Online Gambling Bill Passed in House 170
rkcallaghan writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the House passed a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions." There's still no such move in the Senate, but it's a step towards banning online gambling nonetheless. Since this bill isn't expected to affect the usual, legal ways of gambling domestically, one wonders if such legislation would be sought after, were online gambling to be headquartered here in the states, rather than overseas.
Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone else question why gambling can only happen out in the middle of nowhere or in places where the a lot of the populace lives below the poverty line? Is there a correlation between these or is it causation?
I'm from the mid-west and if you drive out to South Dakota, there'll be multi-million dollar casinos out in the middle of nowhere. Why aren't they in DC or New York City? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I just don't understand things like slots where they show you the payouts right in front of you and they're not in your favor. Maybe I'm just more statistical than other people but I've only been gambling once like that. Poker, on the other hand, can be fun and social. It also has a clear cut 0 sum (aside from the rake) outcome for the players -- which is nice.
And I don't want to hear any of this Native American loophole crap because there's an act for that enacted by our Federal Government. They control it in the end -- I don't buy it that it's affirmative action for the Native peoples. None of this "The Indians stole my money BS" because the government controls where it happens and takes their own cut through taxes.
I don't think gambling needs to be abolished because it is, in fact, fun for people. In moderation, it probably makes you feel good -- just like drinking or tobacco. But when you sit down and do the math, people are raking in cash. Why doesn't the government enforce something like a maximum 5% take by the house? What I mean is that I'm sure the house is making on average something like 10-15% so why doesn't the government tax them back to 5% or allow the casino to give back to the local community through donations of this excess or building of community buildings? This isn't going to solve the social problems but I've heard that the tribe running Mystic Lake in Minnesota rakes in millions per member quarterly. I know a lot of them hand it out to members of their tribe but I don't know if that money is spent on things that necessarily benefit the community.
I am truly baffled when it comes to the history of gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
The Alcohol and Tobacco industries arn't built on a central pillar of trying to effectively con people out of money though. Sure, it can make people happier but to sustain the industry it is a simple fact that far more people must be made unhappy to make those few happy.
Also, as tobacco is bad, it come with a large amount of health warnings, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)
I wrote a longer post [slashdot.org] in a previous discussion on online gambling. I also discussed how alcohol prohibition is very similar to this 'ban' on online gambling.
Alcohol, tobacco & gambling will not go away unless the tax revenues can be made up elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the USA being a secular government?
The way the entire online gambling discussion is given such a priority in the federal government, despite being extremely trivial compared to the many more important issues facing the USA, shows that the fundamentalists are still in control.
Freedom Fries (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess thats a good thing. Just.
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:5, Informative)
And what makes you consider gambling at a casino a con? All of the rules of every game are quite clear. You can read books about them. The casino tells you exactly how much they get to keep at each game.
Re: (Score:2)
So rather than attempting to ban gambling they should just enforce a fair and equal chance in the odds, they lets see how many casino etc. want to keep their doors open when they a sharing the same odds as the mug punters they are trying to
Re:Legitimate Business? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to disagree with this - these industries are constantly trying to con you out of money by making you think that you will gain a more desirable social status by using their products. It has, and is, one of the biggest, and ongoing con games that exist. And the deadliest - remember those billions of dollars that the tobacco industry lost in the suit filed against it, wasn't the result of its charity work - it was the result of a decades-long campaign to engage in calculated and deceitful advertising that conned millions of people into believing that smoking cigarettes neither addictive nor unhealthy.
NIMBY (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich people have enough clout to say NIMBY when it comes to Casinos, powerplants, garbage dumps or pretty much any other item that could bring with it social negatives.
Trying to handle the "why" questions (Score:2)
(Statistical losses are worse than they appear: winnings are taxable, losses aren't deductible except to offset winnings).
Gambling establishments aren't guaranteed a living because of the money people lose. High rollers have to be attracted with expensive comps. The house edge [insidervlv.com] is all over th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't talk about things you don't know about.
In Mississippi, the vast majority of the casinos were put up on the coast in the more populated areas of the region. I suppose you could say that they're the "poor areas" now that the entire coast has been bushwhacked, but no - there are *WAY* poorer areas than Biloxi, which was probably the fourth or fifth largest city in th
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Illinois, and I wouldn't say that's the case here. While Chicago doesn't have a casino (yet...they've been talking about it for years), most of the towns that do have them also have relatively thriving economies. Many of them are Chicago suburbs, like Elgin and Aurora. There are ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, I've lived in Illinois for 27 years, and never heard of Little Egypt [wikipedia.org]. Interesting. Is there really a lot of tourism down there? I would have thought the vast majority of Illinois tourism is centered around Chicago...
