Gambling911.com review of this
Measure to curb internet gambling falls short of applying existing laws to web Much of the internet gambling community woke up to what could be best described as a bad hangover following last minute successful passing in Congress of a measure to restrict many forms of online gambling shortly after midnight Saturday morning. The piece of legislation itself failed to pass on its own merits but instead hitched a ride on a very popular port security bill, much to the chagrin of many lawmakers.
Even House Homeland Security Committee Peter King Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., who headed House-Senate negotiations on the port security bill seemed taken aback by the internet gambling measure.
When a number of Democrats complained they were denied the right to offer amendments to restore rail security language contained in the original Senate bill even though Republicans found time to tack on the internet gambling measure, King stated he had only learned about the internet gambling provision attachment that evening.
The bill falls short of adding clarity to an already existing 1961 Wire Act that prohibits betting via phone across state lines and failed to apply that law to gambling on the web. This is being viewed as a slight victory for the online gambling community as it is now unlikely such revisions will ever be added in the future.
Instead, the measure focused on curbing online gambling transactions via banking institutions.
Banking Sector not in favor of provisions The powerful banking industry is opposed to the language contained in the online gambling prohibition bill.
The banking sector has voiced strong opposition to provisions that require banks to block electronic funds transfers or e-check payments to online gambling sites. These provisions are essentially broad and unenforceable, the banks claim; moreover, even if it were possible to surmount technical obstacles, prospective gamblers could easily use alternative means to finance such transactions.
Credit cards transactions for the purpose of online gambling have been difficult ever since the Patriot Act came into being. A number of internet gaming firms have gotten around this by using processors from outside the US, some of whom are not without risk. Over the years, offshore gambling operations are estimated to have lost millions of dollars as a result of keeping funds with "dubious" processors.
Next Phase
Representative Shelley Berkley of Congressional District number 1 of Nevada - presumably speaking on behalf of many in the Vegas casino industry now opposed to internet gambling legislation - slammed Republicans for adding an extraneous provision to limit internet gambling when they found fit not to include measures to increase security to the nation's rail and mass transit system.
"If this is all about port security then why is there a provision to prevent internet gambling?" she demanded to know.
Chairperson King at one point following her vocal discontent for the additional piece of legislation did say "extraneous measures to the bill would be reviewed".
Berkley closed her brief two minute rant by exclaiming "Give me a break!" to which some applause broke out.
Even co-authors of the original port security act expressed outrage over adding an extraneous internet gambling measure.
There are far reaching implications for inclusion of a measure to curb internet gambling while excluding provisions to make the nation's rail and mass transit system safer.
"God forbid something happens on our mass transit system and the American people find out that Republicans could not find time to add provisions to make mass transit safer yet you found time to add a measure that would prohibit internet gambling," said one representative speaking before the House.
Once signed some time this week, the law would not go into effect for nearly another year. There is the potential for litigation and delay in regard to the online gambling provision.
