In a classic exercise of legislative futility, the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday voted unanimously to impose tougher restrictions on Internet gaming sites. The panel approved a ban on the use of credit cards, checks and electronic funds transfers by Internet bettors. It also sought to prevent states from legalizing and regulating online wagers.
This second provision separates the Senate bill from its House counterpart ... and may eventually scuttle the legislation. The House version was drafted to placate operators of state lotteries and tribal casinos by giving individual states some flexibility to regulate remote wagers on state-regulated gaming operations.
The Senate bill eliminated this exemption, after anti-gaming lawmakers and lobbyists claimed the loophole might allow states to set up full-blown Internet gaming sites, rendering the restrictions in the bill meaningless.
But in fact, any attempt to stifle the development of online gaming through legislation is a will-o'-the-wisp, about as likely to succeed as King Canute's commanding the tide not to roll in and wet his feet.
In this age of instant electronic communication, online "casinos" can be located on computers parked anywhere from Belize to Finland -- safely out of regulatory reach -- yet still accessed by Americans with a few taps on their keyboards. In that environment, regulations -- no matter how well-intended -- can serve only to place American-based operations at a competitive disadvantage to scofflaws willing to locate overseas.
Does the Senate Banking Committee propose stationing a policeman beside each home computer, watching to make sure no one breaks these rules? Will they now open our outgoing mail and question Americans on the real purpose of every personal check or credit card payment mailed to an offshore address?
In the end, just as feedback forums and methods of handling secure remote payments have sprung up to meet the needs of less controversial forms of Internet commerce, so the market will inevitably start to offer safeguards here, as well. Consumers will grow more sophisticated in avoiding fly-by-night sites that don't pay off, and the more legitimate operators will advertise whatever safeguards and guarantees they can develop.
Frustrating as it may be to elected officials who have never before encountered any form of commerce they couldn't tax and regulate, the only fruitful role for government here may turn out to be educating consumers about the new risks such online casinos present -- and deciding how the courts will deal with the new phenomenon of "online-casino bankruptcy."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-03-Sun-2003/opinion/21861179.html
This second provision separates the Senate bill from its House counterpart ... and may eventually scuttle the legislation. The House version was drafted to placate operators of state lotteries and tribal casinos by giving individual states some flexibility to regulate remote wagers on state-regulated gaming operations.
The Senate bill eliminated this exemption, after anti-gaming lawmakers and lobbyists claimed the loophole might allow states to set up full-blown Internet gaming sites, rendering the restrictions in the bill meaningless.
But in fact, any attempt to stifle the development of online gaming through legislation is a will-o'-the-wisp, about as likely to succeed as King Canute's commanding the tide not to roll in and wet his feet.
In this age of instant electronic communication, online "casinos" can be located on computers parked anywhere from Belize to Finland -- safely out of regulatory reach -- yet still accessed by Americans with a few taps on their keyboards. In that environment, regulations -- no matter how well-intended -- can serve only to place American-based operations at a competitive disadvantage to scofflaws willing to locate overseas.
Does the Senate Banking Committee propose stationing a policeman beside each home computer, watching to make sure no one breaks these rules? Will they now open our outgoing mail and question Americans on the real purpose of every personal check or credit card payment mailed to an offshore address?
In the end, just as feedback forums and methods of handling secure remote payments have sprung up to meet the needs of less controversial forms of Internet commerce, so the market will inevitably start to offer safeguards here, as well. Consumers will grow more sophisticated in avoiding fly-by-night sites that don't pay off, and the more legitimate operators will advertise whatever safeguards and guarantees they can develop.
Frustrating as it may be to elected officials who have never before encountered any form of commerce they couldn't tax and regulate, the only fruitful role for government here may turn out to be educating consumers about the new risks such online casinos present -- and deciding how the courts will deal with the new phenomenon of "online-casino bankruptcy."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-03-Sun-2003/opinion/21861179.html
