Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6091301708.html
Typical add-on crap. Should be illegal. Plus, the idea sucks.
update
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060915-090722-7421r.htm
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs..../609180301/1014
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to force through a restriction on Internet gambling by incorporating it into the FY 2007 defense appropriations bill, according to reports. By attaching a measure intended to ban Internet gambling to a necessary armed services appropriations bill, Mr. Frist would deprive the members of the opportunity to debate and voice their opposition to this controversial legislation. Indeed, no Senate committee has held a single hearing to debate online gambling prohibition. Although a bill banning Internet gambling passed in the House in July, companion legislation has not yet been introduced in the Senate. Mr. Frist should not be so eager to bypass a much-needed discussion on this legislation.
The legality of Internet gambling, which ranges from casino games to horse racing and lottery, is ambiguous. The Justice Department believes that it's illegal under the 1961 Wire Act, but, without a successful prosecution, it's not clear how that argument will stand up in court. Hence the House, led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Jim Leach, passed an anti-gambling ban that would update the Wire Act and prevent credit card companies and banks from processing transactions from gambling Web sites, all in order to ban online gambling -- with the exception, that is, of the carve outs secured by special-interest groups for online horse racing and the lottery.
We support an individual's right to be free to gamble online and opposes a proscription on those grounds, and on the grounds that enforcement would be so difficult as to make it untenable. Between our view and the outright prohibition that Mr. Frist supports, however, is the position that regulation could legalize Internet gambling and bring the nearly $4 billion offshore industry back into the United States and under U.S. controls. This is the option that many gambling Web sites and their supporters have advocated, and it is clearly better than the complete moratorium Mr. Frist is trying to push through the Senate.
At the very least, this legislation deserves a thorough debate and vetting. Senators deserve the chance to ask some important questions. Why the carve out for horse racing and the lottery? How will the proposed prohibition function if gamblers use foreign banks not subject to U.S. regulations? And if it gamblers do circumvent the restriction, will federal regulators start banning access to certain Web sites? Or will they start targeting individual gamblers?
These are questions that should not be thrown to the wind, but will be if Mr. Frist succeeds and the legislation becomes a part of the defense appropriations bill.
And
The Internet gambling industry — headquartered almost entirely offshore — is an estimated $10 billion a year business. And it's one in which some members of Congress would like to shut down, at least to its American customers.
This summer the House approved a sweeping Internet gambling measure, but the Senate hasn't followed suit. That's led Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee to try an end run.
His aides have been working to attach a prohibition on using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts to a compromise Defense Department authorization bill.
Frist is on the right side of this issue in principle. For example, if a state such as Tennessee prohibits gambling, with exceptions only for state-run games such as the lottery, then companies really shouldn't be getting around state law by offering the games over the Internet. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department has contended that online gambling is banned outright under the U.S. Wire Act of 1961.
Still, the issue of finding ways to enforce a prohibition against online gambling doesn't belong in a bill dealing with U.S. military operations. It should be debated separately on its merits, just as it was in the House.
In that House bill, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, federal law prohibits processing financial transactions related to online gambling, a move that was strongly opposed by the banking industry. It also was criticized for containing loopholes like the one that allowed betting on horse racing to remain legal.
As with many issues these days, there are so many competing interests when it comes to Internet gambling, which is rapidly expanding to cell phone gambling as well.
Our federal lawmakers need to decide if they are going to take a substantive stand against this form of vice or simply turn a blind eye as people throw their money away on a fool's bet.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060915-090722-7421r.htm
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs..../609180301/1014
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to force through a restriction on Internet gambling by incorporating it into the FY 2007 defense appropriations bill, according to reports. By attaching a measure intended to ban Internet gambling to a necessary armed services appropriations bill, Mr. Frist would deprive the members of the opportunity to debate and voice their opposition to this controversial legislation. Indeed, no Senate committee has held a single hearing to debate online gambling prohibition. Although a bill banning Internet gambling passed in the House in July, companion legislation has not yet been introduced in the Senate. Mr. Frist should not be so eager to bypass a much-needed discussion on this legislation.
