thinktank says US will owe $100 billion

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible idea.

1> It is not up to Congress to "authorize" anything. Everything is supposed to be legal unless it is made illegal by law, not the other way around.

2> Splitting hairs is dangerous. What if poker ends up on the wrong side of the skill vs. chance split? Facts don't matter here; they rarely do in politics.

3> It is not up to Congress or anyone else in the Federal Government to determine what is or isn't gambling. That's a state power.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible idea.

1> It is not up to Congress to "authorize" anything. Everything is supposed to be legal unless it is made illegal by law, not the other way around.

2> Splitting hairs is dangerous. What if poker ends up on the wrong side of the skill vs. chance split? Facts don't matter here; they rarely do in politics.

3> It is not up to Congress or anyone else in the Federal Government to determine what is or isn't gambling. That's a state power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

1) the choice Congress will be forced to make if the WTO sanctions are significant is simple: Ban all online gaming or ban none. Which do you really think is more likely, especially with the NFL/FOF/nanny-staters putting the pressure on? Your otherwise correct statement that congress doesnt authorize things is irrelevant.

2) Poker could end up on the wrong side, yes. But you have to play politics - if all online gaming is banned to comply with the WTO, poker is already on the wrong side.

3) States rights are not relevant here - the internet is by definition and design "interstate commerce." Thats a Federal responsibility under the Constitution. A state can say what it wants about gambling within its borders, but the Feds get to say what they want about gambling across borders. Plus states rights are irrelevant to the WTO.

The major point is that there is virtually zero support for legalized online sportsbetting, and plenty of well financed opposition. My "out of the box" idea was to find a way to keep poker OK without having to make sportsbetting OK. You got a better idea? Lets hear it if you do.


Skallagrim

[bwehrm]

There has to be some relevance in regards to states rights and the WTO, at least indirectly. If the Feds allow gambling but a state does not, won't that still cause free trade conflicts with the WTO?