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

[jetset]

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.

Carruthers has repeatedly appealed to the US authorities to at least consider licensing, regulating and taxing the industry in general and his group in particular, and he has been very active in promoting this concept. Other major groups have done the same for years, notably Nigel Payne of Sportingbet. Alas, this is not what Goodlatte et al want to hear it appears.

I think one of the most common sense observations to be made in that hearing was by Rep. John Conyers, who made what seems to me the obvious suggestion that before prohibiting something one should have an independent and thorough investigation.

Conyers tried to bring this about two years ago with his proposal for a Congressional committee, but unfortunately it was not successful. Contrast that with the recent approach to online gambling legalisation by the South African government, which had a multi-disciplined investigative committee engaged for eighteen months in exhaustively studying the international online gambling industry before recommending that it be legalised.

Interesting that you mention Trident in the context of responsible gaming, Cynthia - that group goes a step further and actually employs a problem gaming counsellor who was once a problem gambler himself. The management's experience goes right back to the early days of online casino gambling btw.

Unfortunately, the industry is ill served by some of the groups we see portrayed in the Rogue section at Casinomeister, or whose activities feature in "Online Casino Complaints" here and elsewhere all too frequently.

These are the nickel-and-diming, player-screwing bottom feeders that players need to be warned about to avoid bad experiences, and that is where player communication through well established and integrity-driven sites like this plays such an important role.

 

[GrandMaster]

Just to add to the tax angle. I bet that the overwhelming majority of players at US casinos who do not win enough to generate paperwork do not pay US taxes either.

 

[Peaceful1]

Just to add to the tax angle. I bet that the overwhelming majority of players at US casinos who do not win enough to generate paperwork do not pay US taxes either.

Of course...not to say that about everyone, but, in my experience frequenting casinos, only winnings in a single session/spin totaling $1200 or more in DE or WV require paperwork..other than that the attendants come and pay you, no questions asked (and somehow I doubt that everyone is tallying their winnings and keeping record at tax time). Even State lotteries, I cannot keep count of the number of times I have heard someone play a Pick 3 or Pick 4 number on separate tickets, even if its 50 cents straight on 20 separate tickets (winnings would be $2500 per ticket, which can be cashed right away, no paperwork required)... because the person says "I'm not paying all those taxes". I have even seen people get highly upset if the clerk does not enter their numbers on separate tickets, and loudly state the tax reason.

 

[srby49]

Not being much of an authority on the workings of congress, I have a couple of questions.

When will this bill be voted on? And if passed, when exactly would it go into effect? When will we not be able to place a bet?

Also (and I know this is more than a couple of questions) how do we get our money out of Neteller if this bill makes transactions ilegal?

The link to the online gambling bill is buried within this thread so I'll post it again here: Outdated URL (Invalid)

You can check the status of this bill there. So far 118 co-sponsors have signed up, but only 2 joined since the bill's introduction on Feb 16th.

 

[Peaceful1]

srby49,

A bill has to go through a lengthy process of introduction, debate, referrals to committees, markup/amendments and agreement between both House of Representatives and Senate before ultimately going to the President to be signed. Once it is signed by the President, the bill usually takes effect on the first of the year following his signature.

As far as this bill goes, it is somewhere midway in the process, and business on it will not resume until next week, as Congress is still out of session this week for the "Spring Break Work District Period". Thus far, things are still looking favorable as far as it not passing, or at least we have a pretty good chance that it will not (see Casinomeister's News section).

I cannot really speak for Neteller or other web wallets, but my guess is that in the worst case scenario, any funds remaining at the time the bill is in effect will need to be refunded to the depositor (if anyone has any thoughts/knowledge on this particular subject, please feel free to correct me).

 

[rtmlam]

Of course...not to say that about everyone, but, in my experience frequenting casinos, only winnings in a single session/spin totaling $1200 or more in DE or WV require paperwork..other than that the attendants come and pay you, no questions asked (and somehow I doubt that everyone is tallying their winnings and keeping record at tax time). Even State lotteries, I cannot keep count of the number of times I have heard someone play a Pick 3 or Pick 4 number on separate tickets, even if its 50 cents straight on 20 separate tickets (winnings would be $2500 per ticket, which can be cashed right away, no paperwork required)... because the person says "I'm not paying all those taxes". I have even seen people get highly upset if the clerk does not enter their numbers on separate tickets, and loudly state the tax reason.

