USA Bans Internet Gambling By Back-door Method

BrianH

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
I hear that Channel 4 News wil lead tonight with the story of the bill imposing strict policies to make gambling online almost impossible which was passed in the US Senate late on Friday night.

The bill was passed using methods that question American beliefs and rights. A bill, which has been denied individual passage numerous times, was piggy backed onto a bill that was guaranteed to pass, The Safe Port Act.

The Safe Port Act, whose purpose is to improve homeland security, does not and will not relate to internet gambling, but yet over 30 pages of language relating to banning gambling online was included in the Safe Port Act. The added section about internet gambling focuses exclusively on an attempt to prevent Americans from being able to transfer their own money to websites that allow any form of gambling, with exceptions provided for horse racing and state lotteries.

According to some informed sources the US government has skipped the democratic process of public debate and is trying to take away something that well over 60% of Americans enjoy. In fact, a poll by the Poker Player’s Alliance, a grassroots advocacy organization of more than 110,000 poker enthusiasts, indicated that 94.7% of the people polled believe that the federal government should not prevent Americans from gambling online. Senate majority leader Bill Frist and other proponents knew he would never pass this bill by democratic means so he dodged the entire process according.

"How can it be that in the Land of the Free a bill that questions American freedom can be passed by such outlandish means? While we fight for the democracy of others, such as the war in Iraq, it seems that somewhere along the way our own rights have been shoved by the wayside," asked industry insiders.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act effectively stops anyone in the US from placing bets on the internet even if the casino is based overseas, although it does not include horseracing and state-owned lotteries.

Shares in the sector tumbled by as much as investors reacted with dismay to the news that the new laws will ban banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online casinos.

Shares in PartyGaming tumbled as much as 62% while 888 was down 50% and Sportingbet was off more than 70%. World Gaming plummeted 80% after it was also hit by the end of takeover talks with Sportingbet, and online money transfer company Neteller fell 60%.
 
Do any other countries ban Internet gambling, Brian? It seems like a throwback to the Prohibition era - for all the good that did! It's not just nannying gone mad, because they're not pretending it's for the moral hygiene of society, but it seems to take away a basic right of how people spend their money on entertainment. Or are they tacitly admitting they have no idea how to regulate the business, when they can spy on the decals on the doors of North Korean nuclear processing facilities? Come onnnn... must try harder! Very undemocratic, but what does one expect from such a corrupt government?
 
The only reason this is going through is because their isn`t a strong enough lobby in the US to buttfuck it.

It`s a country with many qualities but it`s democracy is rotten to the core.
 
Italy (another country where corruption is unknown) has blocked any sites that it thinks are gambling related. So, if you have "sporting" or "bet" in your website address you can't be found. Also well-known names such as "Wiliam Hill" and "Ladbrokes" are blocked, though, surprisingly "Coral" wasn't.

I was unable to access "Sporting Index" but could get into "IG Index" and "Spreadex". There were other anomalies - for example, victorchandler.com was blocked but victorchandler.co.uk wasn't.

I understand that Spain may have done something similar, but, as far as I know, no other western democracy has made depositing funds on the internet for he purpose of having a bet illegal.
 
I'm amazed that this sort of thing (the Bill) is legal. I'd also have thought that the gambling industry as a whole - casinos in Las Vegas, slots in Atlantic City, and the racecourses themselves, had time to have formed an effective lobby, showing the revenue they bring in, the taxes they pay, the people they employ, and that removing another branch of their industry was as good as denying them rightful methods of employment and income.

It's dumb - it's like barring the leisure use of cars because they might be used in in the commission of any amount of criminal activities. See GM going for that one!
 
Internet Gambling is bad for the mob. It has hit some of their hard-working illegal bookmakers hard. This legislation helps to protect some very important people. People, without whom, we may never have had the Godfather or the Sopranos or any of the other things that make America great. God bless America. And Sicily as well.
 
krizon, the US gambling industry, in an unholy alliance with the religious right, supports the bill. there are claims of prtecrionism from non-US operators.

