Harry Reid letter to "wizard of odds"

[IronDragon1]

July 17, 2006

Mr. Michael Shackelford
(address removed)
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
Dear Mr. Shackelford:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to legislation that would restrict Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the House of Representatives passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (H.R. 4411) on July 11, 2006 by a 317-93 vote. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and James Leach (R-IA) introduced this measure, which would make it illegal for financial institutions or intermediaries to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors' electronic funds, checks, debits and other e-wallet transactions. The bill also updates the Wire Act of 1961, which forbids the transmission of betting over telephone lines, to specifically outlaw online gambling through any communication network. Furthermore, the bill fosters U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to identify Internet gaming operations that are being used for money laundering and other criminal activities. Criminal penalties would increase from two to five years. It should be noted the House bill protects Nevada's right to regulate gambling on the state level.

As a former gaming regulator, I believe that the integrity of the gaming industry can only be maintained through strong regulation. I am very skeptical that current efforts to regulate Internet gaming would be successful due to the unique challenges posed by its elusive format. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider similar legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. For more information about my work for Nevada, my role in the United States Senate Leadership, or to subscribe to regular e-mail updates on the issues that interest you, please visit my Web site at http://reid.senate.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

United States Senator

I don't even know if this deserves his own thread but I found the (bolded) comments interesting.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
current efforts to regulate Internet gaming would be successful due to the unique challenges posed by its elusive format

[/ QUOTE ]

there are current efforts to regulate it? also, how elusive can it possibly be...am i missing something? allow programmers in the US to view PP's source to determine if there's cheating. allow/urge stricter age validation measures. make party tighten security/bot usage. duh.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
current efforts to regulate Internet gaming would be successful due to the unique challenges posed by its elusive format

[/ QUOTE ]

there are current efforts to regulate it? also, how elusive can it possibly be...am i missing something? allow programmers in the US to view PP's source to determine if there's cheating. allow/urge stricter age validation measures. make party tighten security/bot usage. duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably, "current efforts" refers to the Leach/Goodlatte bill. Although, Reid's phrasing is somewhat ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. It would actually be interesting for someone from NV to write him pretending that they favrored the bill, in order to see what kind of response they got back.

[Mr.K]

to the OP: call Reid's office, ask for his judiciary LC or LA, and ask them what that language means. Ask them point blank whether he's for the bill or against it. That is a very, very interesting response letter in the sense it could mean different things to different people.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
to the OP: call Reid's office, ask for his judiciary LC or LA, and ask them what that language means. Ask them point blank whether he's for the bill or against it. That is a very, very interesting response letter in the sense it could mean different things to different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing Reid doesn't want this issue to make it to the floor because he'd have to take a stance on it. Given his background/state with his likely future political ambitions, it would seem to me he would not want to have to address this issue directly. I'd be very curious what answer the OP would get.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
to the OP: call Reid's office, ask for his judiciary LC or LA, and ask them what that language means. Ask them point blank whether he's for the bill or against it. That is a very, very interesting response letter in the sense it could mean different things to different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing Reid doesn't want this issue to make it to the floor because he'd have to take a stance on it. Given his background/state with his likely future political ambitions, it would seem to me he would not want to have to address this issue directly. I'd be very curious what answer the OP would get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's much doubt that Reid would like to see the issue magically disappear. On the one hand, he's been on record as opposing online gambling in the past, possibly has a mild moral objection to it, and has criticized the Republican leadership for being a "do-nothing" Congress. On the other hand, he risks alienating his friends in the Nevada delegation, the gaming industry, and probably would prefer not to give the GOP any legislative ammunition.

How hard he's willing to work to prevent himself from having to make this choice is the open question. I think that he's likely to be very taciturn on the public record. But, a Minority Leader can presumably exert a lot of influence behind the scenes.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
But, a Minority Leader can presumably exert a lot of influence behind the scenes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this abstruse response is encouraging in that sense. We should care a lot less about how he would vote if it came to that (1 Senator in 100), than his motives for preventing himself for having to weigh in publicly by keeping this bill off the floor (where his feelings count a lot more than 1/100 of the Senate).

[TruePoker CEO]

Excellent post.

One of the tasks assigned to the Nevada Gaming Control Board recently, by that State, was to examine such regulatory feasibility issues, with an eye toward legalization within the State and prevention of underage gaming.

I will try and follow up on their results and see what ground can be gained by highlighting them.

The truth is that underage play in poker is easy to stop, on a level playing field. ANY rational poker site would certainly agree to require a drivers license of US players as the cost of entry to the US market. Additionally, the deposit requirements could be similarly strengthened, and "underage" depositors could have their debts declared unenforceable.

Put the risk of loss/burden of proof on the sites, underage gaming would be a dead issue for the US poker market.

