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. Whos to say the person running that website wont 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.

 

[Peaceful1]

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. Whos to say the person running that website wont 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:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Peaceful1]

question..

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 States power to regulate.

I have joined 126 of my colleagues 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]

Let's do this in pieces

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 States 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 States 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>

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

 

[LisasLuck]

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 greehouse 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>

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

May I use that ? Its a perfect response..... Thank YOU

 

[Simmo!]

May I use that ? Its a perfect response..... Thank YOU

LOL - be my guest

 

[managra]

Simmo, i, too, think that it is a fantastic letter that you wrote and i would like to borrow very heavily from it in some more emails i hope to fire off soon. Thanks!

 

[Simmo!]

Simmo, i, too, think that it is a fantastic letter that you wrote and i would like to borrow very heavily from it in some more emails i hope to fire off soon. Thanks!

No problem managra - anyone can feel free to use it and bastardise as fit

By the way there was a small typo in it (now rectified) - "greehouse gasses" - now "greenhouse gasses" obviously!

 

[Westland Bowl]

Another co-sponsor picked up from Illinois. Total co-sponsors now at 131. Don't know if Delay is going to be dropped off the list or not.

 

[Peaceful1]

UPDATES on H.R.4777 and 4411

Ok folks..sorry I haven't posted/been on here too much frequently (inundated with overtime, primarily amendments on Immigration Act)..but here are some quick updates...

- H.R. 4777 was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on March 31. The subcommittee held hearings Wednesday, April 5.

- H.R. 4411 was reported (amended) by the House Committee on Financial Services last night 4/6 at 9:30pm. The report number to look out for is
109-412 (text not available yet, more than likely GPO may have had to "cut" the Congressional Record last night- if we cannot get everything done by the deadline in morning, the remainder gets published with the next day's record) (it's been insanely busy this week)
H.R. 4411 has been referred now to the House Committee on the Judiciary for a period of review not to exceed May 26, 2006 for consideration of the provisions, amendment, and Financial Services' committee report of this bill

More to come as it becomes available......

 

[Peaceful1]

Just a note too.. Congress will be out of session for the Spring Break District Work Period for the next two weeks and will return April 23/24. Let's take advantage of these two weeks to get writing if you haven't already done so, because business will resume when they come back in two weeks...

 

[managra]

Cynthia, as always you're very helpful to keep us informed on what's happening on the Hill. Thanks. Hope to have some time this weekend to fire off more emails.

 

[Peaceful1]

2 links on the testimony/hearings on 4777

Old / Expired Link

Old / Expired Link





at work now..gotta go

 

[jetset]

The US and European press has been very active in reporting the April 5 proceedings, in general taking the line that the serious objections on carve-outs and enforcement difficulty to the Bill is a serious hurdle and the harbinger of more difficulties to its passage.

The bank guys don't want to be dragged into enforcement and said so, and Goodlatte and the DoJ had an embarrassing conflict at one stage.

Pressed by Conyers on the horse racing issue (that's one of the carve outs) Goodlatte couldn't or wouldn't comment and sidestepped the issue, illustrating I think how sensitive his Bill is to this aspect.

London stocks took an upward trend Thursday and Friday - Party Gaming by as much as 10 percent - on the optimism following this opposition to the Bill.

Rep. John Conyers was not the only one this time to call for a thorough investigation by a committee before any prohibition.

David Carruthers's public email debate with Rep. Leach on his Bill, which was conducted by the Wall Street Journal has also achieved massive coverage - most seemed to think that Carruthers made some very telling points. And the Poker Player's Alliance got a lot of coverage from their high profile opposition to the Bill on behalf of millions of American poker players.

All in all a pretty positive week for the anti-prohibition lobby - the April 7 issue of Casinomeister News has quite a lot of material on these happenings this week.

 

[managra]

All in all a pretty positive week for the anti-prohibition lobby - the April 7 issue of Casinomeister News has quite a lot of material on these happenings this week.

Thanks, Jetset. Your posts are always great and this one was no exception. The positive tone of recent events was music to my ears. For all of us who have been busy and haven't had much time to surf the net for info, i recommend reading the Casinomeister News thread. Lots of good info and all at your finger tips!

Cardplayer now features at the top of their home page a very user friendly feature to send emails protesting the proposed legislation to all your State Representatives, in Congress and the Senate. Their link is:

www.cardplayer.com

The Cardplayer draft focuses on poker. However, it addresses another very disturbing feature of the proposed legislation: the need for the banking industry to be Big Brother over your bank accounts in order to enforce such legislation. It's aspects such as these that should make the proposed legislation reprehensible to the general American public, regardless of their views on gambling.

 

[Peaceful1]

I am glad to hear that Goodlatte, Leach and Kyl will have a hard road to travel trying to get these bills passed. Reading through Goodlatte's testimony, and to quote:

"These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States. In addition, Internet gambling can serve as a vehicle for money laundering by organized crime syndicates and terrorists."


...really irritates me because his statements are unfairly generalized.. and could be just short of slander/libel, IMO. Not all of the gambling operators, as I'm sure we would all agree, are "fly-by-night"...take for example, the Trident Group, which has been in operation as early as 2002, if I'm not mistaken, maybe even earlier. Their site even lists links for filters to ensure that children/minors in the household are not able to access the platform, lists links for Gambler's Anonymous/Addiction if one feels they are "out of control", and enables a player to "set limits" if they feel the need to do so. Many of the sites also state that they are audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and not to mention eCogra...which includes provisions for anti-money laundering. And I'm sure that all of us, at one time or another, have had to scan/fax copies of our driver's license and signed credit cards (front and back) upon the request of the casino for their security purposes.


So to Goodlatte:
In the words of the Geico Neanderthals ... "Perhaps you should do a little more research..."

 

[GrandMaster]

These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated

The obvious solution is to license it, tax it and regulate it. I hear the US budget deficit is expected to be near $500 billion, so every little bit of extra income would help.

 

[Peaceful1]

My thoughts exactly, and I remember Carruthers saying something to the effect that if it were to be regulated in the U.S., even if taxed, he would be right on a plane back to the U.S. to set up shop, instead of being in Costa Rica.

 

[managra]

Carruthers said (in the NO CHANCE OF PROHIBITION IN THE U.S. THIS YEAR
article in the CM's April 2006 News thread) that online gambling is expected to grow from $12 billion now to $22 billion in the next four years with US players representing about 45% of the market. So, yeah, Goodlatte prefers to rob the US of a nice taxing/regulating opportunity in order to switch US players from immoral poker and casino play to the highly moral activity of . . . horserace betting! Makes good sense, huh?