This is the first part of articles on proposed anti-gambling legislation. This article will discuss the proposed bill, the claims of politicians, the facts regarding the current state, and the actual proposals.The Wire Act only makes Sports Betting illegal in the United States
Both the Senate and the House are examinin
Rep. Goodlatte’s bill aims to update the Wire Act to ban all forms of online gambling. It also makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit or electronic transfers. Common Carriers and ISPs are required to block access from gambling-related sites upon request by law enforcement.
As Rep. Goodlatte does, Senator Kyl’s bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, causes it illegal for gambling corporations to accept credit cards and electronic transfers. However, his bill doesn’t address placing bets.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is the bill that Rep. Leach submitted. It is a copy of the statement Sen. Kyl introduced. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act bill is a copy of the Kyl bill. It prohibits gambling businesses from accepting checks and credit cards.
Rep. Goodlatte stated that while gambling is illegal in the United States, if not regulated by the state governments, gambling has become easily accessible thanks to the Internet. Illegal gambling businesses can operate unregulated until they are stopped by law enforcement.
Only the Wire Act makes Sports Betting illegal in America. It applies only to those who have access to the Internet via telephone lines. Online gambling is legal in some states. However, it is not illegal in all states. Online gambling is legalized by the Federal Government for certain types.
Goodlatte says that his bill “cracks down on illegal gambling by updating and accounting for new technologies in the Wire Act to include all forms of interstate gaming and cover all forms.” It is not clear whether the Internet is legal for gambling businesses to be operated under current federal law.
As he claims, Goodlatte’s bill does not cover all forms of interstate gambling. Instead, it creates exemptions for several forms of online gambling, such as state lotteries and bets on horseracing. Although his amendments to the Wire Act don’t make online gambling illegal, they make it illegal to allow gambling businesses to accept online wagers in which a person is willing to risk something of value “upon a contest of other, a sporting event or a game primarily subject to chance.” This exception applies only if the bets are state lottery, horse racing, fantasy sports, or any of the few other situations.
The truth is, most online gambling companies have moved to other countries to avoid the US’ current gray area. This means that very little law enforcement can do about these laws. It will not make it easier to enforce the rules by making them more challenging to follow and imposing harsher penalties.
Due to federal pressure, many banks and credit card companies won’t transfer money to online gambling businesses right now. Alternative payment methods were created to fill this void.
His statements by Senator Kyl are equally misleading. According to his bill, Internet gambling is primarily funded by personal use of payment systems instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers. As we all know, most American credit cards refuse to allow gambling accounts to be funded.
According to the Kyl bill, Internet gambling is a growing problem for debt collection at insured depository institutions and the consumer credit sector. How can gambling be funded by credit card companies or other financial institutions in America? Why do we need legislation to ensure that the financial industry is protected from high-risk debt? Wouldn’t it be better if the financial sector stopped accepting gambling debts if they became a problem?
Rep. Leach (and Senator Kyl) have created exemptions for betting on horse races, fantasy sports, and buying and selling securities. However, unlike Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach & Senator Kyl don’t exempt state lotteries from their ban on online gambling.
The following article will cover the issues politicians point to online gambling and offer a different perspective.
This is the second part of the article on proposed anti-gambling legislation. This article will discuss why I have given for the proposed legislation and the facts in the real world.
As we mentioned, both the Senate and the House are examining the issue of “Online Gambling.” The bills were submitted by Senator Kyl, Congressmen Goodlatte & Leach.
Rep. Goodlatte’s bill, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (the Wire Act), aims to update the Wire Act to refuse all forms of online gambling. It also makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit or electronic transfers. Common Carriers and ISPs are required to block access from gambling-related sites upon request by law enforcement.
As Rep. Goodlatte does, Senator Kyl’s bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling companies to accept checks, credit cards, and electronic transfers to place illegal bets. However, his bill doesn’t address those who place bets.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is the bill that Rep. Leach submitted. It is a copy of the statement Sen. Kyl introduced. The account, called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is a copy of the Kyl bill. It prohibits gambling businesses from accepting checks and credit cards.
Whether online gambling has been legalized or not, what are the politicians trying to protect us against? What makes it so essential to make online gaming illegal?
Rep. Goodlatte’s quote “will stop children from borrowing the credit card of the family, accessing the computer and losing thousands of dollars before their parents get home at night” is one answer.
That quote could be translated as “American parents are incapable of raising their children, so Congress should do it for them.” We all comprehend that politicians are better at deciding what is best for us, our children, and ourselves than we are.
Another quote: “In short, the Internet is a challenge for the sovereignty of civilized societies, States and nations to determine what is appropriate or decent behavior.”
This quote could be translated as “Individual Americans cannot decide for themselves what behavior is acceptable and appropriate in their own homes.” Congress is there to protect them and to legislate for their morality.
Congress is supposedly responsible for raising American children. However, to ensure that we don’t do anything indecent, they will legislate what can be done with our money. Do you think this sounds like the foundation of a free society or the beginning of a totalitarian dictatorship?
Let’s dive deeper into these protections to see how serious the politicians are about protecting our children from the dangers of gambling. All of the following gambling forms are currently legal or legalized by Rep. Goodlatte.
First, there are casinos and racetracks. These little money-makers are thriving all across the country. They generate a lot of tax revenue for both federal and state governments and profit for their operators. People behind anti-online gambling bills would like you to believe that casinos don’t pose a problem for underage gamblers, as casino staff can assess the individual and see them in person.
