Internet Gambling Outlawed

SIN NO MORE, YE POKER PLAYING HEATHENS! The U.S. Congress has outlawed internet gambling and Bush is expected to sign the new law by the end of the week.  Actually, internet gambling was already against the law; this law makes it illegal for financial payment services like credit card and wire transfer companies to process transactions involving gambling sites on the internet.  This law is aimed squarely at enforcement.

Wall Street is not happy.  The kicker is that the law was bought and paid for by American casino interests and is aimed at energizing the GOP religious base in the wake of the Foley scandal.

More below the fold.

In a surprise move both the House and the Senate passed identical versions of H.R.4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.  Bush is expected to sign it into law later in the week.  The bill was tacked on to the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006, i.e. H.R.4954, so voting against gambling sin is now part of Homeland Security.

Interestingly, near the beginning, Section 5361(a)2 says

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.

What is the National Gambling Impact Study Commission?  It's composed of 9 members, 6 of which have ties to either the casino gambling industry in the U.S., Native American Tribes, or the Religious Right.  To wit, current members:

• Kay C. James Former VA Sec. of Human Health and Resources (appointed by George Allen).  Previously Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council, a religious-right group that lobbies virulently against abortion and same-sex marriage, and which was at the forefront of the Terry Schiavo fiasco.


• James C. Dobson Founder of the right-wing organization Focus on the Family.  What else needs to be said about this wingnut?


• William A. Bible Former Chairman of the State Gaming Control Board in Nevada (where else?)


• Robert W. Loescher Native American Tribal leader from Alaska.  Indian casinos, anyone?


• J. Terrence Lanni Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of MGM Grand, Inc.  You don't get much more vested than this.


• John W. Wilhelm General President of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) International Union (read: casino employees).


• Richard C. Leone Never heard of the guy, but he must have been appointed by the Democrats because he is firmly against any "reform" of Social Security.


• Leo T. McCarthy All-around international business guru appointed to the Commission by the Democratic Senate leadership.


• Paul Harold Moore Prominent physician from Mississippi.

It certainly appears that this legislation was (a) instigated by monied interests in the casino business and (b) aimed squarely at giving the GOP religious right base something to cheer about going into election season.  It had been widely assumed that this legislation would not get through both houses of Congress before the recess.  The common wisdom seems to have been upended by the Mark Foley affair.  They are desperate to appease their base in any way possible in light of all the bad news they've been dealing with lately.

•  I'm so glad that congress is focusing

  on the most critically important issues of our time!
  /snark
  argh!

  by Pandoras Box on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

•  Outraged

  This bill is an outrage... what a joke -- send people off their computers and back to the mobster bookmakes to place wagers on the NFL..

  Great thinking there... what more should we suspect from these boobs though.

  by ggav11 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:38:19 PM PDT

  •  What a bunch of assholes these guys are

    Simple red meat offering for Dobson, et al.

    I got a little bit of news for them - when the offshore houses refuse to pay out because it is illegal to transfer funds in the US, there is going to be a shit storm that crosses party lines. All this does is put a hurt on people betting on an island or equivalent. This overwhelmingly effects white males in the 18-54 demographic, probably mostly Republican.

    I have just talked to 2 Republican friends of mine and they think I'm making it up. I told them to get their money out ASAP. I also told them who was behind this whole thing - the GOP and their religious foot soldiers. They are pissed off.

    by JohnnyAppleseed on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:21:55 PM PDT

•  Whew, thank the gods!

  It'd be horrible to let people....have fun with their money.

  This bill protects those who need it most: casino owners.

  Those poor bastards were barely scraping by.

  by TheBlaz on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:39:39 PM PDT

•  lots of confusion

  Here's what I've been trying to reconcile, and I NEED some comments on this:

  The bill prohibits transfers of $$ from banks to sites, and vice-versa.  But MY site runs everything thru Neteller.  

  So I'm legally allowed to put money into Neteller for legal purchases of stuff.  And I'm not sure this bill outlaws Neteller's relationship with these off-shores.