Re: (Score:2)
Huge amount. As I mentioned most of Illinois' wineries and vinyards are located here (and Illinois wine is actually very fine stuff, most of the vinyards have won international and national winetasting competitions) and there are organized "wine trail" tours between them. It's a fairly big business. Then there's the gambling. We also have a lot of large parks and lakes, incl
Re: (Score:2)
Also South Dakota has a few reservations... so that also makes a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there are a few issues at play. First, many people don't understand statistics, or even believe that playing at a slot machine for several turns make the next turn more likely to win. Second, some people enjoy risk and uncertainty, and find it exciting or addicting to gamble for the sake of gambling. For these people, the payoff is enough.
Third, and most important, is people'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's gambling aplenty in NYC, it's done at Wall Street. They dont want competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, part of that is because you do not seem to understand the legal status of Indians and Indian Reservations. For the most part, the reservations are the result of treaties between the Indians and the US and/or state governments. Although the reservations are within states, they are for the most part not subject to state laws. For example, an Indian living on his reservation is not subject to state income tax from income earned on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Question, do you know where Harrah's casino is located in New Orleans, LA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a crock of shit. Thats the lamest argument I've ever heard for not gambling. Sure, talk about addiction and debt etc etc etc but "don't bet online cause its disreputable" is bollocks. I work for an online gambling company (Victor Chandler), and they are no more or less reputable than any other business on the internet. In fact your money is safer with us than in most banks, we take fraud and other things very seriously. You can pay money in, and take it out of your o
Re: (Score:2)
How about the real advice -> Don't gamble -- PERIOD.
However if you must, wtf is the difference between gambling at a casino or online? Only difference I can see is that when it's online, you aren't giving taxes to the goverment.
btw, how do you feel about the money laundering that goes through a US casino? You talk about shady off shore corporations (wtf? Party Poker is publicly traded!), yet you forget how shady your home-brewed online casinos are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no different that prostitution laws. Something that is perfectly legal to give away for free becomes a crime when money exchanges hands.
How to they get to dicate that? Start at "Think of the children," proceed through "The Constitution is just a godamned piece
Re: (Score:2)
Kidneys: absolutely. Thousands of people die each year because of a lack of available organ donors. Relying on altruism alone is an excellent way to ensure that this continues. Babies: no, because a child is not actually the property of his parents.
Who is pushing this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes in for the Indian tribes. And no [game-culture.com] for Vegas. Could well be a tough cop/nice cop routine, if you believe they're more connected that generally admitted.
At least $85 million [wikipedia.org], that we know of. Not all on this issue, but much of it aimed at keeping out competition. Most likely, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but many states have lotteries or other forms of gambling as revenue.
And the horse racing industry wants to allow betting at remote tracks and the like.
There are many fingers in the no on-line gambling pie, all trying to preserve their piece they got now.
Email is next! (Score:1, Troll)
Non troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sceptic in me wonders if some of the rich US casino owners don't have a hand in this, my only guess is that the casino owners are worried about gamblers using overseas websites in tax-haven countries that offer better odds maybe?
State governments (Score:2)
I have never understood why the USA government is so against online gambling.
For the last 20 years or so there has been a massive movement toward local and state government sponsorship of gambling. It is often referred to as a "lottery." Sometimes it's "Indian Casino Gambling." No matter how you slice it, the state governments get revenues from these deals, either directly or indirectly. Given that during that same 20 year period, Americans have become increasingly opposed to taxes, the scramble for rev
re: That's a crock.... (Score:2)
If gambling is done on U.S. soil, it's possible to send in government regulators to verify that the posted odds really are correct, to place daily betting limits, and other such rules. They can't realistically put any such controls on some web site running in a foreign country.
And how fair is it to let
Re: (Score:2)
This neo-con line is kind of disproven though by the fact that the Scandinavian countries (along with much of northern Europe) are always at the very top end of producitvity per capita and GDP per capita indexes despite having amongst the proportionally highest taxation rates in the world (often around 50% for many). As a result of the high taxation though they also get to be at the very t
Re: (Score:2)
s/poor/stupid/g
Losing your money gambling is a result of being stupid.* It is not surprising that stupid people also tend to be poor people.
Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Others are poor because they deserve it.
(* Some people lose money gambling as a recreational expense, and there's nothing wrong with taxing that, either.)
