Government Delays New Ban on Internet Gambling (states, laws, world)

[tablemtn]

Thats just it, they cant allow online gambling until they figure out a way to regulate it, tax it, and to keep it honest

That's really not a problem; several online gambling operators are fully licensed in the UK and other European countries, and are even listed on the London stock exchange.

The real story of how that law came into effect is more disturbing.

Basically, it got underway in earnest in 2006 after Sen. Bill Frist decided to start laying some early groundwork for a potential presidential run in 2008. In particular, he wanted Iowa Rep. Jim Leach's support. But Jim Leach, for whatever reasons, was opposed to internet poker. Along with Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, he smuggled some language effectively banning the practice (at least in its previous forms) into a port security bill.

Frist added mirror language into the Senate version.

The port security bill was a massive behemoth which few, if any legislators, actually read in its entirety. The poker ban was not proposed outright, since it would likely have faced opposition and perhaps died in committee. Instead, a series of procedural moves were used to quietly attach it like a lamprey to the underside of a bill that most legislators would be scared to question or vote against.

The final version was passed at midnight via a hurried vote in the Senate. With a gaping exemption for online horse track wagering to satisfy Goodlatte himself (odd bit of moral hypocrisy there...). And that was that.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I believe most of those sites are run but some pretty big legitimate corporations

I can buy out one of these "sites" for about $500..

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Of course you could have some bad one as well but the cream would rise to the top and that's where people would go.

People will go to whatever sites they find on a search engine first, not the big name ones, which puts emphasis on webmarketing, not running a "legit" gambling site..

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Without the taxes they could actually run a much greater profit and offer better payouts.

What makes you believe "taxes" wouldnt be collectible? Its a business, which generates a profit, thereby taxed.. They indeed have lower overhead, but none of this says they are going to be honest and not milk it.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The "bad business" scenario is certainly plausible but unlikely on a large scale because they would get weeded out.

How? I can pop up 20 gambling sites tomorrow, and then keep changing the names of them.. You cant weed them out faster than I can change the names, trust me.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Apparently they have their own policing system:

What does their own policing system mean to me?

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Pricewaterhouse Coopers is pretty big name.

I can simply copy one of their logos and place it onto my website, and "whalaa", I look legit.

Originally Posted by tablemtn

That's really not a problem; several online gambling operators are fully licensed in the UK and other European countries, and are even listed on the London stock exchange.

And they pay taxes in america how? There are thousands upon thousands of "gambling" sites out there, and a handful listed and running legit doesnt mean that most of them are. It means that many of them are legit, in the UK and other European countries, and pay ZERO in tax revenue to our government.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Are there any thinking liberals in this world left? The reason why internet gambling is bad, is because its unregulated, and illegal. There is absolutely nothing to keep these internet gambling sites "honest", and since gambling is regulated by the states, and illegal in most states (including online gambling), enforcement of the law has nothing to do with a Dem/Rep issue, its all about making sure some internet gambling site doesnt outright just rip individuals off with dishonest "gambling"..

Whether playing poker or gambling on sports on the Internet is legal or not legal has yet to be conclusively determined, and the regulation, at least of the sites in the USA, can be determined by Congress, which is exactly what "liberal" Barney Frank is trying to do. Internet gambling sites that rip off people do not last long, as they are seen to be dishonest and, therefore, noone wishes to play on them. It behooves operators of sites to be scrupulously honest with players, because they make more money as a result. And it behooves the government to stay the hell out of the lives of those who wish to play poker or otherwise gamble online. You "freedom, liberty and personal responsibility" types should be for this as well. I find it strange that you are not.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Lucario

Whether playing poker or gambling on sports on the Internet is legal or not legal has yet to be conclusively determined, and the regulation, at least of the sites in the USA, can be determined by Congress, which is exactly what "liberal" Barney Frank is trying to do.

Wrong, internet gambling is a crime..
You have
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT of 2006
Federal Wire Wager Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084
Wire Act of 1961
Illegal Gambling Business Act 1970
Wagering Paraphernalia Act
Illegal Money Transmitted Business Act of 1992
Interstate Waging Amendment Amendment 1994
Money Laundering Control Act 1986
Among others

Originally Posted by Lucario

Internet gambling sites that rip off people do not last long, as they are seen to be dishonest and, therefore, noone wishes to play on them. It behooves operators of sites to be scrupulously honest with players, because they make more money as a result.

Internet gambling sites could simply say they pay out 95%, and then only pay out 92%, who would know? You'd simply assume you had a bad day and the 3% wouldnt be noticable.

Originally Posted by Lucario

And it behooves the government to stay the hell out of the lives of those who wish to play poker or otherwise gamble online. You "freedom, liberty and personal responsibility" types should be for this as well. I find it strange that you are not.

I'm all for the rights of individuals gambling. I think people should be allowed to walk into a bar and put $50 into a poker machine if they wish, or log online and blow their life savings if this is their wish. The problem comes into play with not regulating them and not taxing them. I have seen the application process for a Nevada Gambling license, it was hundreds and hundreds of pages. I just dont think that individuals should be able to spend $500 to buy a gambling site and openup without proper regulations and verifications of financial ability to pay for claims, and verification that proper taxes are paid, and there is no defrauding going on.

