[relaaxx]

As expected, group of House lawmakers Thursday reintroduced legislation that would legalize online gambling and set up a regime for regulating the activity.
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., introduced the measure along with House Financial Services ranking member Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo. It would essentially overturn a 2006 law that prohibited most online gambling and barred banks, CC companies and other payment processors from processing payments for online bets.
The legislation mirrors a bill, sponsored by Frank, that was approved by the Financial Services Committee last year.
Supporters of such legislation argue that the 2006 law has done little to deter those Americans who want to gamble from seeking out online gaming sites based outside the United States. They say the United States should legalize online gaming and set up a regime to tax and regulate it to ensure consumers are better protected. They say tax revenues from online gaming could raise billions of dollars over the next decade.
"Clearly, Americans want to gamble on the Internet, and policymakers need to provide both the freedom to do so, as well as ensure that appropriate consumer protections are in place," Campbell said in a statement. "Regulating online gaming and making certain that these sites are operating legally in America will also create economic growth through generated tax revenue and the possibility of attracting foreign players to U.S. sites."
The bill is expected to be referred to the House Financial Services Committee, where it will likely face stiff resistance from Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., who strongly opposed Frank's bill last year.


sooner or later - unfortunatly i think later

[rem sleep]

Seems like a win win. I want legalized sports betting and table games but sports betting is my first priority.

[tofuman]

pass this bill and bring back Matchbook to US players!

[CallMeChip]

God I hope this passes. Although with a Republican majority, I don't like the odds. It won't include sportsbetting, but essentially it will make it easier to deposit.

[WileOut]

Seems like a win win. I want legalized sports betting and table games but sports betting is my first priority.

I am pulling my hair out with this crap. Every single article says "legalized gambling". IT IS POKER ONLY, WITH POSSIBLE CASINO. The bill will clamp down on online sports betting which is considered illegal sports gambling. If it passes I think online sports betting is done.

[acbulluck]

Too many Bible beaters in Congress. It will fail fo sho. If you want legalized sports betting, back a libertarian-leaning Athiest.

[BET THE HOOK]

You would think the US would want to keep our money at home.

[mtneer1212]

I'm telling you all, you do not want this bill to pass if you are a sports bettor. The best thing you can hope for is status quo.

[neverstoppers23]

I'm telling you all, you do not want this bill to pass if you are a sports bettor. The best thing you can hope for is status quo.

true that, all this means if the bill passes is that your winnings will be immedietley taxed, and or ************ will add a lot of fees to deposit into casino type sites.
but, they the u.s.a will never legalize sports betting online, i remember a state tried to legalize a sports book, and all the four major sports faught very hard against it

[gridiron guru]

Not gonna happen, they are too busy fighting in other countries

[do5000]

i guess the economy isnt bad enough yet to legalize and tax winnings

[cyberinvestor]

Yeah the problem is it is just poker and casino (with restrictions) as someone said. If they open it up to sports betting then they can rake in the tax revenues. However like everything in Congress our grandkids, grandkids might actually see the bill pass!

[Odessa]

Too many Bible beaters in Congress. It will fail fo sho. If you want legalized sports betting, back a libertarian-leaning Athiest.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

[tblues2005]

Believe or not some of the Republicans even like this. It is going to be tough to get it buy some of the Republican leaders but it might happen though. It sure is a chance to make the government some income with they badly need at this time.

[wrongturn]

I will bet that Cleveland will win a NBA championship sooner than this bill gets passed.

[Eagle1958]

It won't pass. Our Republican leaders are too stupid to see the benefits it would bring to everyone.

[coldhardfacts]

The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Maybe, maybe not. In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers, a la Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox. True, they would seek to have onerous Federal anti-gambling (and drug, and anti-gay) statutes overturned, but would allow individual states to impose the most draconian laws and penalties for these types of "crimes". Real libertarians would defend the rights of all Americans regardless of where they lived.

