House debating gambling bill on c-span now >>
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
House OKs Bill to Rein in Online Gambling
Jul 11 3:37 PM US/Eastern
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.
The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions _ for state-run lotteries and horse racing _ and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.
The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.
Critics argued that regulating the $12 billion industry would be better than outlawing it. Said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't work for gambling."
The American Gaming Association, the industry's largest lobby, has opposed online gambling in the past but recently backed a study of the feasibility of regulating it.
The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.
Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa sponsored the bill. They successfully beat back an amendment to strip out exemptions in the legislation for the horse racing industry and state lotteries.
Goodlatte called that "a poison pill amendment," aimed at defeating the larger bill.
Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.
Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., pushed for removal of the exemptions. She said it was unfair to allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.
Supporters of Internet gambling agreed.
"They call it a prohibition. It's really Congress picking winners and losers," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a San Francisco-based group that opposed the bill.
Congress has considered similar legislation in the past.
In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Supporters of the bill brought up that history Tuesday and suggested that a vote for the bill was a way to make a statement against Abramoff's influence.
However, the lottery exemption wasn't in the bill back in 2000. If it had been, Abramoff's client probably would have backed the bill. Online lotteries are exempted this time around at the behest of states.
Under the provision that relates to horse racing, betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law was written in the 1970s to set up rules for interstate betting on racing. The industry successfully lobbied for legislation several years ago to clarify that horse racing over the Internet is allowed.
Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law."
Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites.
The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act.
The department hasn't actively enforced its stance.
Like the racing industry, professional sports leagues also like the bill. They argue that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has not been debated in that chamber this year, and the measure hasn't been identified by Senate leaders as a top priority.
If the horse provision were stricken from the bill, there's a good chance the measure would run into objections from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others from racing states.
___
The bill is H.R.4411
___
On the Net:
House: http://www.house.gov/
Jul 11 3:37 PM US/Eastern
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.
The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions _ for state-run lotteries and horse racing _ and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.
The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.
Critics argued that regulating the $12 billion industry would be better than outlawing it. Said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't work for gambling."
The American Gaming Association, the industry's largest lobby, has opposed online gambling in the past but recently backed a study of the feasibility of regulating it.
The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.
Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa sponsored the bill. They successfully beat back an amendment to strip out exemptions in the legislation for the horse racing industry and state lotteries.
Goodlatte called that "a poison pill amendment," aimed at defeating the larger bill.
Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.
Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., pushed for removal of the exemptions. She said it was unfair to allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.
Supporters of Internet gambling agreed.
"They call it a prohibition. It's really Congress picking winners and losers," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a San Francisco-based group that opposed the bill.
Congress has considered similar legislation in the past.
In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Supporters of the bill brought up that history Tuesday and suggested that a vote for the bill was a way to make a statement against Abramoff's influence.
However, the lottery exemption wasn't in the bill back in 2000. If it had been, Abramoff's client probably would have backed the bill. Online lotteries are exempted this time around at the behest of states.
Under the provision that relates to horse racing, betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law was written in the 1970s to set up rules for interstate betting on racing. The industry successfully lobbied for legislation several years ago to clarify that horse racing over the Internet is allowed.
Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law."
Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites.
The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act.
The department hasn't actively enforced its stance.
Like the racing industry, professional sports leagues also like the bill. They argue that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has not been debated in that chamber this year, and the measure hasn't been identified by Senate leaders as a top priority.
If the horse provision were stricken from the bill, there's a good chance the measure would run into objections from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others from racing states.
___
The bill is H.R.4411
___
On the Net:
House: http://www.house.gov/
Here is the link to see how YOUR Representatives voted.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml
Here is the link to see WHO your Representatives are.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml
Indiana Voters:
Visclosky, Peter J.; Indiana, 1st (D) Yes
Chocola, Chris; Indiana, 2nd (R) Yes
Souder, Mark E.; Indiana, 3rd (R) Yes
Buyer, Steve; Indiana, 4th (R) Yes
Burton, Dan; Indiana, 5th (R) Yes
Pence, Mike; Indiana, 6th (R) Yes
Carson, Julia; Indiana, 7th (D) No :scared
Hostettler, John N.; Indiana, 8th (R) Yes
Sodrel, Michael E.; Indiana, 9th (R) Yes
Never in a MILLION years did I think I would be happy with a vote by that dried up old hag Julia Carson.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml
Here is the link to see WHO your Representatives are.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml
Indiana Voters:
Visclosky, Peter J.; Indiana, 1st (D) Yes
Chocola, Chris; Indiana, 2nd (R) Yes
Souder, Mark E.; Indiana, 3rd (R) Yes
Buyer, Steve; Indiana, 4th (R) Yes
Burton, Dan; Indiana, 5th (R) Yes
Pence, Mike; Indiana, 6th (R) Yes
Carson, Julia; Indiana, 7th (D) No :scared
Hostettler, John N.; Indiana, 8th (R) Yes
Sodrel, Michael E.; Indiana, 9th (R) Yes
Never in a MILLION years did I think I would be happy with a vote by that dried up old hag Julia Carson.