The legality of Internet gambling, which ranges from casino games to horse racing and lottery, is ambiguous. The Justice Department believes that it's illegal under the 1961 Wire Act, but, without a successful prosecution, it's not clear how that argument will stand up in court. Hence the House, led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Jim Leach, passed an anti-gambling ban that would update the Wire Act and prevent credit card companies and banks from processing transactions from gambling Web sites, all in order to ban online gambling -- with the exception, that is, of the carve outs secured by special-interest groups for online horse racing and the lottery.
We support an individual's right to be free to gamble online and opposes a proscription on those grounds, and on the grounds that enforcement would be so difficult as to make it untenable. Between our view and the outright prohibition that Mr. Frist supports, however, is the position that regulation could legalize Internet gambling and bring the nearly $4 billion offshore industry back into the United States and under U.S. controls. This is the option that many gambling Web sites and their supporters have advocated, and it is clearly better than the complete moratorium Mr. Frist is trying to push through the Senate.
At the very least, this legislation deserves a thorough debate and vetting. Senators deserve the chance to ask some important questions. Why the carve out for horse racing and the lottery? How will the proposed prohibition function if gamblers use foreign banks not subject to U.S. regulations? And if it gamblers do circumvent the restriction, will federal regulators start banning access to certain Web sites? Or will they start targeting individual gamblers?
These are questions that should not be thrown to the wind, but will be if Mr. Frist succeeds and the legislation becomes a part of the defense appropriations bill.
And
The Internet gambling industry — headquartered almost entirely offshore — is an estimated $10 billion a year business. And it's one in which some members of Congress would like to shut down, at least to its American customers.
This summer the House approved a sweeping Internet gambling measure, but the Senate hasn't followed suit. That's led Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee to try an end run.
His aides have been working to attach a prohibition on using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts to a compromise Defense Department authorization bill.
Frist is on the right side of this issue in principle. For example, if a state such as Tennessee prohibits gambling, with exceptions only for state-run games such as the lottery, then companies really shouldn't be getting around state law by offering the games over the Internet. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department has contended that online gambling is banned outright under the U.S. Wire Act of 1961.
Still, the issue of finding ways to enforce a prohibition against online gambling doesn't belong in a bill dealing with U.S. military operations. It should be debated separately on its merits, just as it was in the House.
In that House bill, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, federal law prohibits processing financial transactions related to online gambling, a move that was strongly opposed by the banking industry. It also was criticized for containing loopholes like the one that allowed betting on horse racing to remain legal.
As with many issues these days, there are so many competing interests when it comes to Internet gambling, which is rapidly expanding to cell phone gambling as well.
Our federal lawmakers need to decide if they are going to take a substantive stand against this form of vice or simply turn a blind eye as people throw their money away on a fool's bet.
Anyone who supports this anti-online gambling bill hates freedom.
Wow, finally a liberal gets to use the term "hating freedom." It was fun; no wonder people use it all the time.
Wow, finally a liberal gets to use the term "hating freedom." It was fun; no wonder people use it all the time.
It failed to get on the DoD but still has legs.
published on: Wednesday Sep 27, 2006
Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill Stalls
Efforts to Attach it to a Defense Package Fail
The current version of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill has stalled in Congress after supporters – included potential Republican Presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- tried to attach it to a defense bill.
Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee John Warner opposed any additional tie-ons to the defense bill. Warner, a Republican from Virginia, made his opinion clear in a letter to Frist: "I have firmly opposed putting any (unrelated) bills in the conference report," he wrote.
The bill made it to the Senate by being passed by the House of Representatives by an enormous margin.
Congress will go into a lengthy recess at the end of this week to focus on the election season. It was a goal of conservative Republicans to have this bill passed before the recess and although the week is coming near to a close, proponents of the bill will still try to get it passed by Friday.
published on: Wednesday Sep 27, 2006
Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill Stalls
Efforts to Attach it to a Defense Package Fail
The current version of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill has stalled in Congress after supporters – included potential Republican Presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- tried to attach it to a defense bill.
Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee John Warner opposed any additional tie-ons to the defense bill. Warner, a Republican from Virginia, made his opinion clear in a letter to Frist: "I have firmly opposed putting any (unrelated) bills in the conference report," he wrote.
The bill made it to the Senate by being passed by the House of Representatives by an enormous margin.
