U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act

SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."

Comments

They won't get rid of it

[the computer guy nex]

They will just find a way to tax it.

Re:They won't get rid of it

[pimpimpim]

Actually in germany and the netherlands (almost) all mortar-brick gambling houses, and several lotteries as well, are state owned, and a lot of money of the poor souls that get addicted to this flows directly towards the state. As they have to get their money somewhere, and are not earning enough, they're likely to get their money in a criminal way. In effect, all this leads to state-controlled white washing of criminal money.

Don't know how it's in the US, but I don't wonder countries are against online gambling: not because of your health, or to prevent fraud, but because of all the money they'll lose their grip on.

Re:They won't get rid of it

[Anonymous Coward]

The power elite will impose whatever policy brings in more revenue for government. It's really that simple. Government is run as a business, and like any business, more revenue is always viewed as a good thing. The objective for the power elite is to maximize revenue and "market share" (control over the people), and that is exactly why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, and exactly why all governments tend to expand, and never reduce, their powers throughout their existence.

Take prohibition for example: sure, they could tax drugs and "allow" us our god-given right to voluntary association, but prohibition rakes in billions per year for government, and provides them with orders of magnitude more power than regulation and taxing, which can be leveraged for even more profit. Therefore, prohibition is here to stay, at least as long as big government is here to stay.

They will literally sit down and discuss how to maximize revenue and market share, like any business would, and the answer will be determined exactly that way. Don't you love being ruled by other human beings?

Re:They won't get rid of it

[RingDev]

Which is where the idiocy begins. You can't tax something that's illegal. Well, you can, but not many people will fess up. Right now, with the betting going on overseas, the industry is pulling money out of the US economy and adding it to other country's economies. All taxes aside, the US economy is weakening because it is illegal to gamble online in the US, but not on servers outside the US.

IF the US were to legalize online gambling, and tariff the hell out of international gambling services, they could not only keep more of the money IN the US economy, but they could still tax the gamblers (capital gains) and the profits of the online casino.

Instead the government has created a situation where they are attempting to dictate morals to the majority aged citizens and are shipping our US dollars overseas for no good reason.

-Rick

Re:They won't get rid of it

[ultranova]

Right now, with the betting going on overseas, the industry is pulling money out of the US economy and adding it to other country's economies. All taxes aside, the US economy is weakening because it is illegal to gamble online in the US, but not on servers outside the US.

But doesn't the exact same thing happen with outsourcing - you move production or a call center to India, and you pay for Indian workers, therefore moving money from your domestic economy to foreign economy ? And yet the government doesn't seem to have any problems with that...

Re:They won't get rid of it

[RingDev]

That one is a toss up. You are weakening the economy as a whole because you are moving money out of the country. But at the same time, companies are saving money, which allows them to grow and increase sales in the US, which helps keep more money in motion in the US economy. Long term though, you are correct, our trade defeciet will force inflation on and the value of the dollar will drop. England had it's time on top, we had our time on top, and soon enough China will have it's time on top.

-Rick

Re:They won't get rid of it

[Harry Coin]

It's more profitable because it justifies military-scale law enforcement budgets, allows law enforcement to seize assets worth millions of dollars, allows the state to jail non-violent users to use as a cheap labor pool, and neccessitates the construction of prison after prison. We now have a higher percentage of our population in jail that the USSR at the height of the gulags.

Of course, prohibition has also been the largest factor in the erosion of our right to privacy.

I'm all for jailing violent offenders, but let the god-damn tokers out! Put our police to better use, like violent gangs and corporate criminals.

Re:They won't get rid of it

[IconBasedIdea]

Currently, I play at an online casino that uses a Java interface. I put my money into the account using a Visa card based in the West Indies. Winnings are sent by check to my house. This ban won't effect me at all.

Idiots

[YrWrstNtmr]

I guess they're just running true to form, though. They allow OTB and lotteries online, because they can tax those.

Re:Idiots

[TopShelf]

Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.

Re:Idiots

[Kombat]

Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.

Just for the sake of argument, I want you to re-read the above paragraph, but replace "internet gambling" with "internet child pornography." Heck, replace it with "crack cocaine use" or "drunk driving."

Online activities can be outlawed and enforced. It's not sticking your head in the sand to try and eliminate it if it's truly something your society rejects.

Re:Idiots

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree except for the statement "US".

The US has really been overpowered/bought out by multi-national corporations who owe their allegience to no government. Our senators and congressmen almost certainly know this but the system has been set up so corporate money is now required to enter politics at any serious level.

What is referred to as the "US" is really 270 million people being pulled along and steered by a tiny minority. They give us the illusion that we have control but where it counts, we do not and have not for at least 30 to 40 years.

Land of the Free?

[BasilBrush]

Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?

Re:Land of the Free?

