BY JON KYL: Online Gambling: Will New Law Be Repealed - Don't Bet On It

[clevfan]

Online Gambling: Will New Law Be Repealed - Don't Bet On It

By Jon Kyl
Apr 30, 2007

Last week, Arizona authorities raided four illegal online gambling rings, centered in Phoenix but operating in three states, seizing millions of dollars in cash, cars, and property. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said millions of dollars were being collected, and often extorted, from gamblers visiting online sites based overseas. This recent crackdown highlights one of the major problems our state and local authorities face: enforcing existing state laws prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

Until recently, authorities were forced to search for other violations – in this particular case, money laundering and extortion – to go after criminals trying to evade our laws prohibiting gambling over the Internet. Last October, the President signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), culminating a 10-year effort by Congress to provide law enforcement with the means to stop offshore gambling businesses from circumventing our existing federal and state gambling laws. The Justice Department is now working to draft regulations to implement this new law.

The bill did not, as some have alleged, make online gambling illegal. Online gambling is already illegal under existing federal and state laws. The UIGEA simply provides the legal mechanisms necessary for authorities to enforce those laws. Principally, the UIGEA requires financial systems to block fund transfers associated with illegal Internet gambling, which is the most effective way to curb illegal activities of offshore websites beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement.

One of the fastest-growing forms of online gambling is poker. Many of the largest online poker gambling sites withdrew from the U.S. market immediately after the law was enacted.

But some online poker operators are lobbying Congress to exempt online poker from the UIGEA. They allege it deserves an exemption because poker is “a game of skill” and an “American tradition.” There are several reasons why Congress should reject this claim. Exempting online poker would undermine state gambling laws, making it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states to enforce their laws against gambling on online poker, and would override any policy decisions made by state legislatures.

It is important to note that the UIGEA does not affect online poker for entertainment. If a poker player does not bet with a gambling entity or stake anything of value on the game, it does not constitute “gambling” and does not violate the law. Your Saturday night poker game is not affected. Nor are “dot-net” and other poker sites that are free to play. Poker enthusiasts are not deprived of the opportunity to play the game – only online financial gambling is affected.

Online poker is currently the most addictive form of gambling activity among American youth. The National Annenberg Risk Survey of Youth (ages 14 to 22) over the last few years has identified rising trends in poker and Internet gambling as significant and worrisome. The research finds that online poker players are more likely to exhibit problem gambling symptoms than other types of gamblers and over half of young people who gamble on the Internet weekly display signs of problem gambling. Exempting online poker would, thus, exacerbate the two most pernicious aspects of Internet gambling: addictiveness and easy access for youth.

And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions.

[buddyboy]

Poker enthusiasts are not deprived of the opportunity to play the game – only online financial gambling is affected.

following this logic, can I grow my own pot? this way I can have the opportunity to smoke weed and not benefit anyone financially.

[buddyboy]

another thing that disturbs me about this ass clown is he comes from a small state.

he was elected with 814,393 votes

he spent $16,103,008 to get those votes

almost $20 a vote

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by buddyboy

following this logic, can I grow my own pot? this way I can have the opportunity to smoke weed and not benefit anyone financially.

sure


if you need any pointers, let me know

The bill did not, as some have alleged, make online gambling illegal. Online gambling is already illegal under existing federal and state laws.

i wish these idiots would stop saying this. WTO would disagree completely

[Mr Memory]

Jeez, Senator, take the armband off and come back to the real American people.

[stevo]

Is this guy out of touch or what?


Hate this guy.

[Highwayman]

“…millions of dollars were being collected, and often extorted, from gamblers visiting online sites based overseas.”

Extorted gamblers "visiting" online sites?

[Mr Memory]

Put this guy under oath and strap the lie-detector on.

Shame on Arizona for sustaining this joker's long-past-ripe political "career".

[StarnetGypsy]

as an aside, he doesn't know the correct appication of affect/effect ..

"UIGEA does not affect online poker"

in this case, online poker is effected ...

(i'm bored?)