Re: (Score:2)
Indian casinos do not pay taxes and are not regulated like other casinos.
State governments still receive all kinds of indirect revenue from these arrangements.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, that's the entire answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.
Re: (Score:2)
>Because they need to appeal to their brainless goober Christian fundamentalist redneck trailer trash constituency.
I have to say, there ARE more of them then the Microsoft-hating, copyright-infringing, slovenly geeks/internet tough guys with no social life and living in their parent's basement Slashdot constituency. So it just makes good sense for a politician to pander to them instead.
Plus, their womenfolk are prettier
Title is misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Companies got around that restriction by moving offshore, since the Internet makes it easy to do business anywhere in the world. The purpose of this law is not to actually outlaw online gambling, but to close a loophole by not allowing U.S. banks to be involved in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't allow american companies to do online gambling, and as a sovereign government, you should be allowed to make that decision, then it is perfectly reasonable not to allow offshore companies to do it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Violation of personal liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.
You do not outlaw an entire activity from ALL people because it can be abused; you simply take steps to deal with the problem of abusive.
The only justification for *forceable* intervention in another individual's life is *self-defence*.
This principle is the very antithisis of Big Government.
We pay tax through our noses for other people to progressively control our lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A fair point.
Personally I agree with mandatory seatbelts and disagree with banning gambling. My justification would be something like this:
Mandatory seatbelts save lives - the evidence is clear that when madatory seatbelts are introduced, many more people survive car accidents.
You could equally say the same thing about gambling - banning gambling will reduce the very real problems that some people have.
BUT gambling, for many people is a pleasurable occasional passtime, if you ban the
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have an excellent point, except for the fact that it (apparently) isn't true [wikipedia.org].
Delivering papers? I delivered several hundred papers a day when I was in college, and the usual method would be to stop at one block,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, no seatbelts necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in fact people do occasionally get thrown through car windscreens, it may be an extremely rare s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling is a personal activity which, when not abused, harms no one else.
Indeed. You are perfectly free to go and gamble online and transfer money via PayPal, e-gold, Swiss banks, money orders, hawala, cash in a white sheet of paper in the mail, etc. after the game is over.
What was passed was "a measure that makes it illegal for banks in the US to handle online gambling transactions". Not "a measure th
It's A Difficult Call (Score:2)
I believe that gambling, as well alcohol, nicotine, guns and organised religion, harms a lot of people. It destroys more than a few lives. Millions have been caught up in the backdraft from hardcore gamblers going critical.
On the other hand, I realise I really don't have the right to judge the opinions and decisions of grown adults. If someone wants to gamble, drink, smoke, go to church or whatever, why should I try and stop them. The
Re: (Score:2)
> in this new activity are not going to harm society.
Not *quite* - the view I have is to consider if an activity will cause harm to other *people*.
Society is a whole 'nother kettle of fish - not least of which is the question "what is society?" and the question "who decides what's good or bad for society, whatever it is?"
When you pin the question down to harm to *people*, it becomes a lot more clear cut.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However the argument that changed my mind was this: the seatbelt helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle, which is a critical factor in the scope of an accident. Without a seatbelt, it is very likely that you WILL lose control of the vehicle in a severe accident. Requiring seatbelts for drivers i
Re: (Score:2)
American air bags can kill children. European ones dont. If an air bag goes off in a European spec car it is there just to cushion the blow and the seat belt will keep the driver under control and do most o
Passed Both Houses (Score:2)
Hopefully, this will backfire in November.
--
Last Minute Games On Capital Hill [apathy.net]
Re: (Score:2)
--
Under-Reported News and Comments [apathy.net]
American Inquisition (Score:4, Insightful)
Grand Inquisitor Abu Gonzales will now have the option of torturing you when god tells him you're bluffing.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only equate the last ~ 5 years of political discourse in the US as the p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture [house.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators voted for torture [senate.gov] (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted aga
Re: (Score:2)
FASCIST (Score:2)
Your Republican government is installing theocracy and torture, and you, Anonymous Taliban Coward, are gibbering about "lefties"?
You sick fuck, you'll be screaming for your own "nutroots" when your fascists are ripping your balls off because they caught you gambling, or whatever else they want to charge you with in secret.
Even if actual humans save y
Re: (Score:2)
Gamblers should have body parts ripped out? That insane comment made me think you were joking. Then that bit about bingo and state lotteries not being gambling - still must be joking, no one's that stupid. But then "perfectly legal" making them not gambling made me start to think you really were raving mad.
