U.S. House Clears Anti-Internet Gambling Bill

matr0x_x writes "The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites when the US House of Representatives cleared an anti-Internet gambling bill yesterday. The bill is against a World Trade Organization ruling last August that stated the US must not block online gambling sites based overseas." From the article: " The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law."

Comments

How it's written is what matters

[JehCt]

There's a big difference between blocking sites, and making it illegal for those sites to use the US financial system to collect illegal wagers from within US jurisdiction. So long as the bill is written correctly, there should be no problem with WTO, and no problem with enforcement.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[DagdaMor]

The problem is they are making Foreign based companies responsible for the Actions of US citizens. They are effectively legislating against foreign business. If the legislation was to make it illegal to gamble online in the states where it is illegal, then that would make more sense, but would be highly unpopular as it looks like it is aimed at the US Citizen. This way they can say, well its the companies that won't accept your credit card.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[cayenne8]

Geez....why write the thing at ALL???

When oh when will we be able to get people in govt. that will understand that if you're 18/21, you are a freaking ADULT, and can decide for yourself matters like these?

I am so fscking tired of the government trying to legislate morality and behavior.....

The way I see it

[matr0x_x]

When the US doesn't directly profit from the gambling (national lottery, Las Vegas economy, etc.) they try to get rid of it stating it is "immoral".

Re:The way I see it

[bigpat]

The state run lottery is supposed to fund education. Where does the profits from privare gambling go? I am not saying I'm for state run lottery, just that the proceeds go to something most people would like to see funded better.

Well, if it was legal in the US then a percentage of the profits would be collected as income taxes, rather than being forced overseas, and could be used for government purposes such as education or blowing up things or whatever floats your boat.

Casinos generate a lot of taxes for State and Federal governments, this legislation strikes me as mis guided morality crossed with protectionism of the casinos and State lotteries.

Re:The way I see it

[Raven_Stark]

I don't gamble. However the control freaks in D.C. have gone beyond pissing me off with this crap and all the other loads of bull. I've been toying with the idea of becoming a citizen of another country. I seem to get a little more serious about it every day.

Am I the only one thinking along those lines? Can anyone recommend a country? My ideal country wouldn't be hot, reasonable taxes, lowish cost of living, lots of freedom, easy immigration laws.

Re:The way I see it

[Best ID Ever!]

For those who are addicted to gambling, I doubt they get the same high playing lotto as they do betting on college basketball games. That might be a second reason to ban internet gambling.

Many state governments make money from horse racing, including bets placed over the internet. Not surprisingly, online horse racing is excluded from the ban.

And if I'm going to be taxed buying a book at Amazon, why shouldn't people be taxed who want to gamble in off-shore sites?

Gambling income is already taxed, no matter where the site is.

Re:The way I see it

[extremescholar]

I think it's more money laundering. Two people "play" head to head poker. Money goes from one to the other. One Big loser a day, one big winner a day. Takes a step towards legitimizing the funds. Poker is big business these days. Whose to say it's all legitimate.

Once again

[LordBodak]

Our wonderful government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Contact your Reps and tell them to kill this crap.

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that "Land Of The Free" thing working out?
What? No drugs, no hookers and no gambling?

Still at least you get excellent TV shows ... oh? What? never mind.

Tribal Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much support (contributions/bribes) for this law come from Abramoff's tribal gaming buddies.

There's nothing in it for them--

[Tominva1045]

If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.

This is already done with alcohol, tobacco, and tangible items.

Because they cannot capture the technology genie in a bottle they can't effectively tax it.

And there are plenty of lobbyists working for taxable gambling interests who have issue with the wild-west of internet gambling as well.

The funny bits

[Billosaur]

Major professional sports organizations supported the legislation, including the National Football League and Major League Baseball, saying in a joint statement that sports betting "threatens the integrity of our respective sports."

Buhwahahaha!! Can you say steroids?!? Can you say overblown contracts?!? There can't be a threat to something they don't have.

A group called the Poker Players Alliance opposed the legislation as well.

The Poker Players Alliance - a stalwart group of poker-playing heroes, determined to defend truth, justice, and the right to draw to an inside straight!

Re:The funny bits

[jtwJGuevara]

This is a troll and off-topic, but what exactly do "overblown" contracts have to do with sports integrity? The first word in "professional sports" is professional. Making as much money as you can in a profession is something every human being in an open market wishes to do (excluding entreprenuership). How do you make more money in professional sports - you play well and prove that to the organization you are playing for that you are worth the dollar amount that you are asking. How exactly does this effect the integrity of the sport they are playing?

Don't bother...

[C3ntaur]

...Unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to make a bribe ("campaign contribution"). That's how it works these days. Better to contact your favorite online casinos and let them pay the bribe for you.

The Problem with internet gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

is that there are no lobbyists. Which proves that it can't be a legitimate business. If it were then Jack and Co. would
have been on this already. C'mon, kids it's pay to play here in the GOP USA. At least the Indians know that much.
Now we don't have a problem with you bankrupting our citizenry, just how am I gonna get re-elected?

From the summary...

