Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats

[LucidDream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, now you are starting to get it but not completely I can see. Take that growth in combination with all the business they were already doing, now pipe it into every home in America. Now they are making infinite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

So, to ensure access into every American home (to make all that money), the legitimate American B&M corporations have devised the most effective plan possible: use their prodigious influence to prohibit the American home from accessing their billion dollar product venture legally.

Make sense to you? Because it sure as hell doesn't to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since it was already illegal to run a gambling site from within the US they didn't put themselves in a worse postion than they were already in. They did put their competition in a pretty tight spot though.

Don't think someone won't come along soon and say, "You regulate lotteries and horses, time to regulate online gambing for US Sites." And magically the majority in the govt will be behind it, and it won't have anything to do with all that money their "campaign funds" received.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Put differently: if Harrah's et al are going to influence Frist to do all this legislative maneuvering with the expectation online gaming will eventually be legalized and regulated (quite possibly years from now), why not just skip all that [censored] (and the months/years it may take to for that strategy to eventually materialize into a regulated market that they dominate), and why don't they just use their influence peddling to guarantee the federal government only grants them (and they alone) licenses right now? Since the conspiracy implies the American B&M gaming corps. have this kind of influence, why wait two or three years and go through all of this? They're passing up lots and lots of potential revenue right now by doing so, for something they can ostensibly only achieve years from now. How could they explain, if they have the kind of influence the OP implies -- how could they explain all these machinations to stockholders? Certainly the promise of increased revenue (in the distant future) is nice, but it pales in comparison to the promise of increased revenue in the current fiscal year. It defies reason as to why the gaming corps. would orchestrate such an outlandish conspiracy while refusing to take much easier action to accomplish the same ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's perfectly plausible as well.

It would be harder to do though, as its not really legal to restrict foriegn companies from competing in this market segment, if you belive that the WTO has any teeth. (which is debatable).

edit: especially if the foreign companies are already servicing this market. As a Canadian who sells into the US I know some of this to be true (but being Candian, I am helped greatly by NAFTA and this doesn't fall into my particular expertise but I did read the WTO ruling on the last online gaming case a while back.....)

This may all be conjecture, but it does fit rather nicely, especially since Harrah's donated to Frist's campaign. Why else would Harrah's donate, simple good will from a Senator from Tennessee(sp)? Does Harrah operate anything in Tennessee? That may make sense if they do, and this conjecture is incorrect.

I still have my tinfoil hat on though....

Regards,
Woodguy

[New001]

This may or may not be relevant, but anyone who remembers the Washington state gambling laws should remember that the state legislator who introduced the bill received campaign money from many local casinos.

[cmattos]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about this: people have been trying to legalize marijuana for decades, and even though it is a relatively harmless substance with several demonstated health benefits, it remains prohibited.

There is no way online gaming will be legalized and regulated in the US this decade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marijuana also has no big money behind it to push to make it legal. The big money (tobacco, alcohol) are firmly against it's legalization. Quite the opposite is (or can be) true for online gambling.

[LucidDream]

You really can't compare drugs to gambling. One is currently legal in certain venues in the US and the other is totally illegal entirely in the US.

[cmattos]

[ QUOTE ]
You really can't compare drugs to gambling. One is currently legal in certain venues in the US and the other is totally illegal entirely in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, in the sense that it demonstrates the effectiveness of lobbyists (and money) on US policy.

[Eme]

[ QUOTE ]
yes it was those red mothaffuckas

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
youve got a better case that it was Abramhoff and his indian casino friends that got this done than Harrahs.

[/ QUOTE ]

the "red mothaffuckas" reed and abramoff ripped off, i guess?

when in doubt, resort to racism, paranoia, and hysteria.

[Gugel]

The senators from Nevada voted FOR the bill. Would they really go against the wishes of their biggest financial supporters?

Top 5 Contributors to Senator JOHN ENSIGN (Nevada)
1 MGM Mirage $159,050
2 Harrah's Entertainment $93,065
3 Simmons Cooper LLC $73,400
4 Station Casinos $38,000
5 Baron & Budd $37,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...amp;cycle=2006

Top 5 Contributors to Senator HARRY REID (Nevada)
1 MGM Mirage $105,200
2 Mandalay Resort Group $78,350
3 Simmons Cooper LLC $73,400
4 Harrah's Entertainment $68,600
5 Station Casinos $38,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...amp;cycle=2004

[LucidDream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You really can't compare drugs to gambling. One is currently legal in certain venues in the US and the other is totally illegal entirely in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, in the sense that it demonstrates the effectiveness of lobbyists (and money) on US policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is kind of the point too. Who is going to lobby for the legalization of drugs, Mexico and Columbia? Tobacco is too big of business also to want the competition so they are obv against it which is why it will never be legal.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
The senators from Nevada voted FOR the bill. Would they really go against the wishes of their biggest financial supporters?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes. This was a Port Security bill, not a gambling bill. To vote against it would be fodder for your future opponents to say that you are soft on terrorism.

If you watched CSPAN, the woman representative from Las Vegas who spoke out against the gambling ban, ended her comments by saying that she was voting for the bill because of the port security aspect, but was firmly against the online gambling ban.