Bush Signs Anti- Online Gambling Bill [Archive] - Sports Central Message Boards

View Full Version : Bush Signs Anti- Online Gambling Bill

suedon1970

10-13-2006, 11:17 AM

:thumbdown:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/bush.ports.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

I know most of you guys don't bet on sports or play poker online, but this just absolutely makes me ill that Senator Frist and other Republicans (who underwrote this provision) snuck this into the port security bill. :redhot:

I have been following the status of this for some time, and what it does is ban U.S. banks from making transactions (e.g. transfers from checking accounts) with offshore gambling operators. Most of the publicly traded companies ceased transactions with customers in the U.S. a few weeks ago, and more will likely follow suit.

IntheNet

10-13-2006, 11:20 AM

:thumbdown:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/13/bush.ports.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

I know most of you guys don't bet on sports or play poker online, but this just absolutely makes me ill that Senator Frist and other Republicans (who underwrote this provision) snuck this into the port security bill. :redhot:

Gotta get those kiddies addicted eh suedon? Bravo Bush... The high road is rather clear in this instance...

Too bad Bush didn't sign a Las Vegas Land Profitting Ban as well, to keep Harry Reid honest!

suedon1970

10-13-2006, 11:26 AM

Gotta get those kiddies addicted eh suedon? Bravo Bush... The high road is rather clear in this instance...

And yet Prohibition was repealed, wasn't it ITN? That decision certainly hasn't effected children in a negative way, has it........:rolleyes:

Funny how you can still bet on horses, dogs, etc. online - AND go to Vegas or down to your friendly neighborhood Indian reservation to throw your money away there on rigged video slot machines, but not bet on sports or play poker online.......It's called "Personal Responsibility".

IntheNet

10-13-2006, 11:53 AM

HibachiDG

10-13-2006, 12:44 PM

Funny how you can still bet on horses, dogs, etc. online - AND go to Vegas or down to your friendly neighborhood Indian reservation to throw your money away there on rigged video slot machines, but not bet on sports or play poker online.......It's called "Personal Responsibility".

Well, you can call it personal responsibility, but that flies completely over the issue.

Online gambling was something that tore at the Constitution. When gambling has reached the Courts, this has been clear and had online gambling itself ever reach the Supreme Court they likely would have found that the federal government could restrict online gambling.

States have a police power, it goes without saying that this has been given for so, so long. Gambling affects the state police power in two ways...for starters the repurcussions of gambling. Whether you think they are significant or small, you have to realize that they are there in SOME form and that state's have a police power interest in these repurcussions. Second, the dollars that flow from gambling. State's have a power to decide where these dollars go.

Online gambling between someone in California and someone in New York strikes at both of these even if you were to regulate federally. Hypothetically, the folks in NY may not want gambling at all, even if they're getting paid off for it. Another hypo, even if they do want gambling, they might want to decide what to do with that money. For instance, one state might see gambling's problems as significant, another as minimal. The state who sees the problems as significant might want the money to go into helping problem gamblers, where the state where it is minimal might want an art museum.

These are states issues that the federal government should not, has not, been allowed to interfere in.

There is nothing in this legislation stopping Florida from going to a company and saying "hey, start betfla.net, we'll regulate it like this" and then allow Floridians to go to betfla.net and gamble. Florida could say that their citizens are allowed to play poker for money online with others legally able to do so.

To bring it back to your original point, about personal responsibility...this is not the government taking away any personal responsibility or taking away any of our liberties or right to choose what we can do with our money. It is simply saying that that is something for the individual states to decide.

As for your other complaint, that they "snuck" this into the port bill. This legislation is really just adaptation of legislation from years ago to new technology. So, I'm not sure how you can say it snuck in any way.

suedon1970

10-13-2006, 01:28 PM

You brought up some good points, Doug.

Saw this article and found it interesting.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15240569/

KevinBeane

10-13-2006, 01:38 PM

Lotsa thoughts on this one.

First, it's hilarious to see inthenet emphatically support this bill when he emphatically opposed it when it had just passed the House (http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=14218) (post 16).

Secondly, of course it was "snuck on." I don't even think a lawyer of Doug's future caliber can correlate this with "Port Security" without sounding absolutely ridiculous. I heard one talking head say it had to do with Port Security because "Gambling, likes drugs, is addictive, and we know drug money is used to support terrorism, therefore so might gambling money."

Bill Frist didn't tack on this rider because it was germane, he tacked it on because he wanted it passed rully, rully bad. He tried to get a vote on this in the Senate when the bill was a standalone, was rebuffed, tried to tack it on to a different bill, was rebuffed again, and finally succeeded on tacking it on to THIS bill, which no one could afford to vote against without committing career suicide, particularly in an election year ("My opponent vote NO on secure ports!") Don't let it be said that one politician can't make a difference.