[stikymess]

This bill is geared towards poker rooms, I heard comments about this bill directly leaving sports gambling out.

[neverstoppers23]

The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States. We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

Not so Roar you out, but isn't the 'the 'tea' party' the fastest growing party in America?

[Coldpimpin]

It's funny how the Republicans claim to want a smaller government yet they want to "protect us from ourselves". Their brand is a joke and they acknowleged at their convention that they're losing appeal. Liberal Democrats are no better though. This country needs a new party badly!

[Nookx]

It's funny how the Republicans claim to want a smaller government yet they want to "protect us from ourselves". Their brand is a joke and they acknowleged at their convention that they're losing appeal. Liberal Democrats are no better though. This country needs a new party badly!

well said.

[relaaxx]

the republicans want a smaller goverment when it comes to protecting thier money and corporations -- -but are willing to spend billions with much more goverment to make sure the rest of us do what they know to be right. holier than thou, bullshit


if any gambling bill passes it will be a foot in the door. following money would get more difficult for the banks or any goverment agency. it's hard enough now.

the one problem i worry about is the fcc having juridiction over the internet. that would ruin everything about the internet. from taxes to gambling to porn to information sources, worldwide.

[heyman]

Maybe, maybe not. In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers, a la Strom Thurmond and Lester Maddox. True, they would seek to have onerous Federal anti-gambling (and drug, and anti-gay) statutes overturned, but would allow individual states to impose the most draconian laws and penalties for these types of "crimes". Real libertarians would defend the rights of all Americans regardless of where they lived.

Your believe is wrong - libertarians (why the quotes?) would vote against anti-gambling bills if they are federal or state legislatures; it runs contra to their personal responsibility/freedom values. Go to LP.org to start off with as you don't know what libertarians actually stand for (or perhaps you are confusing them with another party?).

Ron Paul correctly believes that the federal regulation is unconstitutional. Not so at the state level. I don't know what you want Paul to do at the state level, he is a federal congressman.

[coldhardfacts]

Your believe is wrong - libertarians (why the quotes?) would vote against anti-gambling bills if they are federal or state legislatures; it runs contra to their personal responsibility/freedom values. Go to LP.org to start off with as you don't know what libertarians actually stand for (or perhaps you are confusing them with another party?).

Ron Paul correctly believes that the federal regulation is unconstitutional. Not so at the state level. I don't know what you want Paul to do at the state level, he is a federal congressman.

In the first place, Ron Paul supported anti-gambling, anti-gay, anti-drug legalization Chuck Baldwin in the last election instead of the Libertarian Party. Reminiscent of 2000, when he supported anti-gambling, anti-drug legalization (at the time), anti-gay Pat Buchanan. So his credentials as a libertarian are basically nil.

What I would expect the Libertarian Party to stand for is FEDERAL PROTECTION of the individual rights of ALL CITIZENS in the country, regardless of the state in which they lived. I would expect them to support federal legislation prohibiting states from abridging the rights of consenting adults to make whatever individual choices they want in the pursuit of happiness, provided that those choices do not abridge the rights of others.

[heyman]

In the first place, Ron Paul supported anti-gambling, anti-gay, anti-drug legalization Chuck Baldwin in the last election instead of the Libertarian Party. Reminiscent of 2000, when he supported anti-gambling, anti-drug legalization (at the time), anti-gay Pat Buchanan. So his credentials as a libertarian are basically nil.

What I would expect the Libertarian Party to stand for is FEDERAL PROTECTION of the individual rights of ALL CITIZENS in the country, regardless of the state in which they lived. I would expect them to support federal legislation prohibiting states from abridging the rights of consenting adults to make whatever individual choices they want in the pursuit of happiness, provided that those choices do not abridge the rights of others.

I think you have the year wrong on Pat Buchanan. My impression of 2008 was that it motivated by realpolitik. Do you agree with the man you vote for 100% on every issue?

