House panel approves Internet gambling ban

[datek23]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060525/ts_nm/leisure_gambling_congress_dc

By Jeremy Pelofsky 2 hours, 36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S.
House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday aimed at banning Internet gambling, an estimated $12 billion industry.
ADVERTISEMENT

The measure would update and expand existing law to cover all forms of interstate gambling in the United States and would bar a gambling business from accepting payment in the form of credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers.

It would also prohibit gambling on an estimated 2,300 Internet gambling sites, many run by offshore companies, and also require banks to block gambling transactions by customers, which the industry has argued would be difficult to identify.

Despite the committee's approval, 25-11, it remains unclear whether the legislation will reach floor votes in the House and Senate this year. Congress has a relatively few work days left in 2006 because of the November congressional elections.

"The legislation is badly needed because ... the amount of money going to these illegal unregulated offshore enterprises has quadrupled" in the past few years, said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (news, bio, voting record), the author of the legislation and a Virginia Republican.

Under U.S. law, interstate gambling over telephone wires is already illegal and other gambling is banned unless regulated by the states.

"In the United States, gambling is essentially illegal unless regulated by the states. This is a measure to work through that to make sure that the states are indeed protected in their right to continue to regulate gambling," Goodlatte said.

Some Democrats objected to the measure. They said it would do little to prevent underage gambling and it unfairly placed a regulatory burden on local banks to comply.

"I believe there are more effective Internet gambling regulatory approaches," said Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott.

The poker industry, which has exploded in recent years, argued that the bill unfairly targets its game while legalizing online betting for horse racing, Internet lotteries and certain fantasy sports.

"If games of chance are given a free pass in this bill, it makes no sense that a skill game like poker should be banned. Congress should not be picking online winners and losers," said Poker Players Alliance president Michael Bolcerek.

[bigboydan]

lets just hope it doesn't pass the senate

[presley177]

not a good sign

[BK]

"The legislation is badly needed because ... the amount of money going to these illegal unregulated offshore enterprises has quadrupled"

In other words, the amount of money going to these offshore enterprises, which are not regulated by the US government leaving them without a piece of the pie, has quadrupled and the US government is mad because they aren't getting any of it.

[BuddyBear]

make sure you have your old local bookie's number somewhere safe....you may need it in the near future.

[BigDog]

My personal belief is this will still NEVER happen.....There's too much money in the industry and the US govt would be fools not to figure out a way to legalize it and get a piece of the pie......Hell,the money they make off state lotteries would be pocket change compared to this and maybe then we could have some good roads to drive on,better schools,more parks,etc......But then again they'd just find some way to NOT spend it wisely as usual..

[The Great One]

When Congress is in session, thats when these moronic terrorists should stike the capitol.

That would be the best thing for all all of America.

[SBR_John]

The US would be smart to follow the UK's model. This legislation will make it more dangerous for players. We need regulation not prohibition.

[bigboydan]

i doubt they will ever go that route here in the states John.

i'm just wondering what this will do to the offshore industry "IF" this bill does indeed make it thru all the legal channels in order to make it a law.

[Seattle Slew]

I think the fact that the committee vote was 25-11 is a very good sign. Better than 35-1. That shows there's already some strong sentiment against this legislation. I think the Democrats will line up against this bill. Even if some favor it, partisan pressure will force many Democrats to try and KO any GOP bill.

Here are some blurbs of interest from the news media.

From the Financial Times:

Critics of the bill, including gaming industry experts, said it was unlikely to be effective.

John Conyers, the top Democrat on the committee, said it would create “a complex regulatory system virtually impossible to comply with. It won’t work.”

From Rueters:

Despite the committee's approval, 25-11, it remains unclear whether the legislation will reach floor votes in the House and Senate this year. Congress has relatively few work days left in 2006 because of the November congressional elections.

[The Great One]

I hate Congress. What a telling sentence of their fuken job " Congress has relatively few work days left in 2006 because of the November congressional elections."

So, whenwould the senate vote on this anyway. I mean, what kind of timetable is this on. Next year at this time, will we still be doing this?

When is the moment of truth?

The governemnt is just asking for wealthy Americans to fund attacks.

[Seattle Slew]

From what I can tell from researching the 2000 vote, the number of votes needed to pass the House depends on two factors. If Goodlatte pushes the legislation in a full House floor debate, he only needs a majority. (Just like today's vote on Arctic drilling).

The problem is by going that route, debate is long and amendments come flying in which could cause problems. If he places it as non-controversial legislation, debate and amendments are limited, but he needs two-thirds to pass. That's what he did in 2000, and he failed by 25 votes.

He'll likely go the full House route, because he won't want to risk the two-thirds rules. He'll likely get the majority. But what amendments and changes end up in the final bill is the key issue.

What a mess

[The Great One]

If this was actually as close as we lead to beleive from this site, wouldn't all these sports talk and sports radio shows be talking about it. I haven't heard about it once except on this site. Although I guess if it passes, they can still talk about lines and stuff on the air with the assumption of people going to Vegas and betting.

Not to mention, I would be think it would be really tough to pass once football season starts and shortly after that, march Madness.

We just ought to end all of this right now and just kill him, his family, and everyone he knows. I prefer it to be painful and brutal, but I'd take it either way.

[gotsteam]

How in the world will they enforce this?
even now the view is that online betting is illegal yet they cannot enforce it. So the solution is make more laws which you cant enforce?

[The Great One]

I've thought about that to before. Even if they somehow by some miracle get all ISP's to block service. That's an extreme longshot in itself, but you can still pick up the phone and make a wager.

