Congressmen Press for Legislative Solution to WTO Internet Gambling Dispute

[JeffreyS]

Momentum for regulated Internet gambling is continuing to gain speed as eight members of Congress encouraged the Bush administration to consider altering its ban on Internet gambling rather than pay compensation to countries barred from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S. The statements were made in a letter to the United States Trade Representative Schwab.

Here is a link to media coverage on the story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3886180

Here is a link to the letter: http://www.safeandsecureig.org/media/ustrletter.pdf

Let’s keep up the fight and demand Congress regulate Internet gambling as a way to resolve the WTO conflict and give us the freedom to gamble online.

To learn more about this issue and to contact your elected representative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[jon13009]

Sounds great, and I hope this push will make the Bush Administration (particuarly Frist and Kyl) realize how arrogant and self serving that piece of crap legislation (IUGEA) really is.

While the push to resolve the IUGEA in light of WTO sanctions is admirable, there are some flaws in the propsoals out there.

For example, the Frank proposal has "opt out" clauses in his legalized on-line gambling proposal that would allow sports leagues to prohibit betting on their respective sports and also allow states to "opt out" of gambling activities they would vote against.

"Is it possible for restrictions to be enforced if individual states decide to “opt-out” from permitting persons in their states from Internet gambling?

Yes. In using the Internet, a customer’s IP address is broadcast to the operator, which can then be used to identify the state in which a customer resides with a 99 percent level of accuracy. This information is also made available and compared to the customer’s registration information. In the event the information differs, the transaction is not approved and the customer is prevented from engaging in Internet gambling. "

"If professional sports leagues and college associations decide to opt-out from allowing bets and wagers on their sporting activities, could that be enforced?

Yes. Under the proposed legislation, all licensed Internet gambling operators would be prohibited from accepting bets or wagers on sports leagues or associations that have opted-out. In the event of a violation, the operator’s license could be withdrawn and the operator may be prohibited from applying for a new license. As part of its contract with the Internet gambling operator, the PSP would be required to enforce these requirements throughout the collection and payment process."

source:

http://www.house.gov/frank/netgambling0407.html

your own page points these limitations out as well:

"Sports Leagues
Any sports league could opt out of the regulatory framework and prohibit any Internet gambling on their games or events."

http://www.safeandsecureig.org/regulatingandlicensing.html

Thus, the "opt-out" clauses of Frank's proposal would allow on-line poker while selectively prohibiting sports-betting (if the State where you reside allowed it at all.).

Frank's and other US legal proposals are really for on-line poker players and the PPA, not on-line sports bettors, because the NFL, NBA and MLB will continue to funnel millions upon millions of dollars to lobby against legalized on-line sports betting to try to defend the "integrity" of their leagues.

I hope these efforts to find a solution between the UIGEA and the WTO's sanctions are there to support on-line sports bettors as well, and not to just promote on-line poker players and the PPA while throwing on-line sport bettors under the bus. However, the "opt-out" clauses that stain the proposals that your efforts promote will do little towards legalizing on-line sportsbetting.

Pusing the IUGEA through as a rider of the Anti-terrorism Port Act at 4am and not giving legislators time to read and understand the terms of this unenforceable piece of stupidity makes you wonder who lined the pockets of Frist and Kyl to pass it in the first place. It cannot be Vegas because they want legalized on-line betting as long as it is centered in Vegas. Moralists have other pressing issues besides on-line gambling, and lack the money to push this piece of legislation in such a shady manner. Thus, it has to be the NFL, NBA and MLB (with the leagues billon dollar bankroll) who pushed that UIGEA shit into the mouths of the country and now the US Govt is paying for it.

GL with your efforts, but keep the interest of the small time on-line sports bettor in mind as well as the PPA and their constituents. Otherwise what is the point to legalize on-line poker if those efforts will hamper legalized on-line sports betting?

[RageWizard]

I still think that the Frank bill will be good for sports players because the bill will only restrict companys that license within the United States. The problem isn't getting a place to wager, it is getting the money to the place to wager. Making a bank or credit card company determine if a sportsbook has a license for the United States would put an undue burden on them. Thus it would be one of those laws that cannot be enforced. Kind of like the obscenity laws that are still on the books but aren't enforced or the Medical Ganja that is still illegal at the Federal level.

[jon13009]

Even if the Frank proposal passed and there was "legalized" gambling, the sports league would all "opt-out" along with the majority of the States, and only a handful of poker players would be allowed to play in a few states to appease the WTO and the PPA.

Thus you are basically correct: On-line sports bettors would be back to square one: going to unregulated off-shore books and hoping their deposit and payout methods are not cut off.

It seems most on-line sports bettors are beholden to the banks and financial institutions who decide for themselves how enforceable and far ranging the new US gambling laws are.