It is extremely unlikely that a majority of American citizens would be in favour, hence the non-debating of the bill and its being added to a vote on homeland security with which it had no connection whatsoever.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 2 2006, 03:45 PM
In fact, a poll by the Poker Player’s Alliance, a grassroots advocacy organization of more than 110,000 poker enthusiasts, indicated that 94.7% of the people polled believe that the federal government should not prevent Americans from gambling online.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a bit like saying that 94.7% of Geese and Turkeys believe Christmas should be banned ?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 2 2006, 10:46 PM
Well, I guess anything which stamps out prtecrionism can't be all bad, Brian...
Click to expand...
No, the bill is being passed in the interests of US protectionism preventing overseas operators competing with US casino operators, who operate in far more states today than Nevada and New Jersey, state lotteries and US racetracks. Though it's understood that the gambling operations managed by American citizens of European origin whose names end in vowels will continue.
 
Yes, which means that you won't be up against any Yanks in online games. Which, of course, has always been the case for those of us who play on Ladbrokes. There will be no more online qualifiers for the big live games from the USA.
 
From today's Independent

The rank hypocrisy of America's position in all this is still the most shocking aspect of the whole affair. The US cries foul when China tries to censure its search engines yet it thinks nothing of clamping down on the internet threat to its own physical gaming industry. In gunning these largely London-listed invaders down, America none the less expects Britain to welcome Harrah's and other US gaming groups with open arms when they bid for London Clubs or for the opportunities being opened up by gaming deregulation.

As with Prohibition, the effect of the new US gambling legislation will not be to kill off online gaming, but to drive it underground, where it will become subject to criminal infiltration.

The first big scandal is probably no more than a year or two away. Legislators will then set up a Congressional Commission and eventually the industry will be re-legalised in licensed, regulated form, with the great bulk of the licences doled out to American players. Free trade? Fine and dandy if it works to America's advantage. Globalisation? Call it Americanisation and that's acceptable. Try using it against American economic interest and expect to feel the backlash.
 
On a similar note, there's a letter in today's Daily Telegraph on the subject of the internet and gambling in the UK. It would seem to suggest that at present the promotion of gambling on British websites is illegal. I may have taken this up wrongly and correct me if I have, but here's the letter.

Gambling problems

Sir – The commitment of internet gambling promoters "to getting back what we've lost from America. We've been very good at marketing" (Business, October 3) needs to be closely watched. As your report states, "this could mean even more advertising and promotion".

Until the Gambling Act comes fully into operation, immediate vigorous action must be taken to enforce Section 42 of the Gaming Act 1968. The Government agrees that this not only prohibits the promotion of commercial gaming in publications, but also on British-based websites.

The preoccupation in Britain with super casinos must not blind us to the danger of the damaging effects of excess arising from remote gambling via the internet and interactive television. Unless deregulation of the promotion of hard gaming is curbed, the social cost to families is likely to be disastrous.

Dr E. Moran, Adviser on pathological gambling, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Enfield, Middx
 
Two principles of bwin.com were arrested in France the other week, due to allegedly breaking laws by advertising their wares there. These rules are in place, of course, to protect the state lottery and PMU monopolies.
 
I know that I am a cynic - and here I expect to win a few converts. The resrictions imposed by the bill on transferring cash offshore for the purposes of gambling on the internet will take 270 days to come into effect. The major US casino chains are now working on their own online programmes - and guess how long it is expected to take before these are ready?

The day that the legislation was announced shares in overseas companies such as PartyGaming and 888.com fell in value by around 60%. Within forty-eight hours, according to Bloomberg reports, US casino companies such as MGM Mirage and Harrahs were making enquiries about buying them!

Reportedly the official response from PartyGaming to MGM Mirage comprised two words, each one of just one syllable.
 
From yahoo.com. A good article

The betting fools
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
October 16, 2006

Last Friday, President Bush continued the United States' uneven, inconsistent and utterly baffling love-hate relationship with gambling when he signed the "Security and Accountability for Every Port Act" into law.

That bill mainly dealt with securing our ports against terrorism, but like everything in Washington, there were unrelated riders attached that get forced through because there aren't many politicians willing to vote against securing and accounting for our every port a few weeks before election day.

In this case, one of those riders blocks American financial institutions, such as banks and credit card companies, from making transactions with Internet casinos – a move that already has caused market leader PartyPoker.com and some, but not all, poker rooms to stop accepting money bets from the United States.

The law may turn out to be toothless. But it also may shut off online poker to all but the most serious players who are willing to open offshore bank accounts.

I don't play poker, online or in casinos, because I don't have enough free time to get good at it, and I am not such a fool that I would gamble against people who do.

But I understand why so many folks do play – and I have no problem with that.

And neither should the federal government.

Unless you want to go all puritan and ban all games of chance – casinos, horse tracks, lotteries, bingo, 50-50 raffles and so on – there isn't any ground to stand on in this debate.

