proposing legislation we can live with

[Wynton]

Even the most pessimistic of us expect that the Senate probably will not pass a similar bill this year. But that's hardly any reason to be comfortable. I would also confidently predict that the efforts to prohibit online gambling - through one mechanism or another - will continue, regardless of what happens over the next few months.

My view is that the time has come for those with an interest in online poker to step forward and propose legislation that can be tolerated. So, I'm soliciting views right now for what such legislation might look like.

To a large degree, what I have in mind is ostensibly already being done by the major cardrooms. But making these voluntary steps a requirement could help derail more severe legislation.

For example, the law could expressly require cardrooms to:

-take certain steps to ensure that the money was safe
-vigilantly investigate fraud
-take extra measures to enforce age requirements
-limit deposit amounts over particular time periods

Additionally, the law could contain some kind of self-executing mechanism whereby all deposits and withdrawals are reported to an independent agency, both for tax purposes and to address concerns about money laundering.

Perhaps cardrooms could be forced to fund educational programs about the dangers of gambling (just as we see beer companies advertise about the dangers of drinking).

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that all (or any) of these measures are necessary or would even make any difference. The purpose is merely to propose something that will appease those who are concerned about the total lack of regulation.

Anyone have other ideas about what tolerable legislation might look like?

[LinusKS]

The US is a constitutional republic. All power not granted to the Federal goverment resides in the states. What that means is that the states, not the Federal government, are responsible for regulating and licensing gambling.

If you want "legal" internet gambling you need to get one or more states to do at least one of the following:

1. License an internet poker room,
2. Repeal all the laws that require gambling to be licensed and regulated, or
3. Make a special exception for internet gambling, so that internet gambling doesn't need to be licensed, even though all other forms of commercial gambling DO.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
The US is a constitutional republic. All power not granted to the Federal goverment resides in the states. What that means is that the states, not the Federal government, are responsible for regulating and licensing gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This opinion will go absolutely nowhere from a legal standpoint. Internet gambling is easily construed as commerce, or at the very least affecting commerce, between the states and internationally, so of course the feds can regulate it. It isn't really much of a stretch, either - I'd suspect many who favor narrower interpretations of the CC would agree that this is okay.

Also, the federal regulatory scheme will of course trump any state scheme when it comes to regulating commerce, so doing anything on a state level isn't going to help.

[LinusKS]

My own opinion is that, eventually, some state will license internet gambling. Perhaps Nevada.

What's important to realize, though, is that that license will only authorize the internet site to offer games in Nevada - not in the other 49. And that no site based in Gibraltar, or wherever, is going to bother applying for a license from Nevada, so long as they can offer gaming (illegally) in all 50 states without one.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


This opinion will go absolutely nowhere from a legal standpoint. Internet gambling is easily construed as commerce, or at the very least affecting commerce, between the states and internationally, so of course the feds can regulate it. It isn't really much of a stretch, either - I'd suspect many who favor narrower interpretations of the CC would agree that this is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misunderstanding me. The Federal goverment does not license any commercial gambling operation.

Licensing is purely a matter of state law, as is regulating and/or prohibiting it.

HR4411 - as well as other anti-gambling laws that preceded it - simply add an additional criminal penalty for something that's already illegal under state laws.

HR4411, by its own language, does not prohibit internet gambling in any state where its legal.

It's just that, right now, there is none.

That doesn't mean there won't be one in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the federal regulatory scheme will of course trump any state scheme when it comes to regulating commerce, so doing anything on a state level isn't going to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with you when it comes to gambling. Any state is within its right to license, regulate, prohibit, or allow gambling, if it wants. Nothing in this bill, or any other Federal bill or law, takes that right away.

I suspect, and believe (although I don't claim to be any kind of constitutional scholar) that if the Feds did try to take the power to regulate gambling away from the states, any such law would be deemed unconstitutional.