Can you imagine winning $1,000,000 on one of these sites and then the site simply closed their doors tomorrow rather than pay out? Or how about finding out a site owner was 12 and thereby not legally required to pay out because they cant enter into a legally binding contract, or the website owner was the mob?

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong, internet gambling is a crime..
You have
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT of 2006
Federal Wire Wager Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084
Wire Act of 1961
Illegal Gambling Business Act 1970
Wagering Paraphernalia Act
Illegal Money Transmitted Business Act of 1992
Interstate Waging Amendment Amendment 1994
Money Laundering Control Act 1986
Among others

UIGEA has not been implemented, so it is irrelevant. The others have not been conclusively proven to cover the actual act of betting on the Internet by individuals in this country. Not one single American bettor has been prosecuted, much less convicted, of any illegal act under any of these laws.

Internet gambling sites could simply say they pay out 95%, and then only pay out 92%, who would know? You'd simply assume you had a bad day and the 3% wouldnt be noticable.

The ones legally regulated by EU nations, including Britain, are audited by the top firms in the world and have records that are transparent.

I'm all for the rights of individuals gambling. I think people should be allowed to walk into a bar and put $50 into a poker machine if they wish, or log online and blow their life savings if this is their wish. The problem comes into play with not regulating them and not taxing them. I have seen the application process for a Nevada Gambling license, it was hundreds and hundreds of pages. I just dont think that individuals should be able to spend $500 to buy a gambling site and openup without proper regulations and verifications of financial ability to pay for claims, and verification that proper taxes are paid, and there is no defrauding going on.

If you don't wish to bet on a reputable, well-regarded site, than you are an idiot. You have a Constitutional right to be a idiot.

Can you imagine winning $1,000,000 on one of these sites and then the site simply closed their doors tomorrow rather than pay out? Or how about finding out a site owner was 12 and thereby not legally required to pay out because they cant enter into a legally binding contract, or the website owner was the mob?

What's the difference? The mob is involved in things much more crucial and entrenched in the economy (and government) than Internet or even casino gambling.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Lucario

UIGEA has not been implemented, so it is irrelevant. The others have not been conclusively proven to cover the actual act of betting on the Internet by individuals in this country. Not one single American bettor has been prosecuted, much less convicted, of any illegal act under any of these laws.

The websites I've looked at says its passed, UIGEA | Unlawful Ineternet Gambling Enforcement Act

Indeed they have, its just not very common.
Busted For Betting Online?
Funds have also been seized due to violating of the laws
$34 million of Poker Players Funds Seized: An Explanation

Originally Posted by Lucario

The ones legally regulated by EU nations, including Britain, are audited by the top firms in the world and have records that are transparent.

But we arent talking about sites that are highly regulated and monitored, we're talking about the fact that I could open up 100 different gambling sites within a week, and appear legit, but you wouldnt know until I had your money..

Originally Posted by Lucario

If you don't wish to bet on a reputable, well-regarded site, than you are an idiot. You have a Constitutional right to be a idiot.

You have the right to be an idiot, you dont have the right to be ripped off, lied to, swingled, similar to a "ponzi" scheme..

Originally Posted by Lucario

What's the difference? The mob is involved in things much more crucial and entrenched in the economy (and government) than Internet or even casino gambling.

Whats the difference? Legal liability is 100% the difference, besides the fact that the mob would obviously take illegal methods to obtain payment... Thats a HUGE difference..

The main problem with online betting is online gambling lacks the ability to tie both the player, and the house into a legally binding contract..

[tablemtn]

But we arent talking about sites that are highly regulated and monitored, we're talking about the fact that I could open up 100 different gambling sites within a week, and appear legit, but you wouldnt know until I had your money..

Well, that would be illegal anyway. It's not like repealing the poker ban would somehow also legalize fraud and deception. If horse tracks can offer online wagering in the US, why couldn't poker be implemented legally? There is no technical reason - it goes back to the backroom deal between Rep. Leach and Sen. Frist.

[AeroGuyDC]

Just a friendly reminder to the numb-nuts on the left:

If Democrats can work to overturn a 2006 law banning internet gambling, then take this to heart: Republicans can also work to overturn the healthcare reform law before it is put in place in 2013, should they gain the seats to do so.

So while the left is salivating over turning over a Bush-era internet gambling law, don't forget your Crown Jewel could suffer the same fate after 2010/2012.

Democrats have never been known for choosing their battles wisely.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

Well, that would be illegal anyway. It's not like repealing the poker ban would somehow also legalize fraud and deception. If horse tracks can offer online wagering in the US, why couldn't poker be implemented legally? There is no technical reason - it goes back to the backroom deal between Rep. Leach and Sen. Frist.

Hey, I'm all for legalizing all types of gambling, I have a right to throw my money down the toilet, or give it to some gambling site if I want. The question is, how do you do it and make sure the site is legit, and pays their taxes?

One might suspect that the illegalizing of online gambling has to do with the expansion of legalizing gambling by "special" people across the country. No need to go to the casino if you can do it from your livingroom.

[Johnstamine]

The only legal online gambling to my knowledge in the US is a relatively small market for horse track racing. I have to keep tabs on this since I have a small review site for horse race betting systems. (http://horsebettingreviews.info/horse-betting-system-reviews - broken link)