The United States stance on this issue is at odds with WTO agreements, and indeed Antigua has taken them to "WTO Court" and won. (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1915). The problem is that the WTO can't make anyone do anything, and if Antigua wants to boycott trading with the US, the US would laugh it off, not to mention that Antigua probably could not afford to do that.

I'm not too, too pessimistic about this bill all and all though. It sucks that about half of the big online poker rooms have stopped taking US customers as a result of this, but I suspect that either it will still be possible to play poker for money online, you will just have to jump through more hoops to do so. This bill targets Financial Institutions, not players. The US has no jurisdiction over overseas banks, they US can't stop you from making a transfer to an overseas bank (well, they could, but since there's so many legitimate reasons to do so, they won't). The US poker market is too big and juicy for an adequate, legal alternative to not develop. Actually, I'm hoping for a poker carve-out for this bill down the line, as it's different from other casino games and sports betting for the reasons I outlined in the thread I linked in the first paragraph (most important being, you are not playing against the house).

IntheNet

10-13-2006, 02:15 PM

HibachiDG

10-13-2006, 03:47 PM

The United States stance on this issue is at odds with WTO agreements, and indeed Antigua has taken them to "WTO Court" and won.. The problem is that the WTO can't make anyone do anything, and if Antigua wants to boycott trading with the US, the US would laugh it off, not to mention that Antigua probably could not afford to do that.

Any WTO agreement the United States has should not and likely will never trump the Constitution of this Nation.

Secondly, of course it was "snuck on." I don't even think a lawyer of Doug's future caliber can correlate this with "Port Security" without sounding absolutely ridiculous. I heard one talking head say it had to do with Port Security because "Gambling, likes drugs, is addictive, and we know drug money is used to support terrorism, therefore so might gambling money."

Well, I'm not trying to correlate this with port security, but I could do it without sounding absolutely ridiculous. I don't want to and wouldn't believe it. But, I could do it.

In a very general sense, I think you can say this was snuck on, but taking into account the way things get added on to bills, I just think it's a stretch to say that it was snuck on there. I don't really want to defend Bill Frist, but Kevin, you only really paint one side of things when you phrase it "was rebuffed, tried to tack it on to a different bill, was rebuffed again, and finally succeeded on tacking it on to THIS bill, which no one could afford to vote against without committing career suicide"

The thing with the gambling part of this bill is that it's just an extension of commonly accepted principles in this country. The reality is that had they passed it standalone, on other bills, or pass it in any manner, the folks that are going to be the most vocale on the matter are the gamblers. The folks who haven't gamble, don't gamble and like the way our laws have been for 50 years aren't going to outwardly praise the bill, it is just going to be status quo.

All this does is extend previous laws and now that people are going to be vocale about this, it's going to open up discussion about what types of gambling the federal government might begin to allow. Extending laws for new technology isn't exactly sneaking something on, especially when the courts have already been going in that direction.

KevinBeane

10-13-2006, 10:30 PM

Any WTO agreement the United States has should not and likely will never trump the Constitution of this Nation.

I agree it should not. I'm less convinced that the righteousness of this law is open-and-shut the only constitutional thing to do. I'm not a consitutional or legal scholar and I make no claim to be, so I will tread lightly here but, you seem to be saying that since some states have laws on the books against it, the US has no constitutional choice but to keep it illegal on a federal level, lest they unconstitionally override the individual state's decision to keep it illegal.

So if that is a fair layman's assessment of what you are saying, why doesn't it work the other way around? Where is the consititutional language that states that, if an activity is illegal in state A and legal, subsidized and encouraged in state B, that the federal government err of the side of illegality rather than freedom in its stance? More to the point, if online gambling is illegal in Michigan, why is the Government constitutionally compelled to "clarify" that I in Delaware should not be permitted to play with someone in England via a business located entirely in Antigua?

And even if everything you say is true, it's relevant to me that none of the bill's co-sponsors (that I have seen) are even talking about this within the context of state's rights, except maybe in passing. It's all about the evils of gambling, addiction, and saving people from themselves. While you see value of the bill pragmatically and constitutionally, it's intent from the framers is idealogical.

Oh yeah...if WTO agreements and the constitution truly cannot be reconciled, then the US ought to leave the WTO or downgrade itself to provisional membership, if there is such a thing.

