We're going to see a lot of discussion on this latest move/s (because Leach and Kyl are also planning a Bill and have been collaborating on it to avoid mutually exclusive provisions)
It seems that at present Goodlatte is trying to leverage the high profile press coverage surrounding lobbyist Abramoff's exposure, but that's just politics, because previous attempts have not focused very much on the activities of lobbyists as a reason for failure.
These guys always start out full of vinegar, but many previous attempts have failed and it should be remembered that there are many vested interests involved in this, all trying to ensure they are not prejudiced. And the individual states will not want their authority to regulate and control happenings within their states diluted by federal efforts.
The sponsors of these Bills are trying to avoid the mistakes of the past, especially in regard to unfair exemptions to their proposals, but more interference from diverse interested parties would be pretty much inevitable I would think.
As you can see from the following - there are a number of other recent developments that could have an impact, too.
Success is always a possibility with this legislation, especially after so many years of failure for the legislators, but I wouldn't write US online gambling off just yet - and even assuming they get the law through it is going to be very difficult to practically apply, as even the Department of Justice has admitted. Things like ISP blocks are not going to go down well with anyone in a U.S. that guards its freedoms jealously.
All of this political energy focused on Internet gambling for so many years begs the question - do the politicians really know what their constituents feel about this? There was a survey recently that suggested that 67 percent of respondents felt that online gambling in the States should be legalised, regulated and taxed.
WILL US BANNING ATTEMPTS IMPACT WTO AND ANTIGUA?
Is the USA on a collision course with the World Trade Organisation?
The launch last week of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act by Reps. Goodlatte and Boucher, and other legislation reported to be about to enter the US lawmaking system could put the United States on a collision course with a World Trade Organisation already eying the Americans over the hotly contested Antigua online gambling dispute.
If the Bill passes and impacts offshore gaming it may be in contravention of the WTO ruling regarding the prohibition of Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, says the BBC, which claims that the bill will put the US on a collision course with the WTO, which has ruled that the US "...must not interfere with online gambling sites based overseas."
If the bill passes, the US could be subject to WTO sanctions come April for not bringing its laws into compliance with the WTO ruling.
Antigua has already protested the new U.S. efforts to outlaw Internet gambling and complained that the United States had done nothing to implement a World Trade Organisation ruling against current restrictions. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman released last Friday, Antigua's ambassador to the WTO, John Ashe, expressed concern about two U.S. legislative proposals to outlaw Internet gambling.
"Each of the bills is in key respects expressly contrary to the rulings and the recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization," Ashe said. He also complained that the United States had made no move to comply with the April 2005 ruling.
Sponsors of the 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' which seeks to update the antiquated 'Wire Act' claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. That's debateable - just last week the chief of the American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf pointed out in an interview that up until the media blitz started, very few people had even heard of Abramoff, let alone considered him a top lobbyist.
Nevertheless, Goodlatte was damning in his indictment of the disgraced Abramoff, saying: "I have previously introduced similar legislation in both the 106th and 107th Congresses only to have them both derailed by Jack Abramoff's campaign of misinformation. Jack Abramoff's total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to continue thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts individuals and their families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering."
The last part of that statement is arguable, too in light of the repeated pleas of large Internet betting companies to be legalised, regulated and taxed on US soil. And the old "money laundering and terrorist funding" allegation has repeatedly been disproved.
The new law as it now stands would be absolutely explicit - any gambling using the Internet is illegal in the US. Additionally, Goodlatte seeks to target US-facing offshore gambling sites by making official the ban on accepting credit cards, electronic funds transfers, or checks from US players. Banks and other American financial institutions have been imposing their own ban for some time, but this will certainly turn the screws tighter if it passes. Penalties for violations have been raised from two to five years in jail.
The Bill apparently seeks to avoid previous pitfalls that have generated opposition. For example, it does not seek to overthrow or limit the rights of individual states to authorise gambling within their borders. That would appear inconsistent, because if the goal is to stop money from being lost and laundered to 'shady outfits' based offshore, why is Internet gambling banned within the US as well? If the reason is to save the minority of citizens who are prone to addictive behavior, why do legal commercials run on TV every night encouraging citizens to visit Vegas?
Previous attempts have been bedevilled by wheeling and dealing over exemptions for vested interests in other gambling sectors (such as Indian gaming and horse racing) and politico-religious groupings. Whilst these might not necessarily be friendly toward online gambling per se, they have their own interests to protect and this has been an important factor in the past.
The progress of the current banning attempt, and those for and agin' it is going to make very interesting reading in the weeks and probably months ahead.
