen. Kyl knows this as well when he co-sponsored this bill - a bill that at first glance definitely appears as, and for the most part of its intent, is ... a good and necessary thing. However, and this points back to Sen. Kyl's "sneaky tactics", he and his co-sponsors appear to be attaching their objectives (in the form of amended text) to a bill that is supposed to be designed for another primary purpose altogether.

Hopefully when this goes to mark-up, changes will be made to outline the provisions more concisely, so that it cannot be "loosely intepreted".

[Cynthia777]

Yesterday (Mar. 14), Rep. Blumenauer proposed a bill that calls for replacing the current Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with an "Independent Ethics Commission" (H.R. 4948)...a House of Reps. "watchdog", if you will. I worked on this proposed bill last night, and saw that it called for a panel of 11members, 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent, all former House members that must have been out of their position for a minimum of 2 years. The Committee's proposed sole function is to monitor "ethical practices" of members of the House (procedures and the methods used by Members in their proposals for Bills) as well as many other outlined provisions. One of the purposes this has been proposed is to deter Members from withholding their views in fear of the opinions that their colleagues may develop as a result.

The reason I mention this in this thread, is because of all the animosity surrounding the Abramoff situation, among many other incidents surrounding many other issues brought to the House floor, I am sure. Since the issue of Internet gambling, and those opposed to it, has come to the forefront, the timing could not be better. It was vastly referred to 3 different House committees for review, so I am sure that the House Members "feel a need for a mediator". If enacted, lets hope this new "Ethics Commission" can see right through the "shady tactics" Members can, (and in my view - have tried to use), for their own selfish purposes in obtaining their goals.

[spearmaster]

Just wanted to say thanks to Cynthia for keeping such close track of what's going on - her posts are very detailed and thoughtful and I apologize for not thanking her for each and every one of those posts

[jetset]

Bad news from Reuters in Washington today (Wednesday) This looks like Leach's Bill 4411 referred to earlier. Fortunately it's still early days and there are more hurdles ahead for this Bill.

WASHINGTON (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 (news, bio, voting record), 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.

[sdaddy]

Man, so many bills to keep track of now my head hurts. That's clearly the strategy in Congress this time: get as many bills going as possible in the hopes that something will finally become law.

What really bugs me is that the Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings before marking up its bill today. How about listening to the voices that want to pursue a course of regulation and taxation instead? Did any of them even take time to watch well-researched 60 Minutes report that highlighted the pitfalls of such prohibition laws? I doubt it.

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.

Rep. Frank has been right on this issue for a long time. I really wish there were more in Congress like him.

[sdaddy]

Just wanted to say thanks to Cynthia for keeping such close track of what's going on - her posts are very detailed and thoughtful and I apologize for not thanking her for each and every one of those posts

I would second that. I wonder if anyone has ever told her she would make a great Capitol Hill reporter?

[jetset]

I would second that. I wonder if anyone has ever told her she would make a great Capitol Hill reporter?

Yes, me too - you're doing a great job Cynthia; a great asset to the forum imo.

A few more details on the Bill reported above, which I have confirmed is indeed HR 4411 from Leach:

"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 yield 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 borders.

If these Bills and their "exceptions" go through - and there's still a lot of road to travel - the US position vis-a-vis the WTO dispute will be made more difficult. The US defence has been that it objects to Internet gambling on moral grounds; that approach is difficult to sustain when you have hypocritical carve outs for certain forms of gambling.