[StarnetGypsy]

Originally Posted by Mr Memory

Put this guy under oath and strap the lie-detector on.

Shame on Arizona for sustaining this joker's long-past-ripe political "career".

i'm shocked he got re-elected but then it is AZ .. and shame on all of us for allowing this current regime to stay in place for a 2nd term.

[Highwayman]

Please be advised that gamblers visiting online sites based overseas often results in being extorted millions resulting in cash, cars and property seizures.

To avoid such oversea extortions followed by domestic seizures, directly forfeit your cars, cash and property to Mr. Joe Arpaio of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s department.





.

[hornsfan]

correct usage of "effect" as a verb would be in a situation where it means "to bring about", correct? In this case I see it being used as a verb meaning "to influence" and therefore is used properly.

either way, weak release by his camp.

[Rogthedodger]

Originally Posted by hornsfan

correct usage of "effect" as a verb would be in a situation where it means "to bring about", correct? In this case I see it being used as a verb meaning "to influence" and therefore is used properly.

either way, weak release by his camp.

You're right, affect is correct.

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by stevo

Is this guy out of touch or what?


Hate this guy.

take a ride out to his office and straighten him out stevo

[StarnetGypsy]

Originally Posted by hornsfan

correct usage of "effect" as a verb would be in a situation where it means "to bring about", correct? In this case I see it being used as a verb meaning "to influence" and therefore is used properly.

either way, weak release by his camp.

The way I was reading it was that it wasn't having an effect on poker, but I see what you're saying Hornsfan. Thanks for the input as I've always struggled w/that particular word and its usage myself

A very weak release ... and I love that Frank is being so positive w/his statement about having votes. Shiver those right-wing timbers

Unlike most of the writing I've seen on this bill chastising Frank for not doing enough, I think he's doing what is viable at this juncture? Remember, Frist had the full support of the Bush camp to push the bill through the Congress in the dead of night, so in order to fight that, you do it w/a small victory here, a small victory there .. similar to what the Dems are doing w/the War Funding bill right now. Losing a major battle can be construed as losing the war, but winning a smaller battle here an there, can come across as winning the war ...

[gridironguy]

Freaking bummer.

[jjgold]

Arizona is one of the dumbest states in America along with Florida and Miss so there is your answer why he is re-elected all the time.

[jr476]

This is just an attempt by Kyl to use the gambling bust here in AZ as another excuse to keep this lame law alive. He is a joke.

[StarnetGypsy]

Here come the articles subtly supporting the other side ... what pisses me off about all these articles, pro or con, is that they never mention the millions of $$ lost by American investors in the online sites that went bust or pulled outta the US altogether. Instead of showing how our own Senators ruined the financial portfolio's of its own citizens, they make it sound like the Euro's are making a killing off of our citizens .. cunts.

- - - - - - -

WASHINGTON (AP) - The ban on Internet gambling enacted last fall would be overturned under legislation proposed Thursday by a senior House Democrat, but the bill faces long odds in Congress.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the law preventing the use of credit cards to bet online "is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans, and this interference should be undone." More bluntly, he has called the ban "one of the stupidest things I ever saw."

Because traditional forms of legal gambling exist in nearly every state, Frank said, a continued prohibition on Internet gambling for Americans leaves those who choose to gamble online "without meaningful consumer protections." He said his bill includes safeguards to ensure that gamblers are at least 18 years old and live in a jurisdiction that permits online gambling, and to prevent compulsive gambling and fraud.

The $12 billion Internet gambling industry is based outside the United States -- most of the companies are British -- though about half of its customers live in America.

Supporters of the U.S. ban maintain that Internet betting can be addictive and potentially drain people's savings, a risk they say is especially acute for young people who are frequently online.

Frank acknowledged that the Democratic leadership of the House likely would not support it. The Bush administration also could be expected to oppose the legislation.

The vote for the ban in the House, for example, was 317-93 last year. Lobbying for it were the horse racing industry and professional sports leagues, which argued that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Government ministries
INT
Government regulatory actions