Slashdot Log In
Online Gambling Bill Passed in House
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:18 AM
from the place-your-bets dept.
from the place-your-bets dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
News: U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334 comments
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."
[+]
Betting Against Online Gambling 175 comments
conq writes "BusinessWeek.com has an article looking at the possible consequences if anti-gambling legislation is passed. From the article: 'Just how much of a setback is the proposed legislation for the $12 billion industry? While online gambling companies generate half their sales from U.S. gamblers, the industry is operated almost completely by companies beyond the reach of U.S. regulators. [...] It's a lot of smoke and mirrors and misstatements.'"
[+]
Online Gambling Not Banned Yet 237 comments
For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.
[+]
US Outlaws Online Gambling 579 comments
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though. Sure, it can make people happier but to sustain the industry it is a simple fact that far more people must be made unhappy to make those few happy.
Also, as tobacco is bad, it come with a large amount of health warnings, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [slashdot.org] 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: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the USA being a secular government?
The way the entire online gambling discussion is given such a priority in the federal government, despite being extremely trivial compared to the many more important issues facing the USA, shows that the fundamentalists are still in control.
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Informative)
And what makes you consider gambling at a casino a con? All of the rules of every game are quite clear. You can read books about them. The casino tells you exactly how much they get to keep at each game.
Parent
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to disagree with this - these industries are constantly trying to con you out of money by making you think that you will gain a more desirable social status by using their products. It has, and is, one of the biggest, and ongoing con games that exist. And the deadliest - remember those billions of dollars that the tobacco industry lost in the suit filed against it, wasn't the result of its charity work - it was the result of a decades-long campaign to engage in calculated and deceitful advertising that conned millions of people into believing that smoking cigarettes neither addictive nor unhealthy.
Parent
NIMBY (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich people have enough clout to say NIMBY when it comes to Casinos, powerplants, garbage dumps or pretty much any other item that could bring with it social negatives.
Trying to handle the "why" questions (Score:2)
(Statistical losses are worse than they appear: winnings are taxable, losses aren't deductible except to offset winnings).
Gambling establishments aren't guaranteed a living because of the money people lose. High rollers have to be attracted with expensive comps. The house edge [insidervlv.com] is all over th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Illinois, and I wouldn't say that's the case here. While Chicago doesn't have a casino (yet...they've been talking about it for years), most of the towns that do have them also have relatively thriving economies. Many of them are Chicago suburbs, like Elgin and Aurora. There are ot
Re: (Score:2)
Also South Dakota has a few reservations... so that also makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there are a few issues at play. First, many people don't understand statistics, or even believe that playing at a slot machine for several turns make the next turn more likely to win. Second, some people enjoy risk and uncertainty, and find it exciting or addicting to gamble for the sake of gambling. For these people, the payoff is enough.
Third, and most important, is people'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
How to they get to dicate that? Start at "Think of the children," proceed through "The Constitution is just a godamned piece
Who is pushing this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes in for the Indian tribes. And no [game-culture.com] for Vegas. Could well be a tough cop/nice cop routine, if you believe they're more connected that generally admitted.
At least $85 million [wikipedia.org], that we know of. Not all on this issue, but much of it aimed at keeping out competition. Most likely, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
--MarkusQ
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sceptic in me wonders if some of the rich US casino owners don't have a hand in this, my only guess is that the casino owners are worried about gamblers using overseas websites in tax-haven countries that offer better odds maybe?
State governments (Score:2)
I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.
For the last 20 years or so there has been a massive movement toward local and state government sponsorship of gambling. It is often referred to as a "lottery." Sometimes it's "Indian Casino Gambling." No matter how you slice it, the state governments get revenues from these deals, either directly or indirectly. Given that during that same 20 year period, Americans have become increasingly opposed to taxes, the scramble for rev
re: That's a crock.... (Score:2)
If gambling is done on U.S. soil, it's possible to send in government regulators to verify that the posted odds really are correct, to place daily betting limits, and other such rules. They can't realistically put any such controls on some web site running in a foreign country.
And how fair is it to let
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, that's the entire answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.
Title is misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Companies got around that restriction by moving offshore, since the Internet makes it easy to do business anywhere in the world. The purpose of this law is not to actually outlaw online gambling, but to close a loophole by not allowing U.S. banks to be involved in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Violation of personal liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.
You do not outlaw an entire activity from ALL people because it can be abused; you simply take steps to deal with the problem of abusive.
The only justification for *forceable* intervention in another individual's life is *self-defence*.
This principle is the very antithisis of Big Government.
We pay tax through our noses for other people to progressively control our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, no seatbelts necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However the argument that changed my mind was this: the seatbelt helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle, which is a critical factor in the scope of an accident. Without a seatbelt, it is very likely that you WILL lose control of the vehicle in a severe accident. Requiring seatbelts for drivers i
Passed Both Houses (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will backfire in November.
--
Last Minute Games On Capital Hill [apathy.net]
Re: (Score:2)
--
Under-Reported News and Comments [apathy.net]
American Inquisition (Score:4, Insightful)
Grand Inquisitor Abu Gonzales will now have the option of torturing you when god tells him you're bluffing.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only equate the last ~ 5 years of political discourse in the US as the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture [senate.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted aga
FASCIST (Score:2)
Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
Even if actual humans save y
Here is a short overview before... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Why wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
I live in a state with an online gambling ban, a remarkably repressive one.
The state senator who introduced the bill had, as her top campaign contributors, offline gambling enterprises.
(flame)This happens all the time, businesses buying legislation to put competitors in prison. It's just that it usually happens in Third World countries.(/flame)
Remind me... (Score:3, Interesting)
They hate our freedoms... (Score:2)
Thank goodness. (Score:2)
Wait, what?
This Could Effect State Lotteries... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this Bill make that illegal as well?
We thank you. (Score:2)
Let us do it instead. We have experience in this filed.
Don Corleone
"The family" LTD/Inc.
Offshore Gambling, Savings an Loans
Sicily - Moscow - Cayman Islands
Contact us for insurance as well.
Ah, America. (Score:2)
CowboyNeal is wrong; Senate Passed It (Score:2)
I'm just glad Frist is considering a run for President, so I will hopefully get a chance to oppose him with my vote.
Under the guise of trying to protect people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't Slashdot check facts? (Score:3, Informative)
Googling the topic or checking thomas.loc.gov would have quickly told you that the House ban passed months ago and today's passage by the Senate makes it likely that the measure will become law.
Non troll (Score:2)
Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
In some ways it's harder for online casinos to cheat, because you can keep a perfect record of your history and analyze it for statistical discrepancies. There are guys with databases of millions of poker hands they've played. If the cards were non-random, they'd have found it.
They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them.
Except that people seem to enjoy playing. But the preferences of mere mortals are gener