Influential Congressman Endorses Internet Gambling Bill

[JeffreyS]

Congressmen George Miller (D-CA), one of the most influential leaders on Capitol Hill, has agreed to co-sponsor the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. This bill would allow licensed operators to provide Internet gambling services in the U.S.

The endorsement by Miller, who is chairman of the House Democratic Policy Committee and House Education and Labor Committee, further demonstrates the growing support to allow Americans the freedom to gamble online.

We encourage you to thank Congressman Miller for his support and also contact your representative now to thank him or her or ask for their support of legalized Internet gambling. Visit www.safeandsecureig.org to learn more about this issue and to contact your legislators.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[Otters27]

what are the pros and cons of government regulated internet gambling in the US?

What effect will this have on the offshore?

[RageWizard]

I think if this is the bill sponsered by Barney Frank, that internet gambling would be allowed to go on primarily poker and sportsbetting as long as the sports league didn't Opt-out. You already know that the big leagues will all opt-out, but the net effect will be to legitimize the offshore industry because the money transfer enforcement would be a nightmare to regulate and control. This would mean that it would be possible to fund the accounts more easily but still probably not instant like in the past.

I have several problems with this bill, but if it passed it could open the gateway over time for a fully legit sportsbook to open in the States that was regulated by the government or even run by the government ( god forbid).

[The HG]

I think if this is the bill sponsered by Barney Frank, that internet gambling would be allowed to go on primarily poker and sportsbetting as long as the sports league didn't Opt-out. You already know that the big leagues will all opt-out, but the net effect will be to legitimize the offshore industry because the money transfer enforcement would be a nightmare to regulate and control. This would mean that it would be possible to fund the accounts more easily but still probably not instant like in the past.

I have several problems with this bill, but if it passed it could open the gateway over time for a fully legit sportsbook to open in the States that was regulated by the government or even run by the government ( god forbid).

Yeah, people have said this bill would be bad for sports gambling, but if it did pass as is, and all the leagues then did opt out, I can't imagine what the offshore scene would look like then. It could become a comical circus of international bank wires and money transfers and fees and fee refunds and CS communications etc etc etc

[forex]

great just what we need more regulation

[BigBollocks]

The poker players shined the light on all of this, and caused the industry to get legislated as it did.

Now Jeffrey and Co. are trying to throw all us sports bettors under the bus for good. JC and others have expressed countless times how bad this would be for sportsbetting, but I guess Jeffrey is still trying to sucker folks here into getting behind something that is against their own self-interest

[SBR Lou]

Couldn't have said it better myself BB. And to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of Jeffrey coming here with his updates on this matter because he typically avoids this type of fair criticism from sports bettors. He won't answer because, at the end of the day, his interests are poker.

[treece]

i hate poker and poker players.

[BigBollocks]

Couldn't have said it better myself BB. And to be honest, I'm getting a little tired of Jeffrey coming here with his updates on this matter because he typically avoids this type of fair criticism from sports bettors. He won't answer because, at the end of the day, his interests are poker.

Bingo crazyl. I don't have a problem with his agenda---just be upfront about it. To try to word it in such a way as to further con sportsbettors, however, is an insult to those of us who really value our right to bet on sports.

If it were up to me, all of Jeffrey's posts would be put in the promotional section, as I don't see any difference between his shilling and that of other website owners...

[richardl7]

With all the respect to diverse opinions i don't personally appreciate this gambling stuff its not healthy for society, when gov supports it with paper its worrisome

[Cash]

How is sports gambling harmful to society????
I don't believe I have harmed anyone in society---OH WAIT, That Schister Bookie's wallet was harmed win I won 25dimes.

[JeffreyS]

It is unfortunate that there is a misunderstanding about the interests of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. Despite what has been said, we fully support giving every American the freedom to gamble on sports, poker, backgammon or whatever else they want. Our bottom-line goal is to end the absurd prohibition of online gambling.

The Frank bill represents a foot in the door and the best opportunity right now to give us the freedom to gamble online. We realize that many sports leagues may opt-out at first, which is unfortunate, but we will be around for the long haul arguing that online sports gambling should be legalized.

To give you an example, recently we announced the findings of a tax revenue analysis that shows the billions that would be generated from regulated Internet gambling. We didn't just study poker, but showed revenue potential with sports betting included.

Our hope is to get the attention on Capitol Hill that it would be hypocritical to allow some types of gambling activities and not others. We also want to show the carrot at the end of the stick, which is the potential for new revenue, since legislators have not been moved by the argument that we deserve the freedom to make a decision about what we want to do as a leisure activity in our living room.

Jeffrey

[SBR Lou]

The Frank bill represents a foot in the door and the best opportunity right now to give us the freedom to gamble online. We realize that many sports leagues may opt-out at first, which is unfortunate, but we will be around for the long haul arguing that online sports gambling should be legalized.

Foot in the door my ass, Jeffrey.

We both know that if your beloved poker is legalized that your energies will be toned down much, if not entirely. This bill helps poker players, that's all there is to it. Are we supposed to be on our knees praying for it to be passed so there's a glimmer of hope in 8 more years or so for us sports bettors?

[operaman]

If the bill were passed, how would regulators enforce the opt out clauses with respect to offshore?

[2119]

What exactly do you mean "the sports leagues will opt out"?

Like the NBA and NFL wont agree to gambling online so it will still be illegal for us?

[coldhardfacts]

If the bill were passed, how would regulators enforce the opt out clauses with respect to offshore?

Excellent point. I see alot of complaining, but can someone please explain to me how this will hurt sports betting? How can it make things any worse than they are now?

The IGEA is difficult to enforce now. Won't just the fact that ANY form of internet gambling is legal make it virtually impossible to enforce it, in that it will be impossible to differentiate money transfers related to sports gambling vs money transfers related to poker.

So why all the hate? What am I missing??

[The HG]

Excellent point. I see alot of complaining, but can someone please explain to me how this will hurt sports betting? How can it make things any worse than they are now?

The IGEA is difficult to enforce now. Won't just the fact that ANY form of internet gambling is legal make it virtually impossible to enforce it, in that it will be impossible to differentiate money transfers related to sports gambling vs money transfers related to poker.

So why all the hate? What am I missing??

I tend to agree, although I'm definitely not well versed in all these laws and proposals. But from what I can gather, the reason people think it will be bad for sports betting is because all the leagues can opt out, and that if the bill is passed, the leagues will opt out, poker will be legal, and that will be the end of that for good.

First of all, Jeffrey, when you say "many sports leagues may opt-out at first", that's disingenuous. All major sports leagues will 100% guaranteed opt out ("at first") and you know that. I'm sure one or two sports organizations on the margin like the UFC would not opt out to gain attention, but there is a 0% chance that MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, or the NCAA will not opt out.

Still, if that were to happen, it would make things a million times more complicated and impossible as far as enforcement is concerned. The UIGEA already hasn't come close to being able to "eliminate" online sports betting in the US, all it's done is that it's made US bettors pay more for worse options than before. All it's done is made it so US bettors can't have the one most reputable site in the world, Pinnacle, and have to pay higher costs for moving money than they had to with Neteller.

So if added to that mix is that all of a sudden poker is ok to do online, sports betting enforcement would become all the more difficult.

But on the other hand, it could also turn the sports betting laws into even stronger "selectively enforced" laws than they already are, which are the absolute worst kinds of laws to have. Laws that everyone knows aren't enforced at all, except when someone in power wants to fukk with someone or harass someone.