How would you fund an account. Every bank is not going to be knowing what you're doing. Are they just suppose to block every international or oversea transaction on a wire transfer. What about credit cards? Are they suppose to do the same thing.

Hasn't the bald fatty answered these BASIC questions before. How do they plan to control it?

Also, even if they block ISP's which is a longshot. Books can just e-mail you a card that day in the morning and you can plasce your bets over the phone, unless of course, they take a phone out of every home and discontinue making them. hah

I think my plan is the best right now. Just remove him from my earth. I have no use for him.

[gotsteam]

Starting to sound a lot like the OLD Russia during the cold war.

What's next.....

The secret police will pay you a visit for THINKING about betting?

[The Great One]

I think there is a 25% chance of this passing and if and when it does, it won't change anything that we do anyway. It will just be a small blurb in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, but there will be no action taken place to stop it.

That would have to be a legal mess to get rich companies like Comcast, Yahoo, and others in court to block their service to their paying companies.

It may pass, but I say it would just be busiess as usual unless you have over a million in accounts, then the governemnt will arrest you and take all of that money to pass to their hookers on Friday night before they go home to their 55 year old wives.

[BK]

How in the world will they enforce this?
even now the view is that online betting is illegal yet they cannot enforce it. So the solution is make more laws which you cant enforce?

That's what I say exactly. Enforcing something that they have no control over is very hard. They WILL bust a couple of people and get the media to over do the story to scare people off, like what happened with downloading music and napster and all of that. Have ANY of you stopped dowloading music? And has any OTHER "Napster" type been shut down? And spending $10 M to make sure that 200 + milion people don't do internet gambling just sounds farfetched. Most of that money will go into a few pockets.

They sure as hell can't regulate companies that are not in their jurisdiction. And picking out the gambler's in the US is just like the needle-in-a-haystack conundrum.

I'm really not looking for a new job right now. Nor will I be then.

[Seattle Slew]

My prediction is this legislation will pass the House if they bring it to a full floor vote. However, the legislation as it is will be so broken down with changes, it won't even be close to the original bill. The ISP thing will likely be dropped, as will the pressure on banks to monitor transactions.

If, by some miracle, this legislation passes the House as is, there is no way the Senate will pass it with the banking industry opposing it.

Bottom line, I think they might pass something in the House, but it won't even be taken up by the Senate, so it will disappear with the end of the year's legislative session and they have to start all over next year. If the Senate does take it up, they will change so much, the legislation won't work because the House and Senate versions are so different.

Then, Goodlatte can say "we passed a bill in the House and are making progress" toward a full ban and we'll keep trying. My theory is Goodlatte just wants something, anything, to pass a House vote, so he won't go home empty handed.

[The Great One]

I'm not all familiar with this monkey process as I beleive in a different type of government that actually works so help me out here.

Is Goodlatte and other supporters of this up for re-election this year?

[Seattle Slew]

Yes, all U.S. House members are up for re-election in November. They are only elected to 2-year terms. Defeating these incumbents is difficult but not impossible because of the 2-year window.

Goodlatte is running unopposed for re-election in Virginia.

The Senate seats are only up every 6 years, which makes it very tough to defeat senators like Arizona's John Kyl, who has been the Senate champion of this crap. Kyl is up for re-election in November. He has a Democratic challenger who is making a race if it. Latest polls show Kyl leading 40-33. Democrats are obviously targeting this seat, although Kyl will likely win.

[BuddyBear]

this gvmt is flat out useless....democrats are just as pathetic as republicans.

[scottyy11]

"The legislation is badly needed because ... the amount of money going to these illegal unregulated offshore enterprises has quadrupled"

In other words, the amount of money going to these offshore enterprises, which are not regulated by the US government leaving them without a piece of the pie, has quadrupled and the US government is mad because they aren't getting any of it.

truer words were never spoken......oh government please protect me from thy evil net gambling..................total bullsh*t
its nothing more than a mafia turf war plain and simple.......and the biggest mafia of all time not to happy bout missing their cut

[Concorde]

The US would be smart to follow the UK's model. This legislation will make it more dangerous for players. We need regulation not prohibition.

100% agree John. English ( as usual on many occasions ) are way in front in certain things.

[Dark Horse]

"The legislation is badly needed because ... the amount of money going to these illegal unregulated offshore enterprises has quadrupled"

In other words, the amount of money going to these offshore enterprises, which are not regulated by the US government leaving them without a piece of the pie, has quadrupled and the US government is mad because they aren't getting any of it.

Exactly. What is good for the likes of Halliburton isn't good for the US people. This is what happens when you let a bunch of lunatics steal two elections and run the show. They're stealing our freedom(s) right from under our feet. When will we have enough?

Viva la Revolution!

[Dark Horse]

I'm still thinking that these A-holes are looking for a big payoff from the offshore books.

Other than that, control of the internet is all part of the fascist program. Probably more on the way.

[Chuck Sims]

These stinkin sleazy politicians are making the 9-11 terrorists into martyrs.

[Dark Horse]

These stinkin sleazy politicians are making the 9-11 terrorists into martyrs.

Most of the socalled 9/11 terrorists were found alive and well after the attack. This was an inside job that only fascists could come up with.

V for Vendetta.

Anyway, back to the subject. Let's see how our internet freedom will be curbed next.
In the name of freedom/totalitarian control.

[marc]

There is likely to be a lot of turnover after the November elections. Incumbents are going to have a much tougher year, especially the republicans. Lets just pray that those pressing on prohibition will be voted out.

One thing to consider is that if the ban does pass and it becomes more difficult to send money offshore, bonuses might well get better