Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartley  Jay, my argument was that the more exemptions they throw in there, the more watered down the law becomes and gives fodder to the Barney Franks of the government who can argue that the bill is meaningless due to the number of things that are allowed. |
I agree that is a potential angle, although excessive exemptions does not necessarily invalidate legislation - look at the mess the tax code is. No one is looking to reform it, they just keep adding more and more exemptions as they come up.
Also, please don't see this as a rebuttal to your original article - if anything I wrote this more as an "extension" of that piece since the PPA involvement has become a lot clearer over the past few weeks. Your article was certainly quite relevant at the time, and actually still is.
Quote:
|
Also, if they say poker is allowed because "it's a game of skill" then it allows the argument that sports handicapping involves skill also.
|
I think that is generally a misguided argument, for the reasons stated in my article. The "game of skill" argument is probably best applied at the state level, as that is a consideration of state gambling laws. UIGEA really makes no distinction, and pre-existing federal law on sports betting mostly invalidates that argument anyway. Maybe we can pull it out when someone tries to challenge the Wire Act or Sports Protection Act, as the skill argument has a lot more punch in regards to those pieces of legislation.
So, yea, I agree sports gambling can be argued on a "skill" basis, but I think that's an argument which really has no fundamental bearing on the current UIGEA debate.