Where will it end?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EqtTrdr, Jul 11, 2006.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling

    You government f%&kers piss me off to no end....

    WTF is your problem...?

    Leave your fake a$$ religious beliefs out of this...

    Love how it's okay for big corps to collect Sin money on cigs and alcohol, but since they don't have their hands in the online gambling cookie jar..... they want it destroyed..

    way to go f*ckers!!

    WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

    The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

    The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

    Critics argued that regulating the $12 billion industry would be better than outlawing it. Said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't work for gambling."

    The American Gaming Association, the industry's largest lobby, has opposed online gambling in the past but recently backed a study of the feasibility of regulating it.

    The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.

    Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa sponsored the bill. They successfully beat back an amendment to strip out exemptions in the legislation for the horse racing industry and state lotteries.

    Goodlatte called that "a poison pill amendment," aimed at defeating the larger bill.

    Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.

    Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said.

    Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., pushed for removal of the exemptions. She said it was unfair to allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.

    Supporters of Internet gambling agreed.

    "They call it a prohibition. It's really Congress picking winners and losers," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a San Francisco-based group that opposed the bill.

    Congress has considered similar legislation in the past.

    In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Supporters of the bill brought up that history Tuesday and suggested that a vote for the bill was a way to make a statement against Abramoff's influence.

    However, the lottery exemption wasn't in the bill back in 2000. If it had been, Abramoff's client probably would have backed the bill. Online lotteries are exempted this time around at the behest of states.

    Under the provision that relates to horse racing, betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law was written in the 1970s to set up rules for interstate betting on racing. The industry successfully lobbied for legislation several years ago to clarify that horse racing over the Internet is allowed.

    Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law."

    Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites.

    The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a
    World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act.

    The department hasn't actively enforced its stance.

    Like the racing industry, professional sports leagues also like the bill. They argue that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.

    Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has not been debated in that chamber this year, and the measure hasn't been identified by Senate leaders as a top priority.

    If the horse provision were stricken from the bill, there's a good chance the measure would run into objections from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others from racing states.


    The bill is H.R.4411
  2. I love how the government tries to "protect" americans from online gambling, cigarettes, etc. but does practically nothing to defend the americans from the invasion from Mexico, terrorist attacks, etc.
  3. well...... They find something wrong in the world.... so it's time to pass yet another "Moral holier than thou" law...

    Thought republicans are about governing LESS??...
  4. They're good examples of why they should be governing less.
  5. Up until three years ago, I'd generally vote Republican as the 'lesser of two evils'.
    It was <b>exactly this issue</b> which prompted me to shift to voting exclusively Libertarian.

    My post here, from three years ago:


  6. Woaw, are you still making money with poker on-line? I normally wouldn't ask such a personal question but I just think it's pretty cool. Also, I had to post something quick so that my total number of posts wouldn't be 666 anymore. I'm a bit superstitious.
  7. I haven't been dealt a single hand in over a year.

    While I'm already recycling old posts...

  8. I say they should pass a law forbidding credit card companies from paying TV preachers to help protect the sweet but disoriented elderly ladies from being duped!
  9. I find it very unfortunate that they put lottery and poker in the same bag. Poker requires judgement (it's an intellectual activity) and is constantly shown on TV, in various formats so different people can learn it in different ways. Laws should also take into account traditions and culture, something for which politicians have a hard time finding representative interest groups to seduce.
  10. TGregg


    Unfortunately, there are only what? Four or five of us in the whole country that see more government as a bad thing?

    Meanwhile the left wants to ban alcohol, tobacco, guns, fatty food and the internal combustion engine, while the right wants to ban sex, drugs and rock & roll.

    And it seems like both sides have their anti-gambling votes, and cell phones in cars. Here in North Carolina, we're getting ready to require seatbelt use in the back seat.

    It'd be nice if we could have two governments, one the nanny state that tells you what to have for dinner and what time to go to bed for the adult children among us, and another limited government that says "if you do stupid things and hurt yourself, don't come crying to us" for all seven of us grown-ups.

    That was the whole idea behind having powerful states and a relatively weak federal government - the states could try out different things, and we could see what worked well and what did not.
    #10     Jul 12, 2006