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.?

 

[The Dude]

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?

 

[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.