I am just wary of on-line poker player's efforts to get themselves legalized at the expense of on-line sports bettors, even though I am a small time on-line poker player myself - regardless of the sorry state of the Absolute Poker scam.

The dream of legalized US on-line sports betting is just a pipe dream, due to the lobbying efforts of the Sports leagues. Americans cannot enjoy what British citizens - and millions of international citizens - enjoy: betting at a regulated, licensed and taxed on-line book due to the short sited efforts of a few greedy Senators. Hypocritically States themselves use Lotteries, Horse Racing and Indian and Riverboat casinos to fund their budgets. Meanwhile the Premier League and FIFA continue to function in the light of legalized on-line betting.

[BuddyBear]

U.S. is just too conservative of a country to allow online gambling for sports...it will take at least 10-20 years before something like this passes. Religious lunatics controll the Congress......

[tblues2005]

I think the WTO ruling is a wake up call for this, I think there is a chance here that something could be done about this but I still say Bush will be out of office before anything gets done on this issue. I think what will happen if Hillary gets in that she will see to it that the money she took from Nevada when they had that debate is to regulate the ones already in the United States in Nevada will be able to take wagers on the internet and then there will be more money staying at home instead of going to the other countries, it is what you call competition and if you regulate the ones that are already here to do that then they could do business with Americans and it would be way easier to transfer funds than it could be in some other country. Then the economy will be helped by employing people here for this reason and make it legal for everyone. It would be easier to fund the gaming companies right here and make it legal for others if they want in other countries to compete, then there will be a even playing field. You just have to watch it very closely to make sure 100 percent that there is no cheating and that could be difficult to do. They would run the local bookies out of business and help our tax burden also. It just doesn't make any sense why they would pay our tax dollars to these other countries for something like this, just regulate it and do it in a way to benefit the companies right here in our country and we will be better off than having to depend on gaming companies that could be rip offs. There is a big list of rip off ones like sportsbook.com and betus.com also, you would run them kind out of business if they make the ones right here legal to wager online, I think the ones that have been good like thegreek and betjamaica would still survive but the ones that have done very poor would be in trouble.

[wildemu]

keep it regulated offshore because making it public here would be a disaster. I've seen enough crooked play from referees and players these days to know that it'll only get worse if this habit of ours arrives onshore.

[JC]

Mr. Sandman,

You want the Frank bill and that's fine. I know the people who are backing you and I get it. There are a lot of good arguments you can make for the Frank bill. But why does your group continue to put out misleading statements like this one on your home page?

"Frank’s legislation to regulate Internet gambling would resolve the WTO dispute and eliminate the need for the U.S. to pay trade compensation."

The Frank bill in its present state will not resolve the WTO issue. The three main reasons are the state opt outs, the sports league opt outs, and the requirement for Antiguan companies to "Americanize" and set up US offices and pay US taxes.

Please stop putting out false and misleading information.

Jay Cohen

[JeffreyS]

Even if the Frank bill, in its present form, does not resolve the WTO conflict, a legislative solution is a responsible policy solution. Here is an article where the EU Trade Commissioner says that the Frank bill could offer a way out:

EU's Mandelson: U.S. needs to change gambling laws
Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:35pm EST
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European trade chief Peter Mandelson said the United States should let foreign companies into its multibillion-dollar online gaming market instead of trying to compensate European firms for shutting them out.

"The U.S. has so far opted for compensation to make right what is wrong. I don't think compensation does that job," he told members of the European Parliament on Tuesday.

The European Union and other trading partners have been in compensation talks with the United States over Washington's decision to remove gambling services retroactively from commitments it made as part of a 1994 world trade agreement.

Billions of pounds were wiped off the market value of European online gaming companies when the United States closed off its market last year.

"What we really need is for the legislation to be put right and for foreign operators to stop being excluded and discriminated against in the way the present U.S. legislation does," Mandelson said.

Mandelson met U.S. Representative Barney Frank during a visit to Washington this month and he said on Tuesday he was hopeful Frank's attempts to change the law would be successful.

"I will continue to make these arguments on behalf of the European industry," Mandelson said.

[jon13009]

Apparently Mandelson, or you Mr. Sandman (if that is your real name), care little about how Frank's "opt out" clauses will basically prohibit legalized sportsbetting in the US once the Sports Leagues and the majority of the states decide to take the "opt out" options.

The responsible policy solution is to acknowledge the futility and self serving actions of passing the UIGEA and overturning this unenforceable and hypocrtical act altogether.

Your lobbying efforts are there for poker players and are NOT in the interests of US on-line sportsbettors. On-line poker players would throw on-line sports betting under the bus to get on-line poker legitimized.

Take out the "opt-out" clauses and then there will be something to discuss here, otherwise this is a front to legalize poker on-line while screwing sportsbettors since Frank's bill (with the opt out clauses) will leave US sportsbettors to continue to utilize offshore books if your legislative efforts succeed.