Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

[jetset]

Excellent post, GG!

I have to say I am in agreement with you that the industry has generally lacked foresight and unity in opposing the unsubstantiated allegations continually being made against it and the political and enforcement activity that has ensued as a consequence.

These political and enforcement people too often go unchallenged in their statements and their actions.

High profile guys like Nigel Payne, David Carruthers and others including the courageous Michael Corfman have pretty much been left to defend the industry in isolated contacts with the media or in legal jousts with the DoJ.

Perhaps this lack of collective commitment was through complacency, or perhaps an ill-advised reluctance to invest the significant sums necessary to protect oneself by protecting and promoting the industry at the levels necessary.

I recall at one time some fairly substantial lobbyist funds were going through the IGC but I think this sort of behind-the-scenes political persuasion is only one element in the sort of business and communications strategy needed to really hit hard with a consistent industry perspective.

Unfortunately, I don't see too many indicators even now that this fragmented approach will change anytime soon.

 

[Simmo!]

Anyway, I'll just say that IMHO, what you mention isn't what I would call a major effort and from where I'm sitting it sure looks like a lot of running and hiding.

The PLC companies like 888 have no option but to appear to be complying now, or they lose share value hand over fist while investors (who largely don't understand the industry) get scared and sell, sell, sell. Once they have stated their intentions, settled that major problem, THEN they are in a position to fight. You can't fight if you've nothing left to fight for!

They will fight this I'm 100% sure. Plus, the fight doesn't need to be held in public. There are plenty of $ubtler ways to fight legislation.

 

[Webzcas]

It's time for the industry to band together in a big way...and bring along the big bucks. We can no longer hope that Antigua or people like Michael Corfman will fight these battles on their own. This is an industry issue and must be addressed BY the industry.

I agree with this GG. However for the likes of Party and 888 to issue seperate statements indicating they are going to pull out of the US. Knowing fully well such a statement would and has put their share price into freefall is very worrying for us all involved in this industry. They would not have taken this decision lightly and their legal teams would have been working overtime before this decision was reached. I expect as a result all public listed gambling operations which currently still accept US Players to follow their decision in the coming weeks. Especially as this law when signed through by Bush will be retrospective and not retroactive. Meaning, those online casinos and their directors which pull out of the US by the time it comes into being, will not be targetted with federal warrants and other legal charges etc.

So where does this leave us? The majority of the reputable casinos will no longer accept US Players. This will have a knock on effect on the earning potential of affiliate webmasters. Furthermore and more worrying is that for the US Player, that continues to want to play online, using 3rd party payment solution such as neteller - They will be left with mainly the less reputable gambling operations to play at. This truly does suck.

According to Frist 'Online Gambling is Illegal' - Maybe I am missing something, but I believe this is not actually the case in the US, well at least not yet anyhow. I would also like clarification if anyone can help me, as to where this leaves webmasters. Will having links to online casinos from your own websites be breaking this new law, should your site be accessible in the US?

The reason I ask, is because on many forums, I am seeing a lot of scaremongering and people acting like manic hairdressers professing that the end is nigh.

 

[Pinababy69]

According to Frist 'Online Gambling is Illegal' - Maybe I am missing something, but I believe this is not actually the case in the US, well at least not yet anyhow. I would also like clarification if anyone can help me, as to where this leaves webmasters. Will having links to online casinos from your own websites be breaking this new law, should your site be accessible in the US?

The reason I ask, is because on many forums, I am seeing a lot of scaremongering and people acting like manic hairdressers professing that the end is nigh.

Hi Web, not sure if you've seen this link before. It's been posted by both Dom and Spear. It is a legal analysis by Professor Nelson Rose. At the very least it gives you an informed legal opinion.

Old / Expired Link

Great posts Greedy and Spear!! I agree with both of you. As Spear said, if the publicly traded companies don't stop the bleeding, there'll be nothing left to save. But once this is accomplished, it really is time for everyone to step up to the plate.

Greedy, I especially liked your points re: Carruthers. I also felt like he had been hung out to dry, the proverbial sacrifical lamb. You've also given me a few things to think about, like what can the average person do to try and rally the troops? Surely there must be some operators out there with enough capital and backbone to try and get something accomplished. I'd like to know if/when you ever get an answer to your question. It's valid and it speaks volumes.