According to casino security officers, the opposite is true. “Casino children have been left alone at the outer edge of casinos while their parents gamble,” states The Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery. Sometimes, parents gamble while leaving their children in the family member’s car in the parking lot. Children may spend multiple hours each week with babysitters while their parents gamble at casinos, bingo halls, or card rooms.
Although I wouldn’t claim that online gambling is good news for American families, it is clear that it poses less of a problem than the state-supported alternative.
The sale of lottery tickets online by states would be another form of online gambling exempted from illegality under the legislation. It is hard to imagine how these legislators would show concern for American children based on this quote from Overcoming Life Digest (July/August 1998 Issue). “Studies show lotteries are the most popular legal gambling game for teenagers.” Statistics show that one in seven people who play lotteries will eventually become addicted. According to the Council on Obsessive Gambling of New Jersey (06 June 2003), “Many consider lotteries to be a relatively benign type of gambling.” The 1-800-GAMBLER national hotline, operated by the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, indicated that 31 percent of callers had problems with lotto gambling.
Video Lottery Machines are another example of the government making a lot of cash and not caring about the children of America. Video Lottery Machines, or VLTs, are nothing but state-sponsored electronic video poker machines. David Plotz, a writer for Slate.com, stated that VLTs are “the most addictive gambling instrument we have today.” Video lottery machines are easy to access for children, as they can often be found in places that kids frequent. These machines are licensed to be used in convenience stores, bars, and markets.
The legislation is not intended to prevent children from using the family credit card, accessing the family computer, and losing thousands of dollars before their parents return from work. They will still be able to purchase lottery tickets, bet on horse races, and then head to the convenience store to play VLTs.
The following article will continue my coverage of the issues raised by politicians against online gambling and offer a different perspective on their rhetoric. It will cover the Abramoff card and the effects of gambling on the family.
This is the third part of the article on proposed anti-gambling legislation. This article continues the discussion on the reasons for this legislation and the facts in the real world.
As we have mentioned, both the Senate and the House are currently examining the issue of “Online Gambling.”The bills were submitted by Senator Kyl, Congressmen Goodlatte & Leach.
Rep. Goodlatte’s bill, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (the Wire Act), aims to update the Wire Act to refuse all forms of online gambling. It also makes it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit or electronic transfers. Common Carriers and ISPs are required to block access from gambling-related sites upon request by law enforcement.
As Rep. Goodlatte does, Senator Kyl’s bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling companies to accept checks, credit cards, and electronic transfers to place illegal bets. However, his bill doesn’t address those who place bets.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is the bill that Rep. Leach submitted. It is a copy of the statement Sen. Kyl introduced. The account, called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is a copy of the Kyl bill. It prohibits gambling businesses from accepting checks and credit cards.
Goodlatte quotes, “Jack Abramoff’s total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gaming to continue thriving into an what is now a twelve-billion-dollar business that not only hurts individuals but also makes the economy suffer by draining billions from the United States and serving as a vehicle of money laundering.”
These points are pretty interesting.
We have some misinformation about Jack Abramoff’s disregard for the legislative process. This comment and others follow the logic of Jack Abramoff being against these bills, Jack Abramoff being corrupt, and 3) voting for these bills to avoid corruption. This logic is absurd. This logic is ridiculous. Regardless of their content, we should reverse it and repeal any Abramoff-supported bills and pass any Abramoff-opposed bills. Legislation should not be given based on one person’s reputation but its merits.
Jack Abramoff also opposed bills in the past. He did this on behalf of eLottery, attempting exclusion of the internet sale of lottery tickets. Ironically, the protections that he sought are now included in this bill. State-run lotteries would be exempted. Jack Abramoff would likely support this legislation since it provides him the protections he sought. However, Goodlatte and others can use Abramoff’s disgrace to improve their bill. This will make it not only anti-gambling but also anti-Corruption. It will also reward Abramoff as well as his client.
His following statement is that online gambling “hurts individuals” and “hurts their families.”I assume he means problem gambling. Let’s get this straight. A small percentage, if any, of gamblers end up becoming problem gamblers. This is not true for a large portion of the population.
Goodlatte also believes that internet gambling is more addictive than gambling in casinos. Sen. Kyl called online gambling “the crack cocaine for gambling,” referring to an unnamed researcher. Researchers have proven that online gambling is not more addictive than playing in a casino. Online gambling is more addictive than electronic gambling machines found at racetracks and casinos across the country.
Research by N. Dowling and D. Smith at RMIT University Bundoora, Australia, “There is a consensus that electronic gambling is the most addictive form of gambling. It contributes more to problem gambling than any other type of gambling.” Electronic gaming machines are often referred to as “crack cocaine” gambling.
The best way to win attention for a pet cause is to compare it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America.” It was different in the 1980s and 1990s.The troubling trend was not officially known until it was dubbed “the new crack cocaine.”Jim Leitzel, University of Chicago Professor of Vice Squad, notes that a Google Search reveals experts who call slot machines (The New York Times Magazine), video games (the Canadian Press), and casinos (Madison Capital Times), the “crack cocaine of gaming.” Leitzel’s search also revealed that spam email is “the crack drug of advertising” (Sarasota Herald-Tribune) and that cybersex (Focus on the Family).
We can see that calling something “crack cocaine” has become meaningless, indicating that the person who made the statement believes it is essential. We knew then that Sen. Kyl, Rep. Leach, and Rep. Goodlatte felt the issue was important. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have introduced the legislation.
The following article will continue my coverage of the issues raised by politicians against online gambling and offer a different perspective on their rhetoric. It will cover the “drain on the economy” caused by online gambling and the concept of money laundering.