Washington State Voters Irate Over iGambling Ban

http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6613#comments This link will take you to the legislative web-site that allows voter comments on Washington State's criminalization (a felony) of iGambling. The response is scathing.

Iowa's Rep. Leach Seeks to Ban iPoker: Hypocrite?

The State of the State was published in May 2006 by the American Gaming Association (AGA). The American Gaming Association (AGA) is the national trade association for the commercial casino industry. This is a survey includes comprehensive economic impact data on the U.S. commercial casino industry. The industry in 2005 generated more than $30 billion in gross gaming revenues for the first time ever.
Two congressional bills aim at curtailing Internet Gambling, including iPoker, HR 4777 and HR 4411. HR 4777 provides criminal penalties including five year imprisonment for accepting Internet bets. Leach provide the substitute bill for HR 4411, which sets up a system to analyze every Internet or payment system transaction AND then to BLOCK any going to an offshore gambling site. This is a horrendous invasion of every American’s privacy.
Leach’s Iowa is a major gambling state with 13 commercial casinos (including three racetrack casinos) and four Tribal Casinos. 8,600 are employed statewide to support $1.1 billion in consumer spending. Iowa’s state gambling tax rate is a graduated tax rate with a maximum tax of up to 22% on gross gaming revenue at riverboats and up to 24% at racetracks with slots and table games. As a comparison, Nevada’s maximum tax is 6.75% of gross gaming revenues. Gross gaming revenue is the amount a gaming operation earns before taxes, salaries and other expenses are paid – the equivalent of “sales,” not “profit.”
Iowa is taking 24% off the top. No wonder Leach’s Iowa gaming supporters fear internet gaming.
iPoker
To obtain a full copy of the 2006 State of the States, contact Holly Thomsen at the AGA at 202-637-6506 or log on to www.americangaming.org.

Ontario, Canada to Ban Ads for Internet Gambling

Ontario, Canada to Ban Ads for Internet Gambling

Bill 60 2006 is an act to amend the Province’s Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to regulate the promotion of and advertising of Internet gaming in Ontario” “17.1 No person shall print, publish, distribute, broadcast or telecast an advertisement or representation that includes an Internet gaming business website address unless the person believes in good faith that the Internet gaming business has been licensed or otherwise granted permission to operate in Ontario or Canada by the appropriate authority and is operated in accordance with the applicable laws of Ontario and Canada.” This should be interesting to enforce?

Letter from Rep. Goodlatte--HR4777's Sponsor

Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet gambling. It's good to hear from you. In recent years, illegal gambling on the Internet has exploded into a lucrative business that drains billions of dollars out of the U. S. economy each year and costs tens of thousands of jobs. In addition, illegal gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering, undermines families, and threatens the ability of states to enact and enforce their own laws. Many of the illegal gambling sites attempt to avoid the application of United States law by locating themselves off-shore and out of our jurisdiction, providing a nearly undetectable harbor for criminal enterprise. These illegal, off-shore gambling websites are unlicensed, untaxed, and unregulated. Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated by the states. However, the development of the Internet has made gambling easily accessible. The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and mortar casino was built right next door. Online gambling can result in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime, and moral decline just as with traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must ultimately be borne by society. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice have testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities, and can be exploited by terrorists to launder money. In order to bring the current prohibition against interstate gambling up to speed with the development of the Internet, I introduced H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. This legislation cracks down on illegal gambling by updating current laws to cover all forms of interstate gambling and account for new technologies. Under current federal law, it is unclear whether the primary federal law dealing with gambling, the Wire Act, prohibits using the Internet to operate a gambling business. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act updates and stregthens current law in four main ways. First, it updates the Wire Act to state clearly that the prohibition against interstate gambling includes all forms of gambling such as online poker and slot machines, not just sports-related bets. Additionally, it updates the Wire Act technologically. The Wire Act was written years ago before the Internet existed, so the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings the law up to date with new technologies like the Internet and other ways of communicating, such as wireless and satellite capabilities. Third, my legislation makes it a criminal offense for a gambling business to accept electronic funds transfers and other forms of payment. This provision is meant to dry up the money supply that keeps these illegal gambling businesses in operation. Finally, my legislation increases the maximum penalty for violations from two to five years in prison. While this legislation cracks down on illegal gambling across state lines, it protects each State's authority to continue to authorize and regulate gambling within their borders, as long as there are tight controls in place to ensure that gambling does not extend beyond their borders or to minors. I introduced the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act on February 16, 2006, along with 115 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further action has taken place. Rest assured I will keep your views in mind as this legislation moves through Congress. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. I feel it is important to keep an open line of communication so I can best serve the interests of the 6th District. I hope you will continue to be in touch as the 109th Congress debates issues of importance to the United States. Again, thanks for the benefit of your comments. Please feel free to contact me whenever I may be of assistance. Sincerely,Bob GoodlatteMember of Congress