[dtsazza]

The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites (my emphasis)

Really? This is another example of jurisdiction over the internet being called into question. My first though on reading the article was whether restrictions would apply to the casino, the gamblers or both. I'd imagine they'd almost certainly apply to the casinos - make it illegal for casinos based on servers in the US to accept electronic payment - but would it also be illegal for US citizens to place bets?

FTFA:

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would impact offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

I don't see how this works. If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you can - in which case, I'm worried about the precedent that would set. Is there a limit to the extent a country can create laws that affect those who are 'unaffected' by that country's laws? To a certain extent it's reasonable, but since this case involves two jurisdictions, with the casino outside the U.S.' jurisdiction and the gambler essentially going to the virtual casino to do business, it seems unreasonable. It's like the U.S. making it illegal for Mexican casinos to allow Americans to gamble there...

Re:From the summary...

[DavidTC]

You don't know much about the WTO.

The WTO specifically is to stop countries from regulating international commerce in certain ways. One of these ways is that countries can't regulate economic behavior of its own citizens in other countries. (Which has been a tradition of international law, anyway.)

However, no one's sure if this falls under what the WTO prohibits, or not. I don't know how much they have to do with banking regulations.

And, yes, the WTO can't enforce anything at all. It doesn't have to. The WTO has the ability to ask other countries to impose penalties on goods exported from countries that break the rules, and the other countries that signed the WTO already agreed to automatically follow whatever the WTO said.

It's all well and good to say 'The US is sovereign', but have fun explaining that to US companies that suddenly find themselves getting hit with a 10% tarrif to ship their goods to the UK or Japan. Yes, technically, the UK and Japan could simply decide not do this...and they would get blacklisted and hit with penalties by the WTO.

Alternately, we could simply leave it, but then we'd stop getting all the benefits, and countries would be free to impose whatever tarrifs they want on us, and avoiding that is the entire point of the WTO in the first place.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the WTO doesn't have any teeth.

Re:From the summary...

[Cederic]

Consider this scenario:
I move to America, to a state where gambling is illegal.
I connect to CasinoRouletteMillions.com (made up URL; may exist, I haven't checked)
I place a bet using my credit card, on the digit 0, for my full credit limit.
It doesn't come in.

I contact my card company and demand they charge back the amount, thus clearing my balance.

The casino can not challenge the charge back. The card is an American card; the transaction was under American laws. So either the casino accepts the charge back, or the card issuer, by permitting an illegal transaction, takes the hit.

Now, this is complicated. I'd potentially be liable for fraud. But in reality, the card issuers would refuse to permit card payments to the offshore casinos - they don't want to take that risk. They don't want the headaches. Or the casinos would refuse to take card based payments - they don't want that risk.

Either way, the ability for me, as a gambler, to access the gambling sites, and pay them, is horribly restricted.

That the sites are outside the jurisdiction of the US is irrelevant - the payment mechanisms they're using are not. Hence the bill targeting the payment mechanisms, not the websites.

The use of offshore banking alongside offshore casinos (as suggested in another response) is however a possible workaround.

I haven't explained this well, sorry. :(

Bout time

[HangingChad]

We'll finally be able to send our glorious Justice Department commandos after those insurgent little old ladies playing Texas Holdum and otherwise not bothering a sole in the privacy of their own home. Without this law we would have never been able to move against the undesirable element in our society who keep to themselves, those bastards.

Once we have the bulk of the population under the regulatory oversight of the criminal justice system we'll be able to force those godless, indecent hoardes into our nice, Republican cookie-cutter mold of outward piety and ethical lip service.

Long live the Republican party! Long live the Justice Department!

The Real Reason for this Legislation...

[ThinkFr33ly]

... is because of the strong brick and mortar casino lobby. Native American casinos and Vegas casinos have a very strong (and well funded) lobby that pushes for this legislation every year.

It just so happens that we have scummy enough politicians in power that are happy to make it happen.

With internet gambling shut down the only place people will be able to gamble are brick/mortar casinos, and, of course, state sponsored lotteries.

What you'll hear from these politicians is some baloney about gambling addiction, or maybe even the obligatory "what about the children!?" plea. I absolutely hate these people. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[Slightly Askew]

There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.

You should probably qualify this with "Gambling against the house". Playing online poker against other players is not the same as pulling a virtual slot machine handle. I would liken it to other "games" such as golf, bowling, bridge, etc. Those who are skilled in the game have a decided advantage over those who are not. The only difference is that the score is kept in dollars instead of points.

I challenge anyone to explain the moral difference between paying an entry fee to play in a golf tournament where the prizes awarded are cash prizes, and paying an entry fee to play in a poker tournament where the prizes awarded are cash prizes.

Wheel of Fortune

[Doc Ruby]

Jack Abramoff's casino clients pay "Christian" Republican politicians to write laws cutting out competition. Internet gambling is a big threat to their innumeracy scams, so of course there's a law against it.

Sweet! Would that Include MMORPGs?

[Greyfox]

After all MMORPG farmers pay a fixed monthly buy-in and rely on random events to win prizes that they can then sell on ebay for lots of money. It'd tickle my sense of fancy if the first company pursued under this law (Should it survive to the president's desk) were Blizzard...

For the most part I doubt it'll affect online poker players all that much. Most of them think that it's illegal now.