Congress will go into a lengthy recess at the end of this week to focus on the election season. It was a goal of conservative Republicans to have this bill passed before the recess and although the week is coming near to a close, proponents of the bill will still try to get it passed by Friday.
I'd like to make an intelligent post on this, but I feel all I can really do is rant.
One thing, they want to make it illegal to use bank accounts or credit cards for online betting. But how does that stop you from funding something like Netteller or Paypal and then using that for online gambling?
Instead of banning it they need to find a way to tax it and feed the homeless. (slight sw there)
One thing, they want to make it illegal to use bank accounts or credit cards for online betting. But how does that stop you from funding something like Netteller or Paypal and then using that for online gambling?
Instead of banning it they need to find a way to tax it and feed the homeless. (slight sw there)
QUOTE (Dogpatch @ Thursday, September 28th, 2006, 8:36 AM) 
I'd like to make an intelligent post on this, but I feel all I can really do is rant.
One thing, they want to make it illegal to use bank accounts or credit cards for online betting. But how does that stop you from funding something like Netteller or Paypal and then using that for online gambling?
Instead of banning it they need to find a way to tax it and feed the homeless. (slight sw there)
One thing, they want to make it illegal to use bank accounts or credit cards for online betting. But how does that stop you from funding something like Netteller or Paypal and then using that for online gambling?
Instead of banning it they need to find a way to tax it and feed the homeless. (slight sw there)
They are pols, all they want is a sound bite that plays well with the social conservatives in 6 weeks.
Most question the constitutionality of the gambling ban based on my reads of other forums.
Forget the breastbeating that free speech is involved.
Use current law to get this declared unconstitutional.
The Americans with Disablities Act does just that. Find people who claim they are homebound and are not able to go to B&M casinos (now legal in most jurisdictions)...and that they rely solely on the internet for their gaming experience. Claim that they are being denied access to that experience with this new ban. Claim that they are being discriminated against.
Get a District Court to recognize this discrimination.
Then follow with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, since "separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional in 1954, to give that right to all Americans.
Is this a solution? I dunno, but it's as good as McDonalds coffee is too hot.
Oh and vote ALL the bastards out of office for too many reasons to recount here.
Forget the breastbeating that free speech is involved.
Use current law to get this declared unconstitutional.
The Americans with Disablities Act does just that. Find people who claim they are homebound and are not able to go to B&M casinos (now legal in most jurisdictions)...and that they rely solely on the internet for their gaming experience. Claim that they are being denied access to that experience with this new ban. Claim that they are being discriminated against.
Get a District Court to recognize this discrimination.
Then follow with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, since "separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional in 1954, to give that right to all Americans.
Is this a solution? I dunno, but it's as good as McDonalds coffee is too hot.
Oh and vote ALL the bastards out of office for too many reasons to recount here.
well unfortunately it looks as if we have lost...it got attached to a guaranteed bill...online poker will be dead soon
QUOTE (Mattnxtc @ Saturday, September 30th, 2006, 9:30 PM)
well unfortunately it looks as if we have lost...it got attached to a guaranteed bill...online poker will be dead soon
Well, for America at least.
There will always be on-line poker.
We just lost all the casual US players, that's a huge loss.
Hard core players will get around it, that you can count on.
We just lost all the casual US players, that's a huge loss.
Hard core players will get around it, that you can count on.
Hardcore players will get around it however this is going to vastly cut down the number of fish we have to live off of...
I think this an absolutely disgusting display of the misguided logic put to work everyday by our government. I hated the fact that riders get attached to bills when I learned about the lawmaking process in school and this just illustrates to me even further than something needs to be changed. Couple in the fact that Congress had no open discussion or debate on this subject and passed it late at night before a recess... This is really pissing me off. The Bush Administration has done nothing but strip civil liberties since they've been in office except this time they've actually done something that affects me heavily... enough is enough, it's time to stop this insanity.
I think this an absolutely disgusting display of the misguided logic put to work everyday by our government. I hated the fact that riders get attached to bills when I learned about the lawmaking process in school and this just illustrates to me even further than something needs to be changed. Couple in the fact that Congress had no open discussion or debate on this subject and passed it late at night before a recess... This is really pissing me off. The Bush Administration has done nothing but strip civil liberties since they've been in office except this time they've actually done something that affects me heavily... enough is enough, it's time to stop this insanity.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.