Constitution's Sixth Amendment v HR 4777

The Constitution’s Sixth Amendment provides “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The origin of the requirement that trials take place where the crime allegedly took place related to the historical concern that “before the Revolution the British claimed the right to take colonists to England or Canada for trail. This was one of the complaints against the King in the Declaration of Independence.” The Bill of Rights 200 Years 200 Facts.

Except for a few state approved and HR 4777 carve-outs, all of the targeted Internet Gaming sites are located in foreign jurisdictions, where such business are legal and supported by the foreign governments. HR 4777 either has no teeth or is in direct conflict with the Sixth Amendment.

Subcommittee Moves Ban On Internet Poker Forward

On May 3, 2006, The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, on a voice vote, approved HR 4777 and forwarded it to the full Judiciary Committee. See below, HR 4777 provides criminal penalties including five year imprisonment for accepting Internet bets. Due to congressional elections in the fall, it is uncertain whether this bill and its companion, HR 4411, will be voted on in 2006 http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=6

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

The first link above lists the members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for the U.S. House of Representatives and the second link lists the membership of the entire Committee on the Judiciary.

Each list provides the hot links to the email mailboxes of the respective Committee members.

Internet Gambling: Prohibition v. Legalization

The Cato Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution. In 1998, a generation ago in Internet time, they made a presentation to the National Gambling Impact study Commission. They indicated that law enforcement of a ban on Internet Gambling was futile because: (1) relentless technological innovation ensures that over-burdened agencies will "only fall farther and farther behind;" (2) all Internet gaming sites are outside the jurisdiction of any state and federal agency; (3) Internet's packet switching Cuisinarts each Internet message (funds flow, blind post, call, raise, or fold) into "discrete packets, which travel over various and unpredictable routes until received and reassembled at the message's destination;" (4) the Internet makes it easier to encrypt messages---easy to change addresses---easy to send and receive messages anonymously; (5) the "Internet relies on thousands of separate and wholly private service providers to carry out its deliveries; (6) "the Sixth Amendment of the constitutional Bill of Rights prohibits the criminal prosecution of those who remain overseas while operating Internet gaming sites;" (7) the trend toward Internet gambling has already started--"nine states (this is in 1998 mind you!) already allow their citizens to access professional gaming services at home via telecommunications devices;" and finally (8) consumer demand for Internet gambling and the states' demand for tax revenues will create enormous political pressure for legalization.

Washington State's Ban on Internet Gaming: Class C Felony

On March 28, 2006, Washington State passed a ban on Internet Gambling. This law raises significant constitutional issues and threatens a Class C felony prosecution on citizens placing 25 cent bets at PartyPoker in their own homes. The law (RCW 9.46.240 and 1991 c 261 s 9) reads:

“Whoever knowingly transmits or receives gambling information by telephone, telegraph, radio, semaphore, the internet (sic) a telecommunications transmission system, or similar means, or knowingly installs or maintains equipment for the transmission or receipt of gambling information shall be guilty of a class C felony subject to RCW 9A.20.021.” A class C felony is punishable by amounts up to $10,000 and/or confinement in a state correctional institution for five years.

Class C felonies in Washington State, include bestiality; assault on a child in the third degree; custodial sexual misconduct in the first degree; third degree rape; four DUIs in seven years; second degree assault; sex and labor trafficking; unlawful taking of endangered fish and wildlife; robbery (1 count); animal fighting abuse or, most egregiously, going “all-in” in a PartyPoker $5+0.50 multiple table tournament. 60 months in jail seems more than appropriate for going “all-in” with less than a pair of jacks.

In order to play with “play money” on PartyPoker, one needs to download and install a program that could be used for either “play money” or cash games. That is a clear violation of the new Washington law. The use of “Whoever knowingly transmits….gambling information.” refers to ISPs, cable companies, DSL providers and phone companies. In order to be “knowingly” a transmitter would have to set up privacy invasive screens that they are extremely reluctant to do---except, maybe to do business in Communist China.