What's the difference between H.R. 4411 and every other anti-internet gambling bill introduced in the last ten years? This one has passed the House, by a vote of 317 to 93. Acknowledging that most online gambling sites are now run by operators in foreign countries, with no bodies within our shores for jurisdictional purposes, this bill follows the path taken in the past few years of proposed legislation and governmental enforcement of targeting the payment systems that make online gambling feasible, such as credit cards and other fund transfer systems. However, there are certain important exceptions to this prohibition, including the use of such payment systems for intrastate online wagers (online lotteries), horse race betting, and fantasy sports leagues, an exception I've talked about before. H.R. 4411 would provide a perfect example of interest lobbying in the political process.
Apparently this issue is part of a 10-part family values agenda designed to increase political support for the Republican party before election time. Nice. Let's see what the Senate does with it. What is absent in the findings of the legislation, found here, is an acknowledgment that the carve-outs to the bill fly in the face of the WTO opinion, issued in 2005, which stated that the U.S. was in violation of GATS if it prohibited online gambling from offshore while allowing internet gambling in connection with horse racing. I suppose that is no concern of the House of Representatives.
I will be on Wisconsin Public Radio Thursday morning at 6:00 a.m. in case anyone wants to chat about this during the hour-long call-in period. I know it's early, but we were up all night gambling anyway. Knowing that I was against gambling regulation, the producer asked me if I were a gambler, in particular an internet gambler. Honestly, I personally think wagering on chance is stupid and faintly immoral. I love games, especially games of skill, but I see no need to bet money on them to make them more interesting. I think individuals who put their finances, and their family's finances, at risk gambling are the worst kind of suckers. Nevertheless, like many things, I do not support its prohibition.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/5299401
Links to weblogs that reference House Passes Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006:
1. Posted by PK on July 11, 2006 @ 16:23 | Permalink
Can I play devil's advocate for a second. In the end of your fine article (quickly informative), you state that while personally, you don't go for gambling and think it is "stupid and faintly immoral," you aren't opposed to allowing others the choice of doing something stupid and immoral. This is a very common argument. I don't agree with it, but if people want to wreck their lives, so be it. It's like wearing a safety belt, except our society has decided on they other side, enforcement rather than choice.
So here's where I play devil's advocate. Assume that the house always wins. That is the nature of gambling, of course. The house never loses. If we assume that, then someone other than the house is losing. Alright, fair enough, that's capitalism. But in this case, is there an argument that gambling should be prevented?
Should we ask the following questions: What are the actual costs associated with harm due to gambling? How much money does our society spend helping people recover from gambling addiction? How many people go bankrupt due to gambling? How many families break up due to gambling? Any people on the dole due to gambling? If we assume that there are costs associated with gambling (like the ones above), then shouldn't we say, "Hey, we are not taking away your choice to gamble because you can do it in Macau, Las Vegas, Oklahoma (select places), Oregon (select places), etc. What we are doing is making a decision that as a society, we don't want to pay for the problems that are caused by online gambling and we will do whatever is necessary, within the laws and territories of the US, to prevent that. That's why you elected and this is the decision we are making because we think it is the healthiest thing to do for our country."
So, what is the counter-argument?
2. Posted by Josh on July 11, 2006 @ 18:11 | Permalink
If online gambling costs society money, then wouldn't it make much more sense to regulate and tax it?
I understand that this is the reasoning behind exorbitant liquor taxes many states impose. Since it costs the state money to deal with drunk driving accidents and other alchohol related incidents, there is a sizable tax on liquor.
Either way, I don't think that the reason this bill exists has anything to do with worry about gambling's effects on families. This is election year pandering to cultural conservatives and the brick and mortar casinos that make campaign contributions.
3. Posted by Paul on July 13, 2006 @ 6:54 | Permalink
Glad to read such a nice piece of information.
4. Posted by wagering on July 26, 2006 @ 13:29 | Permalink
wagering wagering
5. Posted by jimmy on June 4, 2008 @ 3:19 | Permalink
Internet gambling is very similar to narmal gambling, where money is taken from one to another through internet. If the gambling site has liscense then no problem, else government have to take measures to control gambling through internet.
-----------------------------------
jimmy
Highly relevant, efficient advertising to forum, blog, wiki and other types of web sites. Drive large number of visitors to your website and build quality links.
http://www.widecircles.com
- dissertations on Lance's New
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Jake on The Oil Mark
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- laborprof lpb on Bailout, Uni
- fedgovernor on The Oil Mark
- Brandon P. on BYU v. Utah
- David on What makes a
- Cathy on The Oil Mark
- Vic on Fleischer 1,
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
