Online Gambling Bill Passed in House

rkcallaghan writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.

Comments

Legitimate Business?

[eldavojohn]

The new gambling provision is not expected to affect gambling at tracks or casinos.

That's right, gambling at tracks and casinos will be restricted to our nation's poorest areas, with the exception of Nevada. Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey ... all states with gambling in poor areas. It simply baffles me because if this was a legitimate business, the sensible person would allow it to thrive in a large city or everywhere. So, by these restrictions and odd placements, it's quite obvious that everyone knows gambling is detrimental to the populace and only promotes Pareto Law.

Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?

I'm from the mid-west and if you drive out to South Dakota, there'll be multi-million dollar casinos out in the middle of nowhere. Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.


I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor. Maybe I'm just more statistical than other people but I've only been gambling once like that. Poker, on the other hand, can be fun and social. It also has a clear cut 0 sum (aside from the rake) outcome for the players -- which is nice.

And I don't want to hear any of this Native American loophole crap because there's an act for that enacted by our Federal Government. They control it in the end -- I don't buy it that it's affirmative action for the Native peoples. None of this "The Indians stole my money BS" because the government controls where it happens and takes their own cut through taxes.

I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco. But when you sit down and do the math, people are raking in cash. Why doesn't the government enforce something like a maximum 5% take by the house? What I mean is that I'm sure the house is making on average something like 10-15% so why doesn't the government tax them back to 5% or allow the casino to give back to the local community through donations of this excess or building of community buildings? This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly. I know a lot of them hand it out to members of their tribe but I don't know if that money is spent on things that necessarily benefit the community.

I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.

Re:Legitimate Business?

[TubeSteak]

Alcohol, tobacco & gambling are the trifecta of 'sin' activities that are taxed.

If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)

I wrote a longer post in a previous discussion on online gambling. I also discussed how alcohol prohibition is very similar to this 'ban' on online gambling.

Alcohol, tobacco & gambling will not go away unless the tax revenues can be made up elsewhere.

Re:Legitimate Business?

[Cutriss]

Indeed, something is rotten in the states of Louisiana, South Dakota, Mississippi, New Jersey ... all states with gambling in poor areas.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

In Mississippi, the vast majority of the casinos were put up on the coast in the more populated areas of the region. I suppose you could say that they're the "poor areas" now that the entire coast has been bushwhacked, but no - there are *WAY* poorer areas than Biloxi, which was probably the fourth or fifth largest city in the state before the casinos, and before Katrina, was easily second. Most of the "large cities" in MS are such because of the existence of an installation or university keeping them that size. Biloxi/Gulfport has only had Keesler AFB and the Seabee training center. The casinos in Vicksburg are of reasonable proximity to Jackson and Monroe, LA. The city basically wouldn't exist without the US Army Corps of Engineers research station, so obviously the existence of the 4 casinos in Vicksburg is due to Jackson and Monroe, but Vicksburg isn't exactly "poor" either (again, because of the research station). The only "Indian" casinos I know of are in Pearl (and it's turned out to be a nice inland resort type of place) and Tunica.

Now then, in Louisiana...where are the casinos? Let's see...Baton Rouge? Check. New Orleans? Check. Shreveport? Check. Hmm. Those are all big cities.

Now, does that mean that NIMBY doesn't apply here? No, it still definitely does. The reason Mississippi voted its casinos to all be dockside was so as to keep them out of Jackson. Of course, Jackson has the Ross Barnett Reservoir where something like that could go (if they could fit two barges in Pearl, they could do it in the reservoir), but that area is pretty much the most affluent suburb of Jackson, so there's no way anyone would allow that. And as far as Baton Rouge goes...well, I've been here over a year, and I know there are casinos here, but I have no idea where they are. I'm sure they're on the river, but I've driven on the highway that runs the river on the way to Angola, and I haven't seen them. So yeah, they're probably not in a great part of town either.

At least as far as Mississippi goes, you're way off the mark. Yeah, they've definitely "rigged" the legislation, but it's not as sinister as it looks.

Re:Title is misleading

[terrymr]

Online betting on sporting events is illegal in the US. Casino games currently are not illegal to play online. Go research it, the case that decided this was appealed all the way to the supreme court I believe.

Toothless and useless bill

[wolfie_cr]

This bill is going to be totally ineffective, the banks dont even have a coding system for ACH transactions........they were given 270 days to figure out how to do it. Credit cards on the other hand are a marginal funding method to gaming sites and have been for a long time The only real entities affected from this bill will be public egaming companies which do actually have CEOs,CFOs,etc that might be prosecuted as a consequence of this (unfortunately I work in one of such companies) The rest of the industry..............will keep going largely unaffected by this

Here is a short overview before...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a zillion of ignorant posts get modded +5.

1. The bill is a joke. Here is why:
- It makes a clear difference between ONLINE gambling & gambling, without realising that the first has way more safety nets to deal with the two main problems - underage gambling & gambling addicts.
- It makes a difference between sports gambling, poker & "wagering on horses", which is of course fine.
- It is a protectionist bill, against current WTO decisions that banning an activity is ok ONLY if you apply the same rules to domestic & foreign operators.
- It forbids US citizens an activity under a moral pretext(which fails on the 2 points above) or on the grounds of "money is getting out of the country". If US people feel ok being forbidden doing something because of that, I suggest next time you want to visit another country you hold on it. I'm sure postponing my next US visit for unforseeable future.

2. This bill will NOT work. Here is why:
- Unfortunately for the US, it has NOT power whatsoever. Bookies will find many new ways of moving the money around.
- The Bill has an excempt on banning transactions to e-wallet companies, ergo, this is a HUUUUGE loophole as you'll still have no problem using your funds trough an intermediare.
- There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.

3. What will happen?
- It will get SLIGHTLY more difficult for the after dinner poker mums to enjoy the game they like, but they'd still be able to do it.
- We'd get AT LEAST on case of a high profile offshore player being sued under the RICO act OR by the IRS(much more likely), however it'll be presented as a victory for the new legislation.

Will post more if I think of something.

Re:PayPal

[wolfie_cr]

funny thing is.........paypal IS a totally legit payment method for online gaming sites in Europe.

Remind me...

[geoff lane]

...exactly how well did prohibition work last time?

For those persons who live near Mexico or Canada

[LouisJBouchard]

For those persons who live near the International Border (both north and south), why not open a bank account in another country. US laws only affect US banks. Plus, you do not have to tell anyone if you take less than $10,000 across the border.

Re:Title is misleading

[mark-t]

And just how do they propose that US banks be able to discern that any particular international transaction is actually due to online gambling so they can reject it?