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

[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.

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

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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...