[tehwebguy]

if your kid knows your credit card number, s/he can use it to spend all your money on anything on the internet, not just gambling.

also, consider this example: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/04 /slot-machine-win.html?ref=rss

Re:Land of the Free?

[Kohath]

Yeah, what's next? Banning smoking in bars? Banning political ads? Banning inappropriate speech on campuses and in the workplace? Restrictions on selling alcohol on Sunday?

Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There are zero other factors in this. Prohibit an activity, then run it as a business for your own benefit and strong-arm the competition into shutting down. That's either government gambling or something the mafia might do. You really can't tell the difference.

Re:Land of the Free?

[z80kid]

> Riding without a helmet? ... the Insurance Company has to cover it.

There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.

The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).

We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.

Re:Land of the Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

America -historically and culturally- tends to value negative freedom (the freedom to own a gun), whereas the Europeans tend towards positive freedoms (the freedom to not get shot).

A libertarian believes in the freedom to own a gun and the freedom to not get shot, because getting shot is an example of being aggressed against. The essential difference between the statist and the libertarian is that the statist will aggress against innocents in order to achieve his ends (i.e. the political means), whereas the libertarian will only attempt to achieve his ends through voluntary trade (i.e. the economic ends) and defense against criminals (for a libertarian, the word "criminal" is defined as a person engaged in the political means).

An example of the political means is gun control laws. Gun control laws threaten violence against any person who buys or sells a gun without following the "proper procedure". The statist doesn't care that failure to follow this procedure does not involve any aggression whatsoever against innocent people; the statist simply sees violence (or threats of violence) as a tool to achieve his ends.

Re:Land of the Free?

[soft_guy]

I'm a billionaire, and I want to sit in my mansion all day and do coke, who the fuck are YOU to say that's wrong? it's my life, it's my house, and I'm paying for it with my own money. Right there, whether you agree with drug use or not - doesn't matter. It's about freedom. Ditto with gambling. But when a crackhead steals my bike to pawn at a pawnshop to finance their need, I tend to get a wee bit pissed off.

This is the problem with trying to make the laws too fancy. The right way to handle this is to outlaw STEALING, not some other behavior (drug use) that someone thinks may be related to stealing. Frankly, I don't care why someone is stealing, I just care that they are stealing.

What's the problem with gambling?

[Tet]

What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA? You allow people to drink, smoke, carry guns and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least), but not to bet on certain outcomes. It just seems really bizarre to me, particularly when you allow betting on other outcomes, such as dabbling in the financial markets.

Disclaimer: I make my income through Internet gambling. However, even before that, I just never saw the problem. Why is it so demonized over there?

Re:What's the problem with gambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA?

Because authoritarians presently rule. I'm 54, but the Bill of Rights was a pathetic, toothless joke even before I was born. We aren't the land of the free, many if not most countries are freer (Canada, right on our border, for example). It's not the home of the brave, either; at least, our politicians are all yellow, as are most of my cowardly countrymen.

You allow people to drink

Not in every county. For a couple of decades it was illegal everywhere. You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a beer in most cities.

smoke

Not certain substances (pot, crack, meth, heroin), and in my town nowhere indoors in public.

carry guns

Not really. Walk down a Chicago or New York street with a loaded shotgun and watch how fast the cops arrest or shoot you! Plus you can't transport a loaded gun legally, it has to be unloaded, broken down or disassembled, and can't be within the driver's reach.

and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least)

Only in Nevada. You can gamble in Nevada as well (slots, cards, dice, etc). Most states have some gambling; lottery, and there are riverboat casinos in many states (mine for one) where you can play poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, craps, etc; and we have horseracing and betting on it.

but not to bet on certain outcomes.

See "smoke". Also see "prostitution", my theory is that American casinos are pushing this law. America has the best government money can buy. I have no representation at all, the only people with representation are the corporates.

What I'm sure a lot of foreigners don't understand about the US is that it's a HUGE country, over 6400 km wide and over 3200 km north-south, with its biggest state, Alaska, sitting on top of Canada and with Hawaii way off in the Pacific, halfway to Japan. Our Constitution limits (limited, no longer it seems) Federal power, leaving the individual states to pass their own laws. In theory, at least. There is at present no Federal law against gambling or prostitution.

You have to remember that most US states are bigger than most European countries. It's over 600 KM from Chicago to Paducah, and Kentucky borders Illinois. And Illinois is only a medium sized state! I live in central Illinois, and the closest legal whorehouse is in Canada 300 miles away; Nevada is almost ten times as far.

Re:What's the problem with gambling?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Puritanical heritage. Gambling is classed with drinking as a "vice", and remember what the US did about drinking in 1919.

Concern over the risk to society of creating gambling addicts, but that might be a rationalization for the first one.