 

[Rollo]

Yes, absolutely... collective action is needed, but I also think online gambling needs an agressive spokesperson whoever it may be. Even in the most convervative county in the most conservative state in the South, people can get online and see the nastiest sorts of pornography and that's in large part due to the efforts of a handful of individuals such as Larry Flint pushing the envelope with their money and their freedom. I'm not giving any props to porn here, but if people in Mississippi can get online and look at say, midget orgies, geez, online gambling should have been a slam dunk.

The reason we're were we are today is the people most invested in online gambling rolled over, were blind, arrogant and really in many cases all of the above. Really, stock in the publically traded companies is now so cheap, their founders could easily take them private and move forward full steam if they were so inclined but I think they're intent on keeping their money in the bank and themselves out of harms way, but let's not beat that dead horse anymore. As a company or as a concerned citizen, the people with resorces should do so, so much more.

The Caruthers case isn't what we'll need becuae he is accused of something explicity outlawed by the Wire Act. We need a casino or poker case. This IMO is the only way we're going to see this law go away. There won't be a veto, it's not going to get ruled unconstitutional, and I think that it's very very unlikely to be replealed anytime soon. On the contrary, the momentum is still in place for passage of the Goodlatte portion updating the Wire Act and that still needs to be stopped. You can bet he'll be pushing that again in the next Congress. The first order of business should be trying to stop that becuase if that passes, it is game over.

The best we can hope for is that a, say, poker exec gets arrested and the court throws it out on the grounds that this law doesn't appy to poker, only to telephone sportsbetting. Better still, it's someone with a big mouth and lots of money who isn't camera shy. This will take years so the sooner someone steps up, the better.

None of what's going on is going to kill online gambling, but US players are going to be out of play for a long time. Not becuase online gambling is illegal, but becuase the operators now assume it is. All we've gotten out of these folks (public and private) is that "we're going to be experiencing adverse affect on profitability for the next quarter" or "we're going to refocus our efforts in Europe and Asia."

Anyway, getting back to the fallout... here's some good coverage of the major sorftware provider's responses:

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

 

[just play]

What about about child porn?? (of age porn doesn't bother me) but child porn is all over the place, people selling and buying children, posting pictures of them, making them do things....

Lets go after those bad people called gamblers!


Makes no sense to me....

 

[Simmo!]

The best we can hope for is that a, say, poker exec gets arrested and the court throws it out on the grounds that this law doesn't appy to poker, only to telephone sportsbetting. Better still, it's someone with a big mouth and lots of money who isn't camera shy.

Calvin Who?

 

[Rollo]

Calvin Who? ... More like Calvin, where?

 

[Simmo!]

Calvin Who? ... More like Calvin, where?

Very good

 

[Pinababy69]

Calvin Who?

He'd be perfect Simmo, except that I think he's too pretty to spend any time in jail, lol. Well, unless he hired some extra large bodyguards to watch over him.

 

[Rollo]

A little action from Nigel Payne

Dig... a little action from Nigel Payne

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

Kudos to Nigel

 

[greedygirl]

Old / Expired Link

Obviously, it won't stop our immediate concerns, however, I think it would be wise to get further information on what Porter is putting forth and do whatever possible to get behind it.

 

[Tailgun]

Dig... a little action from Nigel Payne

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

Kudos to Nigel

excerpt:

Meanwhile other online gambling bosses are thinking a little more proactively. Mitch Garber, the head of Internet poker giant PartyGaming, and Gigi Levy, head of 888 Holdings, said in a newspaper report on Tuesday that the new American law would spark a wave of consolidation in the industry.

Levy said mergers would happen first between online operators, and Garber confirmed that PartyGaming would be sopping up the smaller companies who risked collapsing in the wake of the new law. Casinos like Harrah's Entertainment (nyse: HET - news - people ) and MGM Mirage, he said, would then pick up the scraps.​

Others have posited this as the eventual outcome. The one way Americans will win this fight is if the casino whales of Las Vegas and Atlantic City move in.