In a very general sense, I think you can say this was snuck on, but taking into account the way things get added on to bills, I just think it's a stretch to say that it was snuck on there. I don't really want to defend Bill Frist, but Kevin, you only really paint one side of things when you phrase it "was rebuffed, tried to tack it on to a different bill, was rebuffed again, and finally succeeded on tacking it on to THIS bill, which no one could afford to vote against without committing career suicide"

Well, what did I say there that was untrue? The facts are neutral and a matter of public record. ANYTIME someone tacks a rider on to a bill that has nothing to do with the the main thrust of the bill, the word "sneaky" is a fair adjective to describe it, regardless of the rider's merits. I realize it is legal to do so and has a long history or being done. It's done, based on what I have seen, to either try to force legislation that would not pass standing alone (like the Vermont senator a few years ago who used a rider in an attempt to get Lake Champlain reclassified as a Great Lake and direct some of the pork that goes with that to his state) or for political purposes, as was almost certainly the case here.

When the bill was a standalone, it passed the House overwhelmingly. It would've likely had to have waited until the the upcoming recess ended to come a vote in the Senate, but there is really no chance it would've gotten voted down once it got there.

So Frist decided he couldn't wait that long, and instead tacked it onto a "must-pass" bill about something far, far more important. Hell, *I* would not have voted no on the Port Security bill either, even if I was in my last term. So how is that not sneaky? I am not saying it was illegal, or even uncommon, But it was, "For all intents and purposes I'm going to force my colleagues to accept this on my terms."

What reason could he have for needing it passed NOW? When it surely would've passed anyway in few months? Is it because Frist is so gravely concerned about the effects of internet gambling that he didn't feel he could wait longer? Maybe, but I'm certainly inclined to think the timing of this bill had everything to do with keeping the conservative wing of the Republican party happy (Frist is open about Focus on The Family's active role in the research, drafting and movement of this bill), especially at a time when Republicans up for election are trying to distance themselves from Bush.

The thing with the gambling part of this bill is that it's just an extension of commonly accepted principles in this country. The reality is that had they passed it standalone, on other bills, or pass it in any manner, the folks that are going to be the most vocale on the matter are the gamblers.

Disagree. For one, gamblers are more than just another niche interest group. There's a reason why we've gone from no poker shows a few years ago to 2-3 a couple years ago to a dozen today, with ESPN pushing pro and major college sports to ESPN2 to put the WSOP on the main network, and that's because it gets big ratings. Even if most of the people watching do not play online (and millions of Americans do), I seriously doubt that very many of them are saying, "Man, I love to watch this, but in keeping with the commonly accepted principles in this country, I don't believe one should be allowed to play it online for money, unless specifically permitted by the state of the player's residence." I DO, however, think there's plenty of people who don't watch or play poker, don't gamble, but feel it ought to be a personal decision among adults whether or not to do so.

boston_aloha

10-14-2006, 12:19 AM

Ellis

10-14-2006, 12:32 AM

I used to play a lot on Party Poker for real money. They actually already found loop-holes in the system. You can buy these phone cards through a third party online, which can be used to put money on a Party Poker account.

Seriously, this is not the end of online gambling in America. These online casino owners are savvy and hungry for your money. They will continue to find ways around any new law that is thrown at them.

As far as online gaming goes, I am really disappointed in the experience of online poker. As far as the major online poker rooms that I have played at, none have really taken it to the next level. What would really be fun is a free-roam casino program where you play with real money. One where you can walk around, see the other players and interact with them. You can walk up to the table play. It could have the sounds of the casino and you could roam around to all of the games you wanted to. Make it more of a video game, where you get a fuller experience. You could create your own look and talk to other people browsing and create your own persona at the poker table. It would give easy access to all of the games. Now that would be fun, but all of these poker rooms are just not very interactive and not a whole experience, which it really could be. If they made this software so many more people would keep coming back and more people would join. It would be a really fun experience and would be like going to a casino, in your own house.

Ellis

10-14-2006, 12:54 AM

I am talking about something like this: http://www.deafgamers.com/hoylecasino002.jpg

Except this online casino would be like 100xs bigger. With tones of rooms and games to explore. Make it look and feel like a real casino. Make it a full and interactive experience. Make one where you can walk around, design your own person and look and talk with other people. As far as I know, there isn't one like this out there where you can play with real money.

HibachiDG

10-14-2006, 01:28 AM

why doesn't it work the other way around? Where is the consititutional language that states that, if an activity is illegal in state A and legal, subsidized and encouraged in state B, that the federal government err of the side of illegality rather than freedom in its stance? More to the point, if online gambling is illegal in Michigan, why is the Government constitutionally compelled to "clarify" that I in Delaware should not be permitted to play with someone in England via a business located entirely in Antigua?

Because the state of Delaware might not want their citizens to play with someone in England via a business located entirely in Antigua because Delaware might feel repurcussions of the gambling that they don't want to deal with. "It's all about the evils of gambling, addiction, and saving people from themselves" are things that we have left to the states to decide in the past. Your gambling habit in Delaware, even if not with other folks in Delaware is something that they're going to have to police in Delaware.