Gambling is gambling is gambling, and the people of the United States of America have spoken clearly on the issue – we love it.

But our lawmakers have adopted a vast and confusing system of situation ethics; this form is banned by the government, that form is protected by the government and this form (lotteries, convenience store keno) actually is run by the government.

None of it makes intellectual sense except to say it is all about which form of gambling is most effective at buying off the politicians.

And please, spare me the Hannity and Colmes screech fest about "those Democrats" and "these Republicans." Both parties are completely compromised here, completely bought out and completely at odds with what they claim to be about. This is bipartisan foolishness.

Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, but here they are telling people they can't play online poker in the comfort of their living room? And for all their bluster about the dangers of gambling at home (as opposed to a smoky, free-booze offering, oxygen-pumping casino) they allow an exception on this bill for horse racing and interstate lotteries? Gee, I wonder why.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are supposed to be about protecting the poor, yet they are the strongest proponents of state lotteries, the most regressive forms of taxation ever invented (the less money you have, the more likely – statistically – you play.)

By the way, if you watched any of the Congressional hearings on this thing, you wonder if any of our elected officials know anything about the Internet. And the lack of common sense in Washington is comical – almost as comical as the fact this bill was blocked three times because former lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid off Congressmen on behalf of a gambling service company. Abramoff got sent to the clink for that (and other bribes), which, unfortunately in this case, got him out of the way for the bill to sail through. What a country.

The government's deal with gambling mirrors our major sports leagues. Sports wagering is illegal everywhere except Nevada because the leagues will tell you they fear the games will be corrupted.

But if this is such a real concern, why allow it in even one state? And isn't this illogical because gambling experts say the billions wagered with organized crime's street bookies make game fixing both more likely and easier to conceal?

This also spits in the face of the obvious: That interest in the NFL, college football and the NCAA basketball tournament – to name just three – is exponentially greater because of betting.

The leagues make big money off gambling. They just don't want to admit it.

The NCAA, no surprise, is the most hypocritical. A student-athlete that bets on a single NFL game will be banned from college competition and publicly shamed, but the school he plays for still is allowed to operate 50-50 raffles at his games.

Essentially it is a maze, a mess that the law-abiding fan who might want to spend a Sunday watching and wagering on the NFL in a legal sports book – or playing poker from his or her home – can't.

You can't explain how poker, which requires significant skill, is a more dangerous vice than a mindless keno game in a bar, which requires none?

I completely understand that the National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that we have some two million pathological gamblers and four to eight million more who can be defined as problem gamblers. And yes, it would be nice if the Americans who spend $20 per week on scratch tickets put it instead into retirement accounts – a far, far smarter "dollar and a dream" plan.

But the government doesn't really care about any of that. Trying to curtail online poker isn't about protecting those people or "the children" as politicians love to scream. It is about protecting current legal forms of gambling in the United States.

The politicians aren't getting enough (in donations, taxes and old-fashioned bribes) from the online poker people to turn their back on the casinos, the lotteries, the horse tracks and the rest.

It is a straight payoff and nothing else.

And because of that, the regular guy loses.

Talk about a bad beat.
 
Basically it's just a variation on a theme of commercial/political relationships - some companies (whose interests include major gambling businesses) that make major contributions to political funds lobby the politicians, having wound up the fundamentalist Christians to campaign against internet gambling.

The companies, who are preparing their own gambling websites have persuaded their political friends that you'll never be able to prevent internet gambling totally so it's better to have it run by US based operators whom you can levy tax on their proceeds.

The story for the god-botherers will be "Now that we've brought it inside our own borders we can conrol it."
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 2 2006, 06:10 PM
I'm amazed that this sort of thing (the Bill) is legal. I'd also have thought that the gambling industry as a whole - casinos in Las Vegas, slots in Atlantic City, and the racecourses themselves, had time to have formed an effective lobby, showing the revenue they bring in, the taxes they pay, the people they employ, and that removing another branch of their industry was as good as denying them rightful methods of employment and income.

It's dumb - it's like barring the leisure use of cars because they might be used in in the commission of any amount of criminal activities. See GM going for that one!
Click to expand...
Exactly - and coming from a country which tolerates, nay encourages, Las Vegas!!
It's the Christian lobby in Washington at work again I think.
The sense a bog threat to 'family life' and apple pie

Btw, I had no trouble accessing my Paddy Power a/c from Ibiza
 
Back
Top