 

[dominique]

I think it will take at least a few weeks, but likely months until we see what the actual effect of this bill is.

Everyone is just speculating at this time. It will be a ways hence before the legal minds have disected this thing properly.

 

[Mousey]

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Internet Gambling: Strange bedfellows

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Politics has again made for strange bedfellows. This time, the oddly linked pair is port security and Internet gambling.

In the last hours before Congress adjourned for the midterm election campaign, the long-awaited port security bill passed both chambers with an anomalous appendage: the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

If signed by President Bush, the new law would make it a crime for banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to transfer funds for American gamblers to Internet gambling sites.

The impact was almost immediate. Shares of PartyGaming PLC, which operates the world's most popular poker site, PartyPoker.com, fell 58 percent on Monday. Shares of Sportingbet, which owns ParadisePoker.com, fell 64 percent. Overall, according to Cox News Service, the plunge wiped off as much as $7.5 billion in stock value.

The legislative maneuver was seen as a way for congressional Republicans to show they'd done something for the religious right in a session in which Congress accomplished so little for almost everyone.

"Gambling from your bedroom or living room or dormitory is not a socially useful activity," according to a statement from the office of Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who pushed the legislation.

While accessibility of online gambling has surely lured its share of gullible gamers, just how comfortable should we be with government dictating which activities undertaken in our bedroom, living room or dormitory are "socially useful"?

O.K.... so when I'm in my own bedroom, I have to be doing something socially useful or Congress will ban it??? Wait till I tell the hubby....

 

[dominique]

Gambling from your bedroom or living room or dormitory is not a socially useful activity," according to a statement from the office of Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who pushed the legislation.

This is absolutely hilarious!!!!!

 

[paul02085]

Just shows the kind of absolute idiots that we elect as our representatives. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.

 

[SlotsWizard]

It's true, gambling online is not socially useful. A better activity is getting all drunk and then start sending lewd and lascivious messages to 14-year old government helpers of the same gender. See, there's more than one person involved there - so that's socially useful.

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

 

[jetset]

O.K.... so when I'm in my own bedroom, I have to be doing something socially useful or Congress will ban it??? Wait till I tell the hubby....

These guys really are bloody loonies! Unless it is of course just pandering to the other loonies that keep them in office. Typical Leach.

I liked this rather elegant turn of phrase in the Seattle piece:

Quote: The legislative maneuver was seen as a way for congressional Republicans to show they'd done something for the religious right in a session in which Congress accomplished so little for almost everyone.Unquote

The unfortunate fact, however is that Democrats, too, were cornered into voting for the Safe Ports bill and its iniquitous attachment.

 

[Westland Bowl]

The unfortunate fact, however is that Democrats, too, were cornered into voting for the Safe Ports bill and its iniquitous attachment.

There's not much choice between Twiddledee and Twiddledum in US politics. Their cousins are not much better either.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What is unlawful

Surely the bill bans transfers for "Unlawful" internet gambling, but it does not redefine this, so surely the old Wire act and state law will still hold sway. Thus, if online casinos get rid of all sports betting they will not breach the wire act, and if they then block players from those states that have expressly banned casino forms of online gambling, they will not be breaching any state law.
In this situation, a player whose transaction is blocked, and who suffers adversely as a consequence, can sue the bank(s) involved, (the gaming companies can rally round and sponsor such a test case).
The grounds for suing would be that the transaction was NOT for a form of internet gambling that has been defined as unlawful by any act, and thus the bank acted outside it's remit in blocking the transaction.
If the case is won for the player, this will pretty much neuter the latest amendment to the port security bill, and it will be back to business as before, with banks having to work out whether the account holder comes from a state that has a blanket ban, or whether the funds are going to a site that offers sports betting in contravention of the wire act. The banks will probably protest that this is "unworkable".

Nno-US players have an interest in this, as we will certainly suffer as a result in that casinos will have far less to offer than before, although in the short term we may see bigger new player offers in an effort to quickly replace lost US players.

 

[Rollo]

Gaming collapse sparks debt worry at World Gaming

Fallout cont': Ouch... looks like it's practically collapsed World Gaming... they'll get gobbled up for sure.

