Internet gambling tougher under bill
The House panel voted to prohibit use of credit cards, checks and fund transfers for online bets.
By Laurence Arnold
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A House subcommittee voted yesterday to make it harder for Americans to gamble on the Internet, choosing not to consider an alternative proposal that could lead to states' legalizing and taxing online casinos.
Democrats on the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime said they would raise that alternative when the full committee considered the bill.
By a voice vote, the subcommittee approved legislation that would prohibit the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to pay for online betting transactions.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, previously passed the House Financial Services Committee. The full House approved a similar measure in the last Congress, but it died in the Senate.
Large majorities in the House and the Senate supported banning or restricting Internet gambling in a series of votes since 1998. But disputes over how to define illegal gambling, and how to enforce a ban, have prevented Congress from agreeing on any one bill to send to the White House.
That record prompted some in Congress to propose a different route.
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) and a small bipartisan group of lawmakers this year proposed creating a commission to explore legalizing Internet gambling in states interested in licensing, overseeing and collecting taxes from the growing industry.
Some Democrats on the crime subcommittee said they were disappointed that the panel did not take up that legislation as well. Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.) said he would propose regulating online gambling when the full committee had taken up the Leach bill.
Scott said Leach's bill would force Internet gamblers to become more creative with their financing, but it would not stop Internet gambling.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) countered that Congress must do what it could to disrupt online casinos, which he said catered to children and addicted gamblers.
"These facilities are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all available in a person's home," he said.
The General Accounting Office, in a report last year, called Internet gambling "a fast-growing industry" with estimated 2003 revenue of more than $4 billion.
Virtually all Internet-gambling operations - the General Accounting Office estimates there are 1,800 - are based outside the United States, posing a problem for enforcement.
In the Senate, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has proposed legislation similar to the Leach bill. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, endorsed the bill at a hearing in March.
The House panel voted to prohibit use of credit cards, checks and fund transfers for online bets.
By Laurence Arnold
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A House subcommittee voted yesterday to make it harder for Americans to gamble on the Internet, choosing not to consider an alternative proposal that could lead to states' legalizing and taxing online casinos.
Democrats on the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime said they would raise that alternative when the full committee considered the bill.
By a voice vote, the subcommittee approved legislation that would prohibit the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to pay for online betting transactions.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, previously passed the House Financial Services Committee. The full House approved a similar measure in the last Congress, but it died in the Senate.
Large majorities in the House and the Senate supported banning or restricting Internet gambling in a series of votes since 1998. But disputes over how to define illegal gambling, and how to enforce a ban, have prevented Congress from agreeing on any one bill to send to the White House.
That record prompted some in Congress to propose a different route.
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) and a small bipartisan group of lawmakers this year proposed creating a commission to explore legalizing Internet gambling in states interested in licensing, overseeing and collecting taxes from the growing industry.
Some Democrats on the crime subcommittee said they were disappointed that the panel did not take up that legislation as well. Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.) said he would propose regulating online gambling when the full committee had taken up the Leach bill.
Scott said Leach's bill would force Internet gamblers to become more creative with their financing, but it would not stop Internet gambling.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) countered that Congress must do what it could to disrupt online casinos, which he said catered to children and addicted gamblers.
"These facilities are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all available in a person's home," he said.
The General Accounting Office, in a report last year, called Internet gambling "a fast-growing industry" with estimated 2003 revenue of more than $4 billion.
Virtually all Internet-gambling operations - the General Accounting Office estimates there are 1,800 - are based outside the United States, posing a problem for enforcement.
In the Senate, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has proposed legislation similar to the Leach bill. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, endorsed the bill at a hearing in March.
My source says its gone exactly how they expect it so far, but you watch there is a wall coming up real soon. The fact is when amendments get passed onto it, when people start saying regulate instead of ban, when the real zealots say make all gambling illegal...well its going to end up just as it always has been. People will be scratching their heads and saying "we had so much support, but why didn't we pass it AGAIN?"
My contact says it has at best a 30% chance of passing in a very watered down form. It will at most ban things that are almost de facto conditions already, after all how many are able to use their CCs as it is? More likely is that it gets so many little interest groups against it for completely different reasons that it just quietly dies off. It wasn't expected to face any questioning up to this point, the smart lobbyist let them get their smug sense of accomplishment and save their bullets for when the fight really begins and when it can really be won.
An even bigger side point is that the bill is really just a feel good measure. Problem for its proponents is that even if someone wanted to bet at a book, they rarely deposit money directly. Neteller and even checks or wires themselves can get around this problem simply by having the books set up auxillary companies that exist purely to facilitate banking transactions. This has always been true, the Clinton Justice Department admitted as much many years back. They said simply the only way a crime could be committed is if you and the book dealt direct. Add a third party and its really tough to say its gambling transactions.
My contact says it has at best a 30% chance of passing in a very watered down form. It will at most ban things that are almost de facto conditions already, after all how many are able to use their CCs as it is? More likely is that it gets so many little interest groups against it for completely different reasons that it just quietly dies off. It wasn't expected to face any questioning up to this point, the smart lobbyist let them get their smug sense of accomplishment and save their bullets for when the fight really begins and when it can really be won.
An even bigger side point is that the bill is really just a feel good measure. Problem for its proponents is that even if someone wanted to bet at a book, they rarely deposit money directly. Neteller and even checks or wires themselves can get around this problem simply by having the books set up auxillary companies that exist purely to facilitate banking transactions. This has always been true, the Clinton Justice Department admitted as much many years back. They said simply the only way a crime could be committed is if you and the book dealt direct. Add a third party and its really tough to say its gambling transactions.
Well guys I could have said just as much without talking to them. After all we are sports bettors and we love studying the past to predict the future and the fact is not a whole lot has changed since past years. People get worked up about it every year, yet somehow this supposedly unwanted if not hated industry has survived constant shots from all angles. This year I hear the same thing I have heard every year "its different" but I tell you what is REALLY different is that we for once have some people fighting our fight with us. Well at least for those that want to bet, maybe not the current operators so much. Having some voices that say "hey wait a second, lets study it (Washington speak for burying it for 2-3 years and not coming up with anything new) and maybe regulate it" is absolutely HUGE news. This is news that seems to have passed right by everyone here. Imagine this is the same industry and activity that has been connected to terrorists and ruining our youth, yet outside of some insane conclusion by a New York jury hasn't really had a serious legal setback yet. And now it gets better our sordid crowd is getting help from some legislators. Why am I the only one that seems to even point that out here? My guess is that a majority of the people here either don't want this to happen or don't really care. The bettors figure they still will find a way to get down and those that work in the industry can't exactly say they want to move to the US and get regulated and taxed.
So my advice is just ignore the annual hype and look with a clear mind at the situation. Its never been better is the way I see it. The fight was much more uphill in prior years, without a doubt. And just watch history repeat itself with the Leach bill. Its so obvious it will happen, you already got legislators talking about the amendments they are going to add and anyone that remembers prior years it was these divergent amendments that made what all thought was an easy bill from getting passed.
So my advice is just ignore the annual hype and look with a clear mind at the situation. Its never been better is the way I see it. The fight was much more uphill in prior years, without a doubt. And just watch history repeat itself with the Leach bill. Its so obvious it will happen, you already got legislators talking about the amendments they are going to add and anyone that remembers prior years it was these divergent amendments that made what all thought was an easy bill from getting passed.