Ron Paul aside, you made an incorrect claim. Libertarians are against anti-gambling laws (or any adult freedom that has no negative externalities). It's not "a states rights issue for most" as you said; they would vote it down at the federal and state level. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Because they haven't passed the unconstitutional bill that you describe above, despite having little power or voice, that could and would be easily repealed (when even the bill of rights is being eroded)?

[coldhardfacts]

I think you have the year wrong on Pat Buchanan. My impression of 2008 was that it motivated by realpolitik. Do you agree with the man you vote for 100% on every issue?

Ron Paul aside, you made an incorrect claim. Libertarians are against anti-gambling laws (or any adult freedom that has no negative externalities). It's not "a states rights issue for most" as you said; they would vote it down at the federal and state level. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Because they haven't passed the unconstitutional bill that you describe above, despite having little power or voice, that could and would be easily repealed (when even the bill of rights is being eroded)?

Haven't passed it? Ha!. Most "libertarians" don't even support it! And why is it unconstitutional? Congress can prohibit states from legalizing things like sports betting or medical marijuana, or allowing private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. So why can't they prohibit states from prohibiting activities in violation of the very principle upon which this country was founded?

[heyman]

And why is it unconstitutional?

10th ammendment. As in "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Congress can prohibit states from legalizing things like sports betting or medical marijuana, or allowing private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. So why can't they prohibit states from prohibiting activities in violation of the very principle upon which this country was founded?

Yes, they do those things. A strict interpretation of the constitution does not show they can.

[heyman]

Most "libertarians" don't even support it!

In most cases (e.g., Ron Paul) so-called "Libertarians" are really nothing more than states-rightsers

Again, this is what I did and do take issue with.

Someone who believes in states’ rights would think the federal health care law was unconstitutional, but the Massachusetts health care law was constitutional; they oppose the increase in the size of the federal government.

This hasn’t anything to do with libertarians and anti-gambling etc laws. They oppose the laws based on their principals of freedom. Of course they might also oppose it based on its constitutionality but that isn’t the issue. You said that “most” libertarians oppose it on “nothing more” than opposition to the federal over the state government. Where do you get that from? In fact they oppose it based on their consistent views of government and morality.

[Bosseman22]

government needs money and it's a good source

[JoeVig]

They should tax deposits instead of winnings. That way its not just us winners paying.

[coldhardfacts]

Yes, they do those things. A strict interpretation of the constitution does not show they can.

Yes, and if you think that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is what the President or Congress or the Supreme Court or any other court uses in their decision making then you're hopelessly out of touch. Bottom line - if prohibition isn't unconstitutional, then prohibition of the prohibition isn't unconstitutional.

[Seattle Slew]

Won't even reach the House floor. Nothing but a talking point.

[coldhardfacts]

Again, this is what I did and do take issue with.

Someone who believes in states’ rights would think the federal health care law was unconstitutional, but the Massachusetts health care law was constitutional; they oppose the increase in the size of the federal government.

This hasn’t anything to do with libertarians and anti-gambling etc laws. They oppose the laws based on their principals of freedom. Of course they might also oppose it based on its constitutionality but that isn’t the issue. You said that “most” libertarians oppose it on “nothing more” than opposition to the federal over the state government. Where do you get that from? In fact they oppose it based on their consistent views of government and morality.

I get that from the statements of self-proclaimed libertarians like Paul, Harry Browne, Andrew Napolitano, etc. My point is that most Libertarians have no interest in using Federal legislation to protect the rights of all US citizens. And, in my opinion, a true Libertarian is for LIBERTY, and would vigorously support laws to protect liberty. Liberty for all, not just for some.

You misquoted me and took what I said completely out of context. I never said that their opposition to impediments to liberty was based on "nothing more than opposition to Federal over state government". The point is, for them states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution trumps all. And enactment of such policies would be disastrous.

[babyjesus]

legalize it and tax it

[AribaAriba]

This is far from being done, MAFIA runs the offshore books and so as our GOVT. Offshore books would lose a lot of revenue from here in now.