It's comparable to allowing states to decide whether they want the death penalty. Take a state like, Utah, for instance, they don't allow any gambling, one of the few states with gambling in no form. They're likely not set up to handle any negative repurcussions that come from their citizens using the internet to gamble. If the federal government were to allow citizens in Utah to gamble on the internet, it would have effect on that states police power.

State's have long had the right to protect the safety, health and welfare of their citizens and the reason why we have it is because there is an understanding that sometimes what the citizens of one state want conflict with what the federal government does in that regard.

Well, what did I say there that was untrue?

I don't think you said anything untrue, I think you just painted it in a one sided manner. Given that all the act did was extend the law from the 1950s to new technology, I just don't think that it was sneaky. If it were something completely new, I agree with your point, but it's just turning something that's always been around into a formality. The courts have been heading in this direction and it formalizes things. If the issue is that there wasn't debate about it on the Senate floor, well, you're pushing from the wrong side. The people who want internet gambling should begin the push.

Disagree. For one, gamblers are more than just another niche interest group.

I'm not calling gamblers a niche interest group. Gambling has grown for a long time now and the actions of certain states with making gambling more and more available is evidence of that.

I DO, however, think there's plenty of people who don't watch or play poker, don't gamble, but feel it ought to be a personal decision among adults whether or not to do so.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that States would like to overall, allow gambling, for the reason that you gave, that it is a decision among adults. But, at the same time, they want to do so in a manner that eliminates the negative that comes from the irresponsible.

I don't want to sound completely doomsday on this like InTheNet and I understand that you're probably perfectly capable of handling your online poker for money, Kevin, but the reality is that overall, people lose money gambling and some of them can't afford it. States are in the best position on how to handle these problems. States in a position to best decide and weigh the negatives of gambling with the ability of adults to choose an activity on the other side.

And states study what methods work best for them. If New Jersey had to do it all over again, they likely wouldn't do things like they did. Iowa on the other hand, yeah, they'd probably do riverboat gambling again if they had to do it over again.

I know tons of people that play poker online for money. Some break even, some make money, some make a good bit of money, some lose a little bit of money, some get made fun of because they play poker while a professor is calling on them in a class, I think I would even say that the majority of people who gamble, specifically poker, at worst only lose what they are willing to lose. I really have no problem with that, it's just that the ones that do lose more than they can handle, we have to be able to bring those people back up or, at the very least, prevent them from falling even further.

Anthony

10-14-2006, 06:28 AM

It all goes to show how right H.L. Mencken was:

"A Puritan is a person possessed by the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

Like they have nothing better to do in Washington these days? How about closing the border completely, thereby making the stingy growers in California pay their workers a living wage? Or debate the merits of bringing back the (military) draft so that all classes of society share in the sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Aah ... The Age of Misplaced Priorities ... even The Age of Aquarius was better!

suedon1970

10-14-2006, 08:10 AM

This sucks... its gonna jam me up BIGTIME!!! Now I gotta go thru one guy on the east coast for 10% juice and wait for payouts, etc. And I still got another guy out here to take action but its 20% which is just outrageous IMO. Lose a $500 bet, pay $600?? "F" that!
Online is so much easier - more options too... I'm gonna miss all the teasers / parleys for big games / series. Back to straight bets now :(

I think we will be okay for now, Steve. Most of the larger bookmakers online aren't quite ready to pull out just yet, and as long as Neteller will act as a go-between, I will be fine. Several books based in Europe have already pulled out of the U.S., and Paradise Poker & Sportsbook.com has, too (trying to get my money back from them:thumbdown: ).

boston_aloha

10-15-2006, 12:17 AM

Good luck Sue... Yeah, I got about 4 large with betus... I don't want any trouble :thumbdown:

Jaguar Rick

12-29-2006, 04:30 PM

I feel so much better now. Bush and friends are looking out for us in Washington. Same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and now online gambling. Have you ever noticed they are against anything they can't or won't do themselves? Bill Frist can declare a brain dead women curable, by merely looking at a video. I bet before these purificationists leave office, they will decree that only missionary-style of sex will be allowable. This from the party who campaigns with slogans such as, defend freedom, re-elect Bush. What is next? Perhaps they should outlaw poverty and ignorance.

BigBuddhaPup

12-29-2006, 06:14 PM

Jaguar Rick,

Outlawing ignorance would only hurt themselves...

RavenPoe

12-29-2006, 06:44 PM

defend freedom, re-elect Bush

Would this be Orwellian double-speak or a simple oxymoron? lol