- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
You probably already know about this story… but I haven’t read it here before…
http://www.igamingnews.com/index.cfm?page=artlisting&tid=6390
“I-gaming Prohibition Becoming a Priority for Republican Leaders
by Bradley Vallerius
Following revelations that Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay may have manipulated voting and other factors surrounding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act in 2000, Republican lawmakers could be hoping to rectify the past and distance themselves from political scandal by putting an online gambling prohibition bill to vote once again in 2006.
The legitimacy of events surrounding voting on the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 first came under suspicion in October 2005 when the Washington Post reported that an aide of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) helped defeat the bill after receiving favors from Jack Abramoff. DeLay, who until recently was House Majority Leader, is now under indictment for criminal conspiracy while Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser, has already plead guilty to several political crimes and still faces more charges.
The alleged corruption surrounding the online gambling bill in 2000 is only one of many potential ethics and financial scandals facing the Republican Party today. With the Party facing such a severe threat to its integrity, its members appear eager to put the scrutiny surrounding DeLay and Abramoff behind them by whatever means possible.
Now that DeLay has stepped down as House Majority Leader, three House Republicans have stepped forward to try to claim the vacancy. The Majority Leader is one of the most powerful positions in the House and is responsible for planning the daily, weekly and annual agendas of the House as well as scheduling legislation for floor consideration and consulting with members to gauge party sentiment.
One of the contenders, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has on several occasions mentioned his five-point plan for reforms he wou”ld pursue if voted into the position, and among those five priorities is obtaining another vote on legislation to prohibit online gambling. Last week Shedegg wrote in an op-ed piece in Congressional newspaper The Hill that “In 2000, a ban on Internet gambling received 245 votes on the suspension calendar, but, according to news accounts, we were kept from passing it because of Jack Abramoff’s machinations and manipulation. Passing it now would be good public policy and a clear signal that the era of Abramoff’s influence is over.”
At the moment Shadegg, who has confirmed support from only about ten House Rebublicans, seems to be the long-shot candidate for the House Majority Leader election that will take place on February 2. The best odds are on Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo), who has secured 91 votes, followed by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) with 47 votes. A candidate needs 117 votes to win the election.
Even though Shadegg has only an extremely thin chance of winning, the I-gaming industry is not completely safe from prohibition becoming a serious part of the Republican agenda in 2006. There is always the possibility that Shadegg could withdraw from the race and throw his support behind one of the other candidates in exchange for their vowing to concentrate some effort on his five-point platform. Also, the other two candidates are also pledging to make reforms a crucial part of their agendas. (Incidentally Blunt and Boehner have lately come under scrutiny for tainted ethical records, as has Shadegg too, although to a somewhat lesser degree than the two.)
Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), who has authored prohibitory I-gaming legislation during the last five Congressional sessions, says the bill he introduced in November 2005 has been gaining momentum as the Abramoff scandal has gained more attention.
“We expect this to move sometime this year,” stated a Leach spokesperson to news publication American Banker last week. Leach’s bill has already attracted 23 co-sponsors, including Rep. Spencer Bacchus (R-Ala), who chairs the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over financial institutions and has been a vigorous supporter of I-gaming prohibition in the past.
Flashback
Some of the events surrounding the fate of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 came to light in October and afterward following the initial report by the Washington Post and subsequent others in other publications. It has been revealed that Tony Rudy, who was a staffer for DeLay in 2000, received favors from Abramoff and encouraged house members to vote against the bill. It has also come to light that Abramoff’s law firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rovelas Meeds lobbied on behalf of eLottery to fight the bill. Federal records show that Connecticut-based eLottery Inc., a company that wants to facilitate the sale of state lottery tickets over the Internet, spent $1.15 million to fight the prohibition that year, $720,000 of which went to Abramoff’s firm. The firm did not represent any other clients in lobbying against the legislation.
Earlier this month Abramoff pleaded guilty to several counts of an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. One part of his confession stated, “Beginning at least in 1999 through 2001, Abramoff and others sought Staffer A’s agreement to perform a series of official acts, including in assisting in stopping legislation regarding Internet gambling… With the intent to influence those official acts, Abramoff provided things of value, including, but not limited to, from June 2000 through February 2001, ten equal payments totaling $50,000 through a non-profit entity to the wife of Staffer A. The total amount paid to the wife of Staffer A was obtained from clients that would and did benefit from Staffer A’s official action regarding the legislation on Internet gambling…”
Leach recollects that by July 2000 the prohibition bill “had passed the Senate by unanimous consent and was poised to clear the House until opponents launched a vigorous campaign to defeat it.”
When it reached the House, however, the bill was placed on the suspension calendar, which is typically reserved for non-controversial matters because it limits debate and requires that a bill receive approval from two-thirds of the 435-member House. Although the bill easily achieved a majority of votes with 245 in support and 159 in opposition, the bill inevitably failed because it fell short of the necessary two-thirds.
There is now some speculation that DeLay’s office might have intentionally put the bill on the suspension calendar in order to defeat it.
One fact that should not be overlooked however is that other lobbying groups played a significant role in blocking the 2000 bill. Concerned groups such as the National Indian Gaming Association, various state lotteries, Internet service providers and the Interactive Gaming Council all concentrated lobbying efforts on defeating the bill.
At any rate, atoning for the scandals involving Abramoff and DeLay is now a primary concern for many Republicans and a re-vote on I-gaming prohibition, may be one area in which they believe they could accomplish their goal.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) is believed to be ready to introduce an identical prohibitory bill in the Senate soon. Doing so would eliminate the hurdle of merging two competing versions of the bill at a later date.”
Really odd that in a big size congress like the US is, a bill may be banned by an arrangement with only one person.