**** these time/money wasters. What web site can I get a line on this not passing the Senate? I need some action!!!!! ASSHOLES!
All this was to get some face time on the evening news shows and cable news. Should be amusing to see some of the speeches with fancy charts, silly soundbites and goofy props. I wonder what the anti-pornogprahy people are thinking. Probably wtf wondering why they ain't passing a bill to block those sites and block those financial transactions.
Thanks for link Roll Tide---by the way I have friend in Huntsville that signs ever note with Roll Tide--his name is Spike McRoy--you wouldn't know him by chance?
This chit really pisses me off and it has a chance of passing.
I won't even claim to know what I am talking about. I can only
speculate and make educated guesses.
But here is my take on the matter.
There are billions of dollars at stake here and everyone knows that.
In order for this to change at any point in the future, off shore got to go.
Once that happens,
That opens the doors to get a special amendment for US states to legalize it. Then the money will be going to where its supposed to be going to.
How long that would take would have to be less than more.
I don't think it would be possible to block such a large force of the public that enjoy doing this. We will find a way if we have to. There will be new programs on the market to get directly to the web sites we need to get to damn throwing it down.
It might be a good time to consider getting web sites under differant categories other than sports . Maybe like one of them thar non profit organization that takes from the rich and gives to poor people and illigal immigrants. And also thinks the illigals should have drivers licence and medical benifits.
KOD
I won't even claim to know what I am talking about. I can only
speculate and make educated guesses.
But here is my take on the matter.
There are billions of dollars at stake here and everyone knows that.
In order for this to change at any point in the future, off shore got to go.
Once that happens,
That opens the doors to get a special amendment for US states to legalize it. Then the money will be going to where its supposed to be going to.
How long that would take would have to be less than more.
I don't think it would be possible to block such a large force of the public that enjoy doing this. We will find a way if we have to. There will be new programs on the market to get directly to the web sites we need to get to damn throwing it down.
It might be a good time to consider getting web sites under differant categories other than sports . Maybe like one of them thar non profit organization that takes from the rich and gives to poor people and illigal immigrants. And also thinks the illigals should have drivers licence and medical benifits.
KOD
Dose this not appear to have more steam than earlier efforts? And how would the banks/gov regulate or recognize transactions intentions handled thru neteller etc.
I'll never deal with a bookie and feel too ripped off at sportsbooks. Without my Pinnacle, I don't think I could stomach making any more sports bets. I guess that would be OK since this lifestyle has been a gateway to armed robbery, male prostitution, alcoholism, drug use, and ruined all my relationships. I didn't realize that about myself until the House told me. ...It's agood thing State Lotteries, Powerball, and horse racing don't have the same effect.
If this passes, netteller and all will no longer be making money transactions. Thats a gaurantee.
Okay guys. Worry wart here. Say as the senate vote gets close. And rumor has it at that time it might pass. The offshores realize they will be out of business in the USA. I'm worried they will at that time the moment it passes. If it dose. Consider keeping all American deposits. The thinking on their part maybe could be: Their out of business in the USA. And what can we do about it. It's possible right? Is this something to think about? :shrug:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It'll never become law no matter who passes what. It's a safe vote for these 15 watt bulbs (we elected) all the while knowing it won't make the full circut before this session ends. They're simply grandstanding.
It'll never become law no matter who passes what. It's a safe vote for these 15 watt bulbs (we elected) all the while knowing it won't make the full circut before this session ends. They're simply grandstanding.
this is renewal month for a lot of sponsors here and they are signing back up and not even flinching at sending the checks out. no mention of the internet gambling ban at all. i really don't think there's anything to worry about.SMOKE JENSEN said:
MadJack said:
You would think with 6-8 billion on the line. They would have their ear to ground/finger on the pulse more than we do.
