Online Gambling Prohibition Amendment

morgant · #1 03-09-2006, 11:51 PM

received this newsletter today:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who has been trying to ban online wagering for about
10 years, had planned to introduce an online gambling prohibition amendment
today by attaching it to S2349 (the Lobbying Reform Act). However, the
debate over the Lobbying Reform bill was sidelined by a proposed amendment
aimed at preventing a United Arab Emirates company from managing several key
US ports. It would appear that now the U.S. Senate will take up the
lobbying reform bill next week but the bipartisan managers of that bill have
pledged to disallow any non-germane amendments to that bill as drafted. This
would eliminate the opportunity for Senator Kyl to move his prohibition bill
in the Senate by attaching it to this particular vehicle.

RakebackStore · #2 03-10-2006, 01:31 AM

Good thing have experience pet-sitting.

Otherwise I'd be worried.

ottsville · #3 03-10-2006, 11:36 AM

Hopefully the $25 bucks I sent to the PPA is doing some good...

donger · #4 03-10-2006, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good thing have experience pet-sitting.

Otherwise I'd be worried.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I think this is supposed to be positive. Try reading the whole thing:

[ QUOTE ]

This would eliminate the opportunity for Senator Kyl to move his prohibition bill in the Senate by attaching it to this particular vehicle.

[/ QUOTE ]

RakebackStore · #5 03-10-2006, 05:24 PM

Yes, you're right. It would be nice if this silly bill never gets dignified by a vote. I can't imagine what this Senator must be like - dedicating 10 years to this thing...

SinCityGuy · #6 03-10-2006, 08:07 PM

FWIW, the Kyle bill doesn't pose too much of a threat right now. The one that is gaining momentum is the one in the House to ban electronic transfers to gambling sites. It has bipartisan support, and it has a decent chance of getting passed.

SoftcoreRevolt · #7 03-10-2006, 08:17 PM

Here is a list of the Co-Sponsors of the House bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:HR04777:@@@P

The last House legislation attempting to ban online gambling failed by a not so wide margin. This isn't a huge threat right now, as the House will pass a ton of wacky bills that are shot down by the Senate, but still it shouldn't even get that far.

RakebackStore · #8 03-11-2006, 02:35 PM

Poker News
"In a perfect world, we could model a system in the US after the U.K./European system, which is proven and clearly works. Under this system companies are licensed and regulated, and while often based in tax-friendly EU territories like Malta and Gibraltar, these companies happily comply with any and all regulatory requirements, as they are treated like any other internet related business....
Not surprisingly, it doesn't seem that the pressure from the international community has any affect on the US government's attitude toward online gaming. The US has had since April 7th 2005 to address the WTO ruling, and according to the ruling has about 3 ½ weeks left until it is supposed to be in compliance with the ruling. The government has taken no action that I have seen toward attempting to comply, and it appears this 'deadline' will pass without any action...which seems to boil down to the US government essentially thumbing its nose at the international trade community.

Which brings up a really interesting issue. If the US government is not interested in coming into compliance with an international trade ruling, what makes the government think the online gaming companies will comply with possible legislation "banning" online gaming? If the government blocked ISPs, how long do you think it would be until the online companies used things like proxy IP addresses to circumvent this? About 30 seconds. Would legislation prevent the bulk of users from playing? No..."

Full Article: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/3...ginia-call.htm

SinCityGuy · #9 03-11-2006, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the government blocked ISPs, how long do you think it would be until the online companies used things like proxy IP addresses to circumvent this? About 30 seconds. Would legislation prevent the bulk of users from playing? No..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, this isn't the issue. The current legislation pending before the House would make it illegal for U.S. banks to accept electronic transfers to and from gambling sites. Most likely, this will include 3rd party transfers like Neteller and Firepay.

Of course, a serious player would find a way to circumvent the system by opening up an offshore account, but the recreational players will not do this. Essentially, this legislation (if passed) will kill off all of the recreational players from the U.S.

CrayZee · #10 03-11-2006, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the government blocked ISPs, how long do you think it would be until the online companies used things like proxy IP addresses to circumvent this? About 30 seconds. Would legislation prevent the bulk of users from playing? No..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, this isn't the issue. The current legislation pending before the House would make it illegal for U.S. banks to accept electronic transfers to and from gambling sites. Most likely, this will include 3rd party transfers like Neteller and Firepay.

Of course, a serious player would find a way to circumvent the system by opening up an offshore account, but the recreational players will not do this. Essentially, this legislation (if passed) will kill off all of the recreational players from the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's probably true that some recreational players will be diverted from playing if US citizens were not allowed to make electronic money transfers, I doubt that it will "kill off" all of them. It's proven from previous attempts that prohibition does not work. If people want to drink and gamble or do drugs, they will...on whatever medium they want to...regardless of whether or not it's legal.

All that matters is the demand and the degree of diligence of the supported law. How likely do you think that the goverment will enforce a law like an internet gambling bill on individual online gamblers? The government has more pressing matters to focus on (e.g. terrorism, migration, etc.). Does the goverment really want to allocate resources to combat a "crime" such as this?

In addition to ways of circumventing IP blocking, there's also the cultural popularity of poker. Many people have been playing in card rooms and on the internet for years ... and will likely to continue to do so regardless of the law. New players will still enter into the mix, but probably at a lower rate. How low no one knows until such a law passes.

Besides, the bipartisan support for this bill is most likely due to a re-election ulterior motive of the politicians supporting the bill. Gotta love politicians.