  In a sense, I'm thinking Neteller is the loophole.  Am I wrong?

  by topicalstorm on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:41:42 PM PDT

  •  Neteller

    I never heard of Neteller until yesterday.  So let's do a little realtime research.  From the Neteller site:

    The NETELLER Group operates an online funds transfer service that utilises and extends the existing international banking structure to provide a secure means of transferring funds worldwide.

    and

    NETELLER plc is a publicly traded company on the London AIM exchange.

    Section 4(a), INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS, of the legislation says the US Government should

    • encourage cooperation by foreign governments and relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes;
    • advance policies that promote the cooperation of foreign governments, through information sharing or other measures, in the enforcement of this Act; and

    That would appear to lack teeth on the international front, and there are 270 days before regulations have to be promulgated.  There may be a temporary loophole.  I would watch for Neteller to be put on the list of entities which U.S. financial institutions may not do business with.  That has not happened as of yet.

    Another section talks about "alternative means of identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing or prohibiting the acceptance of the products or services of the payment system or participant in connection with, restricted transactions".  Perhaps this will eventually lead to the Great American Firewall whereby ISPs will be required to block internet connections with offshore financial payment services.  Again, nothing along those lines has happened yet, and it may never happen.

    If there is a loophole then I think that, like airport security, the legislation is designed for show rather than to actually do anything about the perceived "problem".

    by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:03:43 PM PDT

    •  thanks

      I've never understood how they can make/pass laws in the US Congress for an entity that is worldwide.

      I sure hope Neteller is the solution.  It's wicked secure and completely trustworthy.

      by topicalstorm on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:32:02 PM PDT

•  GOP secures your internet tubes

  against the hardcore wagers of sin, so rest easy America. The hard right of the GOP has your back...pocket Visa card under surveillance.

  Now, if you must sinfully gamble, and it's not a state lottery you want to play, you must go to a real, genuine, U. S. of A. casino or tribal casino so those coins you bring to Vegas stays in Vegas, or with the tribe, plus management fees, etc.  No more flushing your domestic dollars down the drain to offshore virtual gambling operations.

  Will Dobson's followers be fooled by the failure to close down the brick and mortor operations?  If abstinence takes care of sex woes and gambling, can tobacco and hard liquor be far behind?  

  by antirove on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:44:57 PM PDT

  •  oooo. amazing

    the (not) net neutrality bills haven't even been passed yet!

    so little time, so much $$ to route. dammit. shutting down competitive industry is like herding cats.

    by MarketTrustee on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:05:51 PM PDT

•  This Could Be Worth a Couple Million Votes

  If the Democrats would firmly tie it around Republican necks, as I tried to get across here...

  by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:52:52 PM PDT

  •  I saw your diary last night

    An interesting premise.  Do you really think those potential voters would be one-issue voters?  That's not a rhetorical question; I'm just asking because I don't know.

    by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:05:58 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I Do. Anger is a Great Motivator

      Bear in mind that, with the partial exception of the insanely Religious Right, poker players represent the entire spectrum of Americans, to include a majority who doesn't normally vote, particularly in an off-year.

      We have a golden opportunity here to give them a place to act on their anger, by directing it against Republicans across the board.

      Longer term, Democrats could keep many of the voters they pick up by pushing for a sane regulatory structure to capture the literal billions in tax revenue that is currently being shipped off-shore, but right now we should focus on putting a Republican face on this Bill.

      by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:15:07 PM PDT

      •  anecdote

        I participate on another political blog site that has a few participants from both sides of the aisle.

        One of the Right Wing types disowned the Republican Party over this very issue.  Of course, he purportedly makes his living playing online poker.

        by evil twin on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:24:21 PM PDT

        •  Players Across the Board Are Pissed

          There's links in my earlier Diary to threads at FreeRepublic where even THEY are royally pissed off.

