Politicians Want to Protect us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 1

This is part 1 of a multipart series of articles regarding proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this article I discuss the proposed legislation, what the politicians say it does, some facts about the current state of online gambling, and what the bills really propose.

The legislators are trying to protect us from something, or are they? The whole thing seems a little confusing to say the least.

The House, and the Senate, are once again considering the issue of "Online Gambling". Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.

The bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte has the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to make it illegal for a gambling business to accept credit and electronic transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling related sites at the request of law enforcement.

Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit cards, electronic transfers, checks and other forms of payment, but his bill does not address the placement of bets.

The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is basically a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes to what is currently legal.

According to Rep. Goodlatte "While gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by the states, the development of the Internet has made gambling easily accessible. It is common for illegal gambling businesses to operate freely until law enforcement finds and stops them."

In fact, American courts have determined that the Wire Act makes only Sports Betting illegal, and even then only across telephone lines. Very few states have laws that make online gambling illegal, some states and Tribes have taken steps to legalize online gambling, and even the Federal government recognizes some forms of online gambling as being legal.

Goodlatte himself says his bill "cracks down on illegal gambling by updating the Wire Act to cover all forms of interstate gambling and account for new technologies. Under current federal law, it is unclear whether using the Internet to operate a gambling business is illegal".

Goodlatte's bill however does not "cover all forms of interstate gambling" as he claims, but instead carves out exemptions for several forms of online gambling such as state lotteries, bets on horse racing, and fantasy sports. Even then, his modifications to the Wire Act do not make online gambling illegal, they make it illegal for a gambling business to accept online bets where a person risks something of value "upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game predominantly subject to chance", except of course if it is a state lottery, horse race, fantasy sports, or one of a few other situations.

The truth of the matter is that most online gambling businesses have located in other countries specifically to avoid the gray area that is the current state of online gambling in the US. As a result, there is little that law enforcement can do to enforce these laws. Trying to make the laws tougher, and providing for stiffer penalties, will not make them easier to enforce.

As well, most, if not all, banks and credit card companies refuse to transfer money to an online gambling business now, as a result of pressure from the federal government. As a result, alternative payment systems sprang up to fill the void.

Senator Kyl is equally misleading in his statements. From his proposed bill, "Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers." But as we already know, most credit cards in the U.S. refuse attempts to fund a gambling account.

Also from the Kyl bill, "Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry." If the credit card companies and other financial institutions in the U.S are not allowing the funding of gambling, how can it be "a growing cause of debt collection problems". And since when do we need legislation in order for the financial industry to protect itself from high risk debt. If the financial industry was accepting gambling debts and these gambling charges were a problem for them, wouldn't they just stop accepting them?

Like Rep. Gooddlatte, Rep. Leach and Senator Kyl carve out exemptions for betting on horse racing, for fantasy sports and for buying and selling securities. Unlike Rep. Goodlatte however, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl do not exempt state lotteries from their prohibition of online gambling.

In the next article, I will begin to cover some of the issues raised by politicians who are against online gambling, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric.

For more detail, and similar articles, contact the author at http://A1-PokerInfo.com

Politicians Want to Protect us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 3

This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles regarding proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the discussion of the reasons claimed to make this legislation necessary, and the facts that exist in the real world, including the Jack Abramoff connection and the addictive nature of online gambling.

The legislators are trying to protect us from something, or are they? The whole thing seems a little confusing to say the least.

As mentioned in previous articles, the House, and the Senate, are once again considering the issue of "Online Gambling". Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.

The bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, has the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to make it illegal for a gambling business to accept credit and electronic transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling related sites at the request of law enforcement.

Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit cards, electronic transfers, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal bets, but his bill does not address those that place bets.

The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is basically a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes to what is currently legal, or illegal.

In a quote from Goodlatte we have "Jack Abramoff's total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to continue thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts individuals and their families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering."

There are several interesting points here.

First of all, we have a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and others that have been made, follow the logic that; 1) Jack Abramoff was opposed to these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was corrupt, 3) to avoid being associated with corruption you should vote for these bills. This is of course absurd. If we followed this logic to the extreme, we should go back and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills that he opposed, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the proposed legislation, not based on the reputation of one individual.

As well, when Jack Abramoff opposed previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet excluded from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are included in this new bill, since state run lotteries would be excluded. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably support this legislation since it gives him what he was looking for. That does not stop Goodlatte and others from using Abramoff's recent disgrace as a means to make their bill look better, thus making it not just an anti-gambling bill, but somehow an ant-corruption bill as well, while at the same time rewarding Abramoff and his client.

Next, is his statement that online gambling "hurts individuals and their families". I presume that what he is referring to here is problem gambling. Let's set the record straight. Only a small percentage of gamblers become problem gamblers, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of gamblers.

In addition, Goodlatte would have you believe that Internet gambling is more addictive than casino gambling. Sen. Kyl has gone so far as to call online gambling "the crack cocaine of gambling", attributing the quote to some un-named researcher. To the contrary, researchers have shown that gambling on the Internet is no more addictive than gambling in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic gambling machines, found in casinos and race tracks all over the country are more addictive than online gambling.

In research by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia "There is a general view that electronic gaming is the most 'addictive' form of gambling, in that it contributes more to causing problem gambling than any other gambling activity. As such, electronic gaming machines have been referred to as the 'crack-cocaine' of gambling".

