- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
From IGamingNews.com
House Subcommittee Debates Goodlatte Bill
The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security today held a legislative hearing on Rep. Goodlatte’s, R-Va., HR 4777, the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,” which seeks to outlaw certain forms of online gambling in the United States by updating the Wire Act with language that clearly applies to new forms of communication technologies. Much of the discussion in the nearly two-hour hearing centered around confusion as to whether the bill would exempt remote horse race wagering. The matter still had not been settled by the time the hearing ended.
The hearing commenced with prepared opening statements from subcommittee chairman Howard Coble, R-NC, and ranking member Robert Scott, D-Va., immediately followed by prepared statements from Rep. Goodlatte and witnesses Bruce G. Ohr of the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section’s Criminal Division, John Warren Kindt, a professor at the University of Illinois, and Samuel A. Vallandingham, vice president of the First State Bank of Barboursville, West Virginia, who spoke on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America.
With the opening statements completed, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, immediately steered discussion toward the issue of exempted online gambling activities. Goodlatte stated that his bill does not contain exemptions for the horse racing industry, but Conyers pointed out that this contradicts with Ohr’s remarks that the Department of Justice is concerned about the exemptions contained in the bill.
Goodlatte argued, however, that the bill makes no interpretation about whether remote horse race wagering is permitted by the Interstate Horse Racing Act. Ohr then stated that the DOJ has always believed that the Interstate Horseracing Act does not authorize remote horse racing and that it is investigating the matter.
Conyers said that despite Goodlatte’s claims at the hearing, the legislation exempts not only remote horse race wagering but other forms of gambling at the state level. He demonstrated that the bill contains such language as:
Nothing in this section prohibits the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers from a State or foreign country where such betting or wagering is permitted under Federal, State, tribal or local law into a State or foreign country in which such betting on the same event is permitted under Federal, State, tribal or local law; or the interstate transmission of information relating to a State-specific lottery between a State or foreign country where such betting or wagering is permitted under Federal, State, local or tribal law and an out-of-State data center for the purposes in assisting in the operation of such State-specific lottery.
Full article: http://www.igamingnews.com/index.cfm?page=artlisting&tid=6588
Best Regards,
Thanks for this, Mark.
This is going the same place it always goes – nowhere.
Just my two bits.
Guess my quest to take over the world can resume
The fact that they are debating this is cause for concern. Though it seems like the same ‘ol same ‘ol…what about this provision and that exclusion. A very hypocrital bill in my opinion. Horse wagering online is fine, but poker isn’t. Wagering on horses is certainly gambling, while poker is a game of skill, who exactly does this protect? Oh yeah, the horse racing elitists that line the pockets of the politicians.
