Democrats take away your liberty in the name of fighting poverty. Republicans do it in the name of family values.
Posted on 07/11/2006 2:03:12 AM PDT by freepatriot32
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gamblers who prefer their laptops to blackjack tables won't like what Congress is doing. On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.
The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.
To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.
Some opponents of the legislation say policing the Internet is impossible, that it would be better to regulate the $12 billion industry and collect taxes from it. The online gambling industry is based almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.
Other critics complain that the bill doesn't cover all forms of gambling. They point to exemptions they say would allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.
"If you're going to support legislation that is supposed to 'prohibit gambling,' you should not have carve-outs," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition.
Other conservative and antigambling groups are supporting the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa.
John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling.
"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said.
Congress has considered similar bills several times before. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Ambramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company.
Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues.
Pro-sports leagues also like the bill, arguing that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
The horse racing industry also supports the bill because of the exemption it would get. Betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing. It was updated a few years ago to clarify that betting on horse racing over the Internet is allowed.
Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is "a recognition of existing federal law," not a new carve-out.
He said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and acknowledged the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites. "They'd return to the one place they can bet legally," Avioli said.
That's what some critics say is unfair.
"Somehow we find ourselves in a situation where Congress has gotten in the business of cherry-picking types of gambling," complained Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. Wexler had tried unsuccessfully to include exemptions for dog racing and jai alai, both popular in Florida.
The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed Interstate Horseracing Act.
The department hasn't actively enforced its stance, but observers say it is possible the agency and the racing industry could face off in court in the future.
Regarding the House bill, Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort said Monday, "I'm very surprised and quite disappointed that the U.S. Congress would be pushing full force ahead."
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has so far not been debated in that chamber this year.
---
The bill is H.R.4411
---
On the Net:
House: http://www.house.gov/
This issue should set some VERY interesting precedents in the courts.
Leave it to some phoney politicians to use some stick up the ass conservative "family values" group as a shield to try to prevent a working man from playing dollar poker or 10 dollar football wager on the internet in the privacy of his own home with his own money that the goverment on all levels has already taxed about ten times.
Its OK to these phonies if you wager on the worst possible odds of all,the state lotteries.This is precisley why republicans will lose the house this Nov.They can't control their "earmark" spending with someonelses tax money because of their own spending addictions.
...Heres a bet you republicans who vote for this ban.I bet you don't have a job after November and I'll bet I'll still wager online or in the street.
While I don't like gambling in general (remember someone pays for the lights in Vegas), what really angers me is this is being used as a "New revenue source".
Either legalize it or ban it, but don't treat it as a magic source of tax income that will allow the governments to further mismanage funds. For that reason alone, I hate the state lotteries.
It's good to see Republicans pushing the issues conservatives care about. Why should they waste their time defending the borders and cutting the federal budget when they could be preventing people from from gaming in non-government run venues and keeping steroids out of major league baseball? Politicians are scum.
Utterly depressing and utterly true.
This is mostly corruption. They're not getting a kickback from some Indian tribe's bagman in this case, and they don't like it.
Nice to see that we've finally finished that whole War on Terror thing if our government is going after online gamblers. </sarcasm>
There is no distinction in the final analysis.
Congress only wants to ban the gambling that it doesn't make any money on.
Very well stated.
Well, that's a good question. I should have "gambled" on low cost Wal-Mart stock when it was first offered, but I didn't. Seemed risky. I should never have "gambled" and sold my Xerox stock at $14, but I did. Seemed like a smart sale (it wasn't-it went ot $300 and split). The stock market is the biggest gamble of all. I weep now and then at my naivete at stock trading.
And you bid on commody futures.
This 'definition' could lead to auction board control and then onto ecommerce since auctions boards allow buy it nows in addition to bidding.
commody = commodity
Thanks for the ping!
Its funny how the politicians took their sweet ass time getting indictments and convictions from the "Ken Lay casino" Enron.
I can tell you first hand I've never been screwed by a bookie.But I did get fleeced from Enron and stock brokers....talk about scams.
people have to got to start thinking critically ....
Indians pay out millions in campaign contributions, and they expect to be able to expand at will, and to savage any outside gambling that might take one dollar from their coffers.....
Thanks for the ping!
Will return......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.