          If we do absolutely nothing this works in our favor politically, because there WILL be an anti-incumbent reaction, and they have more incumbents. If "we", whether within the Party structure or outside it, move quickly to put a Republican face on this, we can shift it to largely an anti-Republican reaction.

          by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:38:09 PM PDT

    •  I think the intensity will be strong

      At least for the hundreds of thousands of people who play poker online fairly regularly.  I know a widerange of people, from my movie critic friends to law school classmates to high school pals to relatives who play online poker pretty regularly.

      Online poker has become quite commonplace, as the revenues and the ubiquitous ads indicate.  So when you have the Repugs limiting one of your main hobbies, yeah, it'll drive up the intensity.  Not to mention the tens of thousands of people who play online poker for a living these days.  

      I've been a partisan Democrat and Kossack for a long time, and don't need any extra motivation to vote or donate money.  But this bill is actually the one political decision that most directly affects me personally, and man, it stings.  Now I know how people feel when some piece of legislation eliminates their job.

      by PigsandBattleships on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:38 PM PDT

      •  There WILL Be a Considerable Political Reaction

        What I am trying (and failing) to get folks to realize is that with a little effort on our part we can make it largely an anti-Republican reaction that could make the difference in close races. There are players in EVERY CORNER of the Country.

        by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:43:38 PM PDT

        •  yeah

          I do think a lot of people underestimate the number of people who play online poker.  Imagine if Congress banned fantasy sports?  (They carved out a fantasy sports exception in this bill, but hypothetically.)  

          As I said in your diary, micro-targeting would help.  Just fingering the GOP as the party that took online hold'em away will be enough to sway a non-trivial number of voters.  

          Targetting high-intensity, low-visibility niche voters is a core Rove strategy.  It's time for the Dems to catch up.

          by PigsandBattleships on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:57:41 PM PDT

          •  I Hoped That Would Start at dKos

            But apparently I did a poor job of articulating what seems fairly obvious.

            We don't have to publicly embrace internet gambling to reap these benefits (although I think we should regulate and tax it).

            All we have to do is firmly tie THIS BILL around the collective neck of the Republican Party, and Bill Frist made it easy.

            by The Baculum King on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:16:20 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    the party of free enterprise at it again.  This is a winner.

    by tobendaro on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:37:35 PM PDT

•  Uh...

  the nearest casino is over an hour and a half away. There is no way I'm going to waste gas to drive out there...play a couple games and drive home.

  Forget it.

  I don't play internet poker. But I know quite a few people sho do...and they won't drive the distance either.

  by kredwyn on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:57:06 PM PDT

•  Gangsters

  Congress and the casinos are acting like gangsters.  They're probably also creating a very lucrative black market.

  by The Termite on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 02:58:31 PM PDT

  •  They have always equated gambling with gangsters

    And they have finally become what they used to hate.  The WH has been operating in mafia-mode for a number of years and now the GOP congress is following suit.

    I really think this is an election year stunt rather than well-thought out policy.  The religious right will like this bill.  Or at least they will be told they like it and that will be good enough for them to cheerlead.

    by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:09:38 PM PDT

•  Abramoff

  This legislation is very similar to legislation Abramoff pushed for some years back on behalf of his tribal clients.

  by Paper Cup on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:11:37 PM PDT

  •  this is their way

    sneak it in as a rider, when it can't pass after 8 years.

    by jeffinalabama on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:40:37 PM PDT

•  Why can't I find this in the bill text?

  I called up the printer-friendly version of the Ports bill (link in text) and I can't find "4411", "wager" or "gambling" anywhere.  "Internet" and "financial" appear only in other contexts.

  by curtadams on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:18:28 PM PDT

•  Like my role model Dogbert would say,

  "If you put a little hat on a snowball, it will last a long time in Hell."

  by Utahrd on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:23:06 PM PDT

•  ca-ching!

  somebody is getting paid.  my guess is international gambling organizations funnel money to Republicans.  their offer was probably better than Las Vegas.

  by hypersphere01 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:34:03 PM PDT