[TruePoker CEO]

If it does not reach the floor, that would cause no grief whatsoever.

[TruePoker CEO]

Excellent point

[TruePoker CEO]

'there are current efforts to regulate it?"

Actually, yes. The Nevada Gaming Control Board is looking at the issues, reportedly..... according to the AGA website.

[TruePoker CEO]

From the AGA website:

"In 2001, Nevada — the first state to legalize casino gambling in 1931 — made another pioneering move in gaming by passing legislation that allowed the Nevada Gaming Commission, working with the Nevada Gaming Control Board, to adopt regulations governing the licensing and operation of interactive gaming in the state. Before such regulations could be adopted, however, the law required Nevada regulators to study Internet gambling systems and determine if the proper technology and security measures existed to regulate it and prevent access by minors.'

In as much as the AGA is proposing a study ... it seems likely that the Letter refers to the AGA position.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
If it does not reach the floor, that would cause no grief whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Regardless of his position on gambling or this legislation, I think he'll be a strong ally for us. I know some people were doubting this based on some previous comments by him.

[Wynton]

TruePoker CEO,

I tried sending this in a personal message to you, but your box is full. Sorry for this hijack.

Anyway, as the CEO of True Poker, do you have access to any local rules/regulations that True Poker must follow? I would like to gather all such materials, perhaps for a future article.

[renodoc]

Interesting.

I expect to receive exactly the same letter soon. I wonder what Ensign's response will be....

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
to the OP: call Reid's office, ask for his judiciary LC or LA, and ask them what that language means. Ask them point blank whether he's for the bill or against it. That is a very, very interesting response letter in the sense it could mean different things to different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask him whether 1.) it's legal for any commercial gambling site, anywhere in the world, to offer gambling in Nevada without a license from the state of Nevada,

and

2.) whether the internet is a magical thing, that somehow makes illegal things legal.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
2.) whether the internet is a magical thing, that somehow makes illegal things legal.

[/ QUOTE ]


The internet is not a telephone, and poker is not sports betting. If these things were covered by existing laws, we would not be having this debate.

[LinusKS]

State law is not Federal law, either. And Nevada, like all US states, requires you to get a license before operating a commercial gambling business within its borders.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
State law is not Federal law, either. And Nevada, like all US states, requires you to get a license before operating a commercial gambling business within its borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any gaming website that opens in Nevada is asking for trouble; no argument there. Indeed, that law seems to have been a very effective deterrent.

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
State law is not Federal law, either. And Nevada, like all US states, requires you to get a license before operating a commercial gambling business within its borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any gaming website that opens in Nevada is asking for trouble; no argument there. Indeed, that law seems to have been a very effective deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

In non-gambling related internet cases (eg state sales tax collection) it is clear that the location of the user, not the situs of the company or its servers, is considered the "location of the business". Being located within Nevada
s borders is largely a moot issue.

[mdrudeen]

[ QUOTE ]
In non-gambling related internet cases (eg state sales tax collection) it is clear that the location of the user, not the situs of the company or its servers, is considered the "location of the business". Being located within Nevadas borders is largely a moot issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I just openeed a website and now I am located everywhere all at once woo hoo

[C0pernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In non-gambling related internet cases (eg state sales tax collection) it is clear that the location of the user, not the situs of the company or its servers, is considered the "location of the business". Being located within Nevadas borders is largely a moot issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I just openeed a website and now I am located everywhere all at once woo hoo

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the interpretation applied in several areas of the internet, yes. It took a SCOTUS decision to relieve most sites of the sales tax collection issue, but laws in the location of the user are still applied in other areas, such as porn/child porn, solicitation of sex with a minor for example.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


Any gaming website that opens in Nevada is asking for trouble; no argument there. Indeed, that law seems to have been a very effective deterrent.

[/ QUOTE ]

When a commercial gambling company offers games to people inside the state of Nevada, it's operating in Nevada.

If it doesn't have a license from Nevada, then it's operating illegally.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

[mdrudeen]

define "offers" that might make it clearer

The US can not force a company in Gibralter to dissallow US citizens access to their service, nor can they tell them how to advertise. They can ask but their jurisdiction stops at the territorial borders of the effing US

They could try to go China or Singapore and block out the whole rest of the world, but that will not stop the rest of the world from existing

[LinusKS]

The US can - and does - prosecute people for violating US law, wherever they are in the world.

If you're doing business in the US - whether through the internet, or by carrier pidgeon - you're subject to US law.

As a practical matter, locating yourself as far away from the US as possible is good common sense. But as a legal matter, it doesn't make one whit's worth of difference.

[renodoc]

Yep, just got the same letter dated July 28th....

Nothing from Ensign yet.