Then that bit about "we don't torture", which must be true because you put it in boldface, and insisted with an exclamation point that ot
ONTOPIC!!! (Score:2)
Oh, damn. I didn't read the "Do Not Feed The Trolls" sign on my way in. Sorry, guys.
Here is a short overview before... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The bill is a joke. Here is why:
- It makes a clear difference between ONLINE gambling & gambling, without realising that the first has way more safety nets to deal with the two main problems - underage gambling & gambling addicts.
- It makes a difference between sports gambling, poker & "wagering on horses", which is of course fine.
- It is a protectionist bill, against current WTO decisions that banning an activity is ok ONLY if you apply the same rules to domestic & foreign operators.
- It forbids US citizens an activity under a moral pretext(which fails on the 2 points above) or on the grounds of "money is getting out of the country". If US people feel ok being forbidden doing something because of that, I suggest next time you want to visit another country you hold on it. I'm sure postponing my next US visit for unforseeable future.
2. This bill will NOT work. Here is why:
- Unfortunately for the US, it has NOT power whatsoever. Bookies will find many new ways of moving the money around.
- The Bill has an excempt on banning transactions to e-wallet companies, ergo, this is a HUUUUGE loophole as you'll still have no problem using your funds trough an intermediare.
- There is no possible way for ISP's to block access to gambling sites, not with the current development of technology.
3. What will happen?
- It will get SLIGHTLY more difficult for the after dinner poker mums to enjoy the game they like, but they'd still be able to do it.
- We'd get AT LEAST on case of a high profile offshore player being sued under the RICO act OR by the IRS(much more likely), however it'll be presented as a victory for the new legislation.
Will post more if I think of something.
Why wonder? (Score:3, Informative)
I live in a state with an online gambling ban, a remarkably repressive one.
The state senator who introduced the bill had, as her top campaign contributors, offline gambling enterprises.
(flame)This happens all the time, businesses buying legislation to put competitors in prison. It's just that it usually happens in Third World countries.(/flame)
Remind me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If we had a temporary p
They hate our freedoms... (Score:2)
Thank goodness. (Score:2)
Wait, what?
This Could Effect State Lotteries... (Score:2)
Wouldn't this Bill make that illegal as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, America. (Score:2)
CowboyNeal is wrong; Senate Passed It (Score:2)
I'm just glad Frist is considering a run for President, so I will hopefully get a chance to oppose him with my vote.
Under the guise of trying to protect people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Score:2)
The problem here is not that government is trying to protect a tax base. The problem is that, despite the online gambling industry pretty much BEGGING to pay taxes, the government is trying to ban something other peo
For those persons who live near Mexico or Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't Slashdot check facts? (Score:3, Informative)
Googling the topic or checking thomas.loc.gov would have quickly told you that the House ban passed months ago and today's passage by the Senate makes it likely that the measure will become law.
Online Gambling Is Already Illegal (Score:2)
This came up on another site yesterday, and I'll tell you the same thing I told them: Online gambling has always been illegal in the U.S.A. Heretofore, it has been implicitly illegal, under federal laws against betting over-the-phone. The federal government has already prosecuted overseas casino owners (including at least one from the U.K., where internet gambling is legal and regulated) under these laws. 60 Minutes re-aired a story on this issue just a couple of weeks ago.
The new legislation aims to ma
Re: (Score:2)
I almost mentioned that, but didn't because I thought it was a point still in dispute, as far as the fed's were concerned. Although the 60 Minutes piece did mention the wire act as being intended to pertain to sports-betting, the authorities interviewed clearly expressed the opinion that all online gambling was illegal under current legislation. Indeed, poker was the general focus of the discussion. Of course, the current government seems to dispute numerous points that have already been decided by SCOTU
Somebody Please Invent P2P Poker (Score:2)
Australia has a similar law (Score:2)
Australia passed a similar law about five years ago. Commentary here. [nutters.org] Short version: ignoring for the moment the question of whether this is a case of over-governing, cutting off the point of payment is a really clever and effective way to get a legislative grip on the situation. You can't regulate a gambling establishment that's beyond your borders, but you can prevent the local banks from paying them, and that works just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
In some ways it's harder for online casinos to cheat, because you can keep a perfect record of your history and analyze it for statistical discrepancies. There are guys with databases of millions of poker hands they've played. If the cards were non-random, they'd have found it.
They also return absolutely nothing of value to the US for the money being sent to them.
Except that people seem to enjoy playing. But the preferences of mere mortals are gener
Re:Gambling and national debt, another perspective (Score:2)