In case of success the bill will stop US citizens gambling offshore.
Right now millions of dollars are gambled in those offshore and ilegal HYIP, Traffic Surf, Cyclers, Doublers etc etc.
I can not see difference.
It ceases to amaze me how these right-wingers preach morality (in their effort to get rid of Internet-based gambling), but fully support an immoral war, and the alcohol and tobacco industries, which collectively kill thousands per year, both directly and indirectly. It just doesn’t make sense, although the argument is that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Let’s try to look at this issue objectively:
Don’t let them fool you. It’s not really about morality – it’s about money. The U.S. is green (no pun intended) with envy, in seeing all the money flock overseas, with few people actually paying taxes on gambling winnings (even though they should be). They want to stem the tide of this overseas cash flow, with the intent of people going to “in-house”, legalized, gambling parlors. Fat chance of this happening, since it is too much effort for most people to hop in a car and travel to the “nearest” casino.
With the ever-increasing budget deficit what it is, wouldn’t it behoove our wonderful government to jump on-board into this industry, help regulate it (which could actually have some positive benefits to us), and claim a piece of this very lucrative pie ? By “playing ball”, the government stands to make some money, and a decent amount at that. Prohibiting it outright, will continue to push these industries offshore, which hurts the U.S. Additionally, how on earth can the U.S. force its citizens to not gamble over the Internet ? Are they going to get Internet providers to block access to the multitude of sites out there ??? Never ! Are they going to get the Credit Card companies to comply with not permitting gambling charges to made ??? Never ! People will always find loopholes – alternate ISP’s and alternate payment methods (NETeller, for example). The bottom line is it really is totally non-regulatable from a technical and practical standpoint.
Can Internet gambling become additive ? Most certainly it can. But does it cause gambling addiction ? Certainly no more than legalized alcohol causes addicition, or legalized tobacco causes addiction; both of which, by the way, can cause harm to others. Do the existence of pornographic websites increase sexual offender behavior ? Let’s examine a whole bunch of social issues, if we are going to ban online gaming. The gambling sick are a small minority, and if they can’t bet over the Internet, they will find other ways to bet – horse race betting, lotteries, etc. There is no way it can be curtailed by imposing a restriction on Internet Gambling. It would be just like prohibition – people would find other ways to get their moonshine; hence, prohibition was eventually repealed.
I cannot see our government passing any legislation in both houses, without this subsequently being challenged in the Supreme Court. And at that juncture, the legality of regulating international-based activities, will never see the light of day; even with Bush’s 2 new cronies in the seats.
I suggest everyone who advertises for pay put an appropriate legal disclaimer on their sites, and to pay every penny of taxes on revenue due to the U.S. government. And sit back, and not worry. We will not be shut down !
Comments anyone ?
You just might want to note that the legislation is co-written with a Democrat.
“Goodlatte Introduces Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep Rick Boucher (D-VA) today called a press conference to announce their introduction of legislation aimed at prohibiting gambling via the Internet and other remote means. Called the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, the bill seeks to update the federal Wire Act to cover all forms of gambling and technologies. Upon the bill’s introduction it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, on which Goodlatte and Boucher are both members, for further consideration.”The good news is that the new majority leader John Boehner is not a co-sponsor of the bill.
Yah, well, look at what else is happening.
Look at what Oregon is doing:
xhttp://www.oregonlottery.org/keno/
Click on the sportsaction, too!
That is government sponsored gambling online, including sportsbetting.
Without getting into the politics of the whole issue, Prohibiting Online Gambling would be unattainable. Common sense lectures to me that such an act would require world cooperation, something that will never happen.
In most developed countries what people decide to do in their private domains is protected under the constitution. Individual rights which we all have was in response to keep the tyrants of the majority in check. Such a prohibition would be an attack on the bedrock in which free Democratic society rests.
In a Democratic society, the Utilitarian (majority rules) approach to Govern was recongnized to have flaws. One such problem is, can the majority Govern what happens in the privacy of one’s home? to a certain extent, as long as it does not have an impact outside of their private domain.
In additon, to get around this perplexing delima many individual rights had to be given. Freedom of speech, freedom on religion and so forth. Without this rights Democracy fails.
The internet belongs to the world and to try and regulate it would be impossible. Here in Canada apparently Online Gambling is illegal. A law which is unenforcable cannot be a law. I do not see the law busting down peoples doors, because they can’t.
I am sure this will be a good debate, but in the end I predict Online Gambling will always be accessible to the masses. greek39
That is a good article.
Anyone that follows American politics can tell you that these conservatives are just trying to save their jobs by attempting to outlaw Internet Gambling. These folks have screwed up big time and they figure (incorrectly) that this will help them keep their jobs in congress. But the writing is on the wall, these neo-cons are history after the next election. So all that has to happen for this bill to fade away is a very few congressmen/women to stall things until after November (People in Congress are great at stalling things, its what they do best!).
Quote:I do not see the law busting down peoples doors, because they can’t.Maybe not where you live, but in America they sure can. In America they (the law) can even come in your house when your away snoop around leave nasty little bugs to listen in on you and never ever have to tell you about it…
Quote:In a Democratic society…Contrary to popular belief, America is Capitalist Country with a Capitalist Government. Hey, America has the Very Best Government money can buy!
FYI – Capitalist Governments and Democratic Governments are very different and are not really compatible with each other.
Quote:You just might want to note that the legislation is co-written with a Democrat.Well to set the record straight, Rep Rick Boucher calls himself a Democrat, but he has voted the Republican party line for the last Six years. He also spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2004 in favor of Pres. Bush and the Republican Party, so he can call himself a Democrat, but in point of fact he is a Republican.