Agreed, pretty much $1200.00 across the US with regards to documentation. It is also worth mentioning that winnings are deductible, but I believe only up to the level of losses so it can be a wash for many that frequently gamble.

 

[GrandMaster]

Agreed, pretty much $1200.00 across the US with regards to documentation.

The $1200 limit is federal law or regulation, so of course it is uniform.

It is also worth mentioning that winnings are deductible, but I believe only up to the level of losses so it can be a wash for many that frequently gamble.

You mean losses are deductible to the extent of winnings. The winning are taxable even if they don't generate any paperwork, it is just much easier to hide them.

 

[rtmlam]

The $1200 limit is federal law or regulation, so of course it is uniform.

You mean losses are deductible to the extent of winnings. The winning are taxable even if they don't generate any paperwork, it is just much easier to hide them.

Yes GrandMaster, you are correct. I had these swapped around. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Dozer]

Should be banned or legalized

I think the government should get there hands involved to make some of these casinos legit. Pretty hard to fight a casino from overseas compared to being in the usa. I am not even sure this is an online casino in the usa and let the government take some profit from overseeing them and make it legal. I dont like the government getting into anything that it has to but maybe we would'nt see to many complaints on the complait board all the time. Just my 2cents / thats all i have left anyways after the way the slots have been treating me lately or should i say for the last 6 months.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Recent actions on this bill came last week. The Thomas registry said on May 5th, the bill was "Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote".

Here is a news release commenting on the action, using the title "House panel approves cybergambling ban" See

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

 

[jetset]

No, I think this was just a reprise of earlier reports that the proposal had been adopted on a voice vote by the crime sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee, taking it on to the next step of a full committee.

See Casinomeister News.

 

[Chatmaster]

I believe that the bill will run into a brick wall soon. The entire approach of the bill is wrong and the implications for the online industry (Non Gambling related) as a whole is phenominal. Besides due to the structure of the internet they will simply endanger their citizens of being exposed to more doggy outfits instead of protecting them.

 

[Westland Bowl]

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

The bill has picked up more co-sponsors and the total is now at 144 !! 6 more had signed up on March 14 and 15 and another 7 signed up May 10, yesterday.

Texas led with the most new co-sponsors with 4. The following states had one new co-sponsor: Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wyoming, Missouri and Georgia.

The bill has gained more visibility as it came out of sub-committee to full committee status. See my previous post above.

 

[Chatmaster]

Amazing how short sighted they are! The effect this could have on the entire internet industry is scary!

"Virtual betting parlors have attempted to avoid the application of United States law by locating themselves offshore and out of our jurisdictional reach," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who wrote the bill. The offshore companies use Internet sites that are "unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated,"

It seems like lying is fine, but online gambling that are in most cases LICENSED, TAXED and REGULATED are not. This guy lives on his own planet!

 

[sdaddy]

On Saturday Frank Fahrenkopf of the American Gaming Association appeared on the public affairs channel C-Span to discuss the proposed legislation in Congress on restricting internet gambling. His organization's position is that there should be a one-year study looking at if online gambling should be regulated. He also cited some interesting polling that showed that 80% of Americans would be against prohibiting internet gambling.

You can watch the 30 minute interview clip through this Link Removed (invalid URL).

 

[Peaceful1]

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:

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

 

[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.

 

[Peaceful1]

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 Link Removed (invalid URL) ) :

"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 (

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

) :

Supporters of a federal ban on Internet gambling were not receptive to the AGAs proposal.

"We dont need another study to demonstrate what is already known to be fact," said Sen. Mark Pryor, a supporter of Kyls 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 AGAs 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

House Committee Passes Goodlatte and Leach I-Gaming Legislation

Link Removed (invalid URL)

 

[buck]

I guess I will be back to betting on the ponies

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]

US Gaming

.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]

Current Legislation

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]

WTO

Wrong if they want to export.