Internet Gambling Now Illegal In Washington State

[swank 0]

I was just shown this PDF from the Washington State Gambling comission stating that internet gambling is (as of March) illegal in Washington state, and can be considered a class c felony. Anyone have any resources available, or know of any PAC that may be able to assist with fighting this law? I keep up with state politics, and didn't even hear about this until it was passed. http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/newsletters/fog/mar_06_news.pdf

[mcpickl 0]

good luck to them policing that

[FullMontyM1 0]

good luck to them policing that

Impossible to enforce.GL/HTH

[swank 0]

that was the other par tof this that confused me. are they going to supoena ISPs for accesses to certain IP addresses by their customers? If they will, what would the cost be to get that supoena through the courtsystems when the ISPs refuse? The cost/benefit of policing it seems to make this a rediculous law.

[mcpickl 0]

washington state cant subpoena a company based in Gibraltarenjoy your internet gambling, its here to stay

[swank 0]

washington state cant subpoena a company based in Gibraltarenjoy your internet gambling, its here to stay

no, but they can subpoena a local ISP and request records that show accesses to known gaming site IPs.

[stevedar 0]

Say you have a play money account...that's not gambling

[belatropic 0]

no, but they can subpoena a local ISP and request records that show accesses to known gaming site IPs.

So what if they look at your ISP log, just shows you were on the site. They need to pull your hand history & that ain't coming from your ISP. Use Neteller for funding (or any go between) & enjoy. Oh, & it's an election year during a war. Good luck with that prosecution.

[hardkorbeatz 0]

washington state sux

[gatortom64 1]

As a Florida native who was subjected to WA weather due to the Navy, I agree. WA sux rocks!!!!

[FullMontyM1 0]

washington state sux

[FourFlusher 0]

One word....fugin' taxes.How you gonna stay legal with the tax man if you can't declare it?

[LincolnK 1]

One word....fugin' taxes.How you gonna stay legal with the tax man if you can't declare it?

who says you dont declare it? the irs doesnt report what you do to anyone else. if you're a professional drug dealer, and you report your drug dealing income and pay your taxes just like any other job, the irs leaves you alone. if you are a professional drug dealer and don't pay your taxes, the irs busts you for tax evasion. see: al capone.

[FullMontyM1 0]

One word....fugin' taxes.How you gonna stay legal with the tax man if you can't declare it?

This is a possible point of enforcement, but it has a set of problems that come with it.For one, it puts the IRS in a position where if they actively cooperate in enforcement procedures, they decrease the revenue they collect.That is a situation that the IRS has never been in before. This sort of inter-agency squabble would be interesting to see.This brings up another good issue, for anyone from that PPA group that went to lobby, or DN or anyone else with any sway in the professional poker community....When Congress considers legislation that would outlaw online poker, they will produce something called a fiscal impact statement (my experience is in state lawmaking, so I can't say for sure if they call it a fiscal impact statement or a budgetary impact statement, or something else with a comparable meaning).Let's use fiscal impact statement for now...When the fiscal impact statement is produce, it will be produced by low-level employees of an office relating to the Federal budget, not sure which office at the Federal level handles this, it might actually be the staff of the appropriations committee.Regardless,The fiscal impact statement will be based on figures provided by the bill's author. The bill's author obviously has a vested interest in the bill being passed.The bill's author is -not- going to include lost tax revenue in the fiscal impact statement. So, if any serious action is moving forward on such a bill, someone needs to make sure that lost tax revenue is included in the fiscal impact statement. Otherwise, only enforcement costs will be included, and a drastically-reduced price-tag on a bill makes it that much more likely to pass.Conversely, a drastically-increased price tag on a bill makes it that much less likely to pass, especially in a deficit-sepnding environment.Monty

[FourFlusher 0]

Not sure...state income tax in WA?There damn sure is in CA.

[dereeekho 0]

It's surprising that Moneymaker did not protest against it. Moneymaker, the poster boy for internet poker, would not protest against something like this? Maybe he knew there are loopholes around this or it is near impossible to enforce?On the other hand, is this a conflict of interest between Washington State and the Feds? I'd like to know if the state government has jurisdiction over use of Internet or the federal government has jurisdiction over use of Internet. From what I know, I believe this is federal jurisdition. Could someone clear this up?

[FullMontyM1 0]

It's surprising that Moneymaker did not protest against it. Moneymaker, the poster boy for internet poker, would not protest against something like this? Maybe he knew there are loopholes around this or it is near impossible to enforce?On the other hand, is this a conflict of interest between Washington State and the Feds? I'd like to know if the state government has jurisdiction over use of Internet or the federal government has jurisdiction over use of Internet. From what I know, I believe this is federal jurisdition. Could someone clear this up?

The Federal gov't has far-reaching jurisdiction over many things, including the Internet, under the commerce clause. They have overlapping jurisdiction with the state. Disputes are settled by - eventually- the Supreme Court.Monty

[SavageHenry 0]

i have friend on the seattle police force that was talking about this bill a couple months ago. The person i know works with a computer crimes unit that goes after sex offenders and the amount of stuff they can track about your internet activity is pretty shocking. i dont know if they'd ever be as zealous about online gambling as they are about sex predators but i could see it be used to leverage against somone like a drug dealer who they could not get any evidence against for dealing but happened to have a online poker account or something.If the state was getting revenue from the gambling you can be damn sure it would be allowed.

[mr_english 0]

This was driven by two things, 1. Indian casino's dont like competition and asked for it, 2. local card rooms would rather you were in there and not at home.It has always been illegal in this state but never really enforced

[StrippersNBlow 0]

I guess if you're in Washington you better not qualify for any big land-based events.

[InertGrudge 0]

The Federal gov't may have far-reaching jurisdiction over many things, including the Internet, under the commerce clause depending on the texture of the Supreme Court. They have overlapping jurisdiction with the state. Disputes are settled by - eventually- the Supreme Court.Monty

FYP.

[FullMontyM1 0]

FYP.

True true

[Yoda 1]

I guess if you're in Washington you better not qualify for any big land-based events.

Thats a very interesting point... "Jim from Washington qualified to be here through a $40 satellite on partypok...the cops are...taking Jim from the table..he is in handcuffs. Whats going on here?"

[blueodum 0]

i dont know if they'd ever be as zealous about online gambling as they are about sex predatorsOf course they wouldn't. Were talking about playing poker versus sex crimes. Do the police go after jay-walkers as zealously as murderers?

[ROGUE06 0]

One of the most depressing states has one more reason to add to their list.