As to Sen. Kyls claim about "crack cocaine", quotes at http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/20733/ include "Cultural busybodies have long known that in post this-is-your-brain-on-drugs America, the best way to win attention for a pet cause is to compare it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America". And "During the 1980s and '90s, it was a little different. Then, a troubling new trend wasn't officially on the public radar until someone dubbed it "the new crack cocaine." And "On his Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search finds experts declaring slot machines (The New York Times Magazine), video slots (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) the "crack cocaine of gambling," respectively. Leitzel's search also found that spam email is "the crack cocaine of advertising" (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and that cybersex is a kind of sexual "spirtual crack cocaine" (Focus on the Family)".

As we can see, calling something the "crack cocaine" has become a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the person making the statement feels it is important. But then we knew that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn't have brought the proposed legislation forward.

In the next article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by politicians who are against online gambling, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, covering the "drain on the economy" caused by online gambling, and the notion of money laundering.

For more detail, and similar articles, contatct the author at http://A1-PokerInfo.com.

Politicians Want to Protect us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 2

This is part 2 of a multipart series of articles regarding proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I begin discussion of the quoted reasons for this legislation, and the actual facts that exist in the real world.

The legislators are trying to protect us from something, or are they? The whole thing seems a little confusing to say the least.

As mentioned in the previous article, the House, and the Senate, are once again considering the issue of "Online Gambling". Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.

The bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, has the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to make it illegal for a gambling business to accept credit and electronic transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling related sites at the request of law enforcement.

Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit cards, electronic transfers, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal bets, but his bill does not address those that place bets.

The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is basically a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes to what is currently legal, or illegal.

So, regardless of whether online gambling is currently legal or not, just what is it that the politicians are trying to protect us from? Why is it so important to make online gambling illegal?

One answer is contained in this quote from Rep. Goodlatte "will keep children from borrowing the family credit card, logging on to the family computer, and losing thousands of dollars all before their parents get home from work".

I think a fair translation of that quote would be "American parents are incapable of raising their own children so Congress should step in and do it for them'. Because of course we are all aware that the politicians have a much better idea of what is best for us and our children than we do.

And in another quote "In short, the Internet is a challenge to the sovereignty of civilized communities, States, and nations to decide what is appropriate and decent behavior".

A reasonable translation of this quote would seem to go something like "Individual Americans are not capable of deciding for themselves what behavior is appropriate and decent in their own homes. Fortunately Congress is here to protect them from themselves and legislate morality for them".

Not only is Congress supposedly responsible for raising the children of America, but in order to do so, and to prevent us from unknowingly doing something indecent, they are going to legislate what we can do with our own money, on our own time, in our own homes. Does this sound like the very model of a free society, or the beginnings of a misguided totalitarian state?

Let's delve a little deeper into these protections and see just how interested the politicians really are in making sure that our children are safe from the evils of gambling.

Remember, all of these following forms of gambling are either currently legal, or would be made specifically legal in the bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte.

First, we have casinos, and race tracks. These little money makers are proliferating all over the country and generate quite a bit of tax revenue for federal and state governments as well as profits for their operators. The people behind the anti-online gambling bills would have you believe that casinos are not an issue when it comes to underage individuals, since casino staff can see the individuals in person and assess their age.

Quite to the contrary however, we have this quote from The Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery "Casino kids have been left by themselves at the outer rim of casinos while their parents gamble, according to some casino security officers. In some extreme cases, children are left in the family car in the casino parking lot for hours at a time while their parents gamble inside. Less obviously, children may also spend several hours each week with babysitters while their parents gamble in casinos, bingo halls or card rooms."

While I certainly wouldn't try to claim that online gambling is good for the American family, clearly, to the extent that children can relax and play in their own homes, and sleep in their own beds, online gambling presents less of a problem than the current state supported alternative.

Another form of online gambling that the proposed legislation would exempt from illegal status is the sale of lottery tickets by the states over the internet. It is difficult to see how these legislators show deep concern for the children of America based on the following quote from Overcoming Life Digest (July/August, 1998 Issue) "Studies show that lotteries are the favorite legal gambling game for teenagers. Statistically, one of seven who play will become addicted." And from the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey (6 June 2003), "Many regard lotteries as a relatively benign form of gambling. However, 31 percent of callers to the 1-800-GAMBLER national hotline (operated by the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey) indicated problems with lottery gambling."

In yet another example of government raking in cash without regard for the children of America, we have Video Lottery Machines. Video Lottery Machines, or VLTs are nothing more than state sponsored electronic video poker machines. According to David Plotz in Slate.com on Friday December 17th, 1999 "These are the most addictive of any gambling instrument we have today. It is a cinch for kids to play video lottery machines, since they are often found in businesses that kids frequent." These devices are being licensed for use in grocery stores, convenience stores, bars and markets around the country, where the children of America have easy access.

Clearly, the legislation proposed does not "keep children from borrowing the family credit card, logging on to the family computer, and losing thousands of dollars all before their parents get home from work", They will be able to buy lottery tickets, bet on horse races, and head down to the local convenience store to play the VLTs.

In the next article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by politicians who are against online gambling, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, covering the Abramoff card, and the affect of gambling on the family.

For more detail and similar articles, contact the author at http://A1-PokerInfo.com.