Historical association with organized crime (which is likely just a consequence of making gambling illegal).

Disdain for how economically unproductive gambling is.

The government-revenue argument is only a partial explanation, since any state that tries to start a state lottery can count on vocal popular opposition.

More useless legislation

[grasshoppa]

Great. More useless legislation from our elected officials. Must be election year.

Nanny state?

[Wylfing]

I thought the "problem" with gambling -- like the "problems" with prostitution and street drugs -- was that casinos in your neighborhood tend to bring with them a lot of undesirable activity, e.g., the underbelly of Las Vegas. But if the casino is not in your neighborhood, why should anyone care?

easy workaround

[MooseTick]

"The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites"

This will just cause the creation of middleman sites where you park funds with your credit cards and then they transfer the $$ to the online casino of your choice. Paypal would be a good candidate for this. If the govt get's on Paypal's case, then some offshore holding company will come along and for a 1-2% fee do this. The sad thing is that it will probably be owned by a casino and will drive the cost up another 1-2% just to get into a game.

Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states?

[robertjw]

Is this a hold over from Americas purtianical past? If enough people feel something should be legal why isn't it?

I believe gambling laws are all controlled by the state legislatures. Gambling bills come up from time to time that will allows gambling, often limited stakes, in specific areas (Atlantic City, Blackhawk, Deadwood, etc...) When a new gambling bill comes up for a vote, at least in my state, the biggest argument against it is concern about the type of people it will bring in. Most local citizens are more concerned about the potential bad elements, corruption and crime that may accompany the gambling than they are the actual gaming.

...I can tell you is that the businesses in Las Vegas definately don't want it legal everywhere else because it would remove their own (near) exclusive money making operation.

Nevada doesn't have nearly the exclusivity it used to. With all of the Indian casinos, riverboats and other gambling areas many people have something available withing a few hours drive. The real problem the government has with online gaming is the loss of revenue. They don't get any tax dollars from offshore gambling. Politicians are wrapping this up in a warm fuzzy "we are protecting the children" blanket, but really it's all about the money.

Trade deficits == bad

[artemis67]

Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK.

I know you meant that as a slam, but I absolutely agree with that statement. As an American, I am very concerned about trade deficits. Sure, it strengthens the economies of other nations, but it does so at the expense of the American economy.

It's not a double standard at all, it's just seeking a balanced economic exchange.

Re:Trade deficits == bad

[TopShelf]

Wrong - if free trade results in importing from another country, that means that consumers here benefit from lower prices. The broader population of consumers benefits more than the domestic suppliers lose, so the overall population benefits.

By the way, if you're that concerned about trade deficits, then we should regulate and encourage online gambling development in the US. As this international industry continues to boom (as it will as India and China grow), I'd rather see some of that money flow through US enterprises and banks rather than Costa Rican ones.

Re:Trade deficits == bad

[RexRhino]

Except that all economic exchange is balanced! What do you think those countries are going to do with the American dollars they get from gambling? American dollars are no longer redeemable for gold (the gold standard disapeared a long time ago), which means they are going to use those dollars to purchase American goods and services, or trade those dollars to others who want to purchase American goods and services.

"Trade" literally means trade... as in they send us stuff we want, and we send them stuff that they want (or we send them a promise to give them even more stuff they want in the future). We trade for it. Get it? Money is just a means of exchange to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

The U.S. trade deficit exists because the U.S. is borrowing insane amounts of money to spend on consumer goods (or the government is doing it on our behalf). The U.S. trade deficit isn't a problem we have with other countries, so much as it is the suicidal economic behavior of Americans. Instead of trading stuff they want for stuff we want, the U.S. is trading the promise for lots and lots of stuff they want in the future, for stuff we want now. If Americans and America weren't loaded with debt, trade between the U.S. and other countries would be relatively balanced.

Why is popularity always cited in defence of laws?

[adrianbaugh]

"Opponents cited the growing popularity of online gambling." How is this relevant? Law making should not be about whether something is popular or not, but whether it's desirable or not. It's as though, when Moses came down from the mountain with his commandments, the thieves' guild had expressed opposition, noting the current popularity of theft - popularity wouldn't necessarily make it right.

Note, I'm not coming down for or against online gambling, just making the point that its popularity is a specious argument when it comes to legislation.

No need to worry at all...

[Churla]

We're completely safe from this unenforcable law because to really enforce it they would need to be able to monitor... all... your net...

damn

Hold on, someone's at the door...

Can someone say

[minion]

The 18th Amendment? When will people learn you cannot control, 100%, the activities of people. You can suppress it, you can stifle it, but you cannot eradicate it. The only thing politicians do, is bring contempt from all people for these proposals.
 
Do you think its the population that is against online gambling, or the states, because they're not getting a piece of the pie?