"The misery for internet gambling firm World Gaming continued today after it admitted it was struggling to deal with its $23m (18m) debts.

Shares in the London-based company tumbled by around a third when it told the stock market that it may be in technical default of its loan conditions because of new anti-gaming laws in the United States.

It followed a bloodbath in the online gaming sector yesterday in which World Gaming lost 76% of its value in the wake of Congress passing the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

World Gaming was today worth just 10m (14.8m) compared with 62.8m (93.2m) before yesterdays crash and 211.8m (314.3m) in August last year.

It was the hardest hit of the online gaming stocks by the new legislation, which bans banks and credit card companies in the US from processing payments to online casinos.

The law effectively deprives World Gaming of its revenue stream as more than 95% of its business is done in the US through its websites such as sportingbetusa.com, sportsbetting.com and betonusa.com.

The company was $23m (18m) in debt at the end of June.

Today it said: The company continues to operate at the current time and is in discussion with its lenders.

.......................................................................................

There is one thing that we're all forgetting to consider... that the US is a federal system and now we should all fully expect to see all sorts of Draconian state laws come into play, even ones that attack players and advertisers.

"I'm scared to think about all the crazy shit the states will think up now that the issue is on their minds. It's not unimaginable that even advertisers could get hauled into an Alabama court and get sentenced there and the moment you get out of jail there's a Lousiana sheriff wating for you at the gate to stand trial for aiding and abetting for gambling by computer for some low level sting in Baton Rouge." (Lifted from this tread: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/line-item-veto-power.14376/)

I really have no economic dog in this fight, well not one that I'm too worried about, but I really can't believe US society is so backward. I feel sorry for the players (who gambled responsibly and really relyed on gaming to add some spice to their lives), all the employees of these firms who will soon find themselves high and dry, not to mention the (good) webmasters.

I'm about all posted out...

 

[Rollo]

and who suffers adversely as a consequence, can sue the bank(s) involved

Good thinking, but unfortunately the legislation explicity states that banks can't be sued for complying with the law.

 

[Westland Bowl]

I really have no economic dog in this fight, well not one that I'm too worried about, but I really can't believe US society is so backward. I feel sorry for the players (who gambled responsibly and really relyed on gaming to add some spice to their lives), all the employees of these firms who will soon find themselves high and dry, not to mention the (good) webmasters.

Yes, we are backward for a reason.....US government is based on a Catholic religious system. The US government was founded upon Roman Empire model (both secular and pagan) that migrated into the Roman Catholic religion. Indeed, the land that Washington DC is sitting on used to be called Rome. Many Roman gods and goddesses adorned the inside of the Capitol's dome. Most of US founders were Catholic and/or Freemasons.

True Christianity doesn't force morality upon people. It persuades people to accept it's gospel. But Catholic system basically forces it's morality upon people. The US government, despite the so-called separation of church and state, follows that. Today's Protestant evangelicals are no better in that they believe they are supposed to change government for the wholesale enforcement of their supposed better morality.

From Tupper Saussy's Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Each and every one of these legislators was a Roman Catholic layperson subject to Vatican IIs instructions to use his or her secular offices to advance the cause of Roman Catholicism. Vatican II calls upon Catholic politicians, whoever they are...to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification so as to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth (IV, 33).

Catholic politicians having secular monetary and taxing authority (by their competence in secular disciplines and by their activity) are called upon to redistribute worldly goods according to the Churchs design -- [to] vigorously contribute their effort so that...the goods of this world may be more equitably distributed among all men, and may in their own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom (IV, 36).

Nothing in American law forbids this from happening. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a religious establishments right to encourage its believers not only to ensconce themselves in secular government, but also to use any legitimate means to subject otherwise uncooperative fellow-citizens to its agenda of internationalizing private American wealth.

When legislators, executives, and judges seem to put the welfare of other nations ahead of their own, it may not be treason they are committing. They may well be freely exercising the Roman Catholic religion of Vatican II.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Alright, alright! You can bash me or say that you disagree with me for my post above. Just because I wrote it (and believe it) doesn't mean you have to agree with me. You can hear a pin drop in this thread right now!