Senate Panel Approves Internet--Gambling Ban

[Jeffro]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate committee on Thursday voted to outlaw credit-card payments to Internet casinos, in a move designed to choke the offshore gambling sites that draw billions of dollars from U.S. customers.

The Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved the bill in a brief session with no debate, a marked contrast to the extended, acrimonious debates in the House of Representatives before that body approved a similar bill last month.


Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said online casinos evade the reach of U.S. states that typically have regulated "bricks and mortar" gambling operations, requiring the federal government to step in. Internet casinos encourage pathological gambling and enable children to participate, he said.


"While gambling has always been subject to state regulation and should remain so, there is no way for the states to effectively control the reach of the Internet at this time," Shelby said.


Most Internet gambling is already illegal under U.S. and state laws, but those laws have little power over the 1,800 offshore gambling sites that are expected to take in $2 billion from residents this year.


Lawmakers have instead sought to prevent credit-card companies and payment systems such as PayPal to block money transfers to online gambling sites. Credit-card issuers, stung by disputed charges, now voluntarily block roughly four out of five online gambling payments.


Violators would face fines and up to 5 years in prison, in contrast to the House version that contains no criminal penalties.


The bill would not apply to horse racing, dog racing or other remote-betting operations already approved by states and American Indian tribes.

[Sarge85]

So this means exactly what?

I live in Washington State. I want to play online, I was going to mail a check to UB. (Canada right?) - Anyway am I breaking the law?

Sarge /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This doesn't mean anything - yet. Now that the bill is out of committee, it has to go to the floor for a vote. If passed, it (and the similar bill passed by the House) go to Conference Committe to be merged into one bill. After that, the bill goes to the President to sign. From what I understand, according to the wording of the bill, it goes into effect 6 months after it is signed.

Once it is signed, you can mail all the checks you want to UB, your bank just won't release the funds.

Find a way to open a Canadian bank account and fund your playing through that.

[thomastem]

Ok what if I already have funds in Neteller and at sites. Does this also effect cashouts?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My undestanding is it will not prevent you from getting your money out. Since one of their stated purposes for this is to "protect" from losing our money, it would be pretty hypocritical to use the law to make us lose our money. (yes, I know, what's so unusual about government being hypocritical)

[RollaJ]

Is my girlfriend going to have to wear a burka anytime soon?

By the people and for the people.....LOL

Hmm
I can understand that they want to prevent people from losing money but poker is not the same kind of 'gambling' as regular casino games where the house always wins and the odds are always in the favor of the house....so it's sad that the bill also affects poker.
/knö/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[J.R.]

The law will prevent/punish banks who transact business with online gaming sites or third party payment services (ie neteller) who deal with these online gaming sites. Does hypocrisy in the U.S. Congress suprise you?

[MS Sunshine]

"The Senate Banking Committee unanimously approved the bill in a brief session with no debate"

Dear Senator Bennett

I'm writing to let you know how disappointed I am in your vote today and your stance on what folks can do in their own homes, with their own money without our OWN banks watchdogging us.

I have never written a US Senator before, except on this single issue. I live in a small town 200 miles from a casino, which doesn't matter because I don't gamble at casino games. I enjoy playing poker on the internet those nights I wish to. I don't like my government telling me it is illegal for me to play an AMERICAN card, played in my own home.

I hope in the future you might take my views into consideration when this issue is before you again.

Thank You.

Sincerely,

MS Sunshine

[ZeeJustin]

Those that have already voted probably won't change their stance. I would suggest sending your mail to those who have not yet voted.

[TimTimSalabim]

The problem is, sure, all of us are enterprising enough to open a Canadian account or find other ways to work around the laws, but how many potential new fish are going to do so? I think this will be the death of online poker. Or am I being too pessimistic?

[MS Sunshine]

He's a member on the Sen. Banking com. I wrote to him a few weeks ago. I got the Rep. line in reply. Money laundrying, underage gambling and compulsive gamblers. Yada, yada, yada. Are they really that out of touch? There is zero money laundrying going on in internet poker. Terrorists? I can give you the usernames of those players that steal my BB too much. They should be in some hut on Cuba being questioned every day, those blind-stealing bastards.

Underage poker playing? Yeah, I think it goes on. Not 16-17 unless the parents are in the know, but 18-20 and out of the house. I think most college kids don't have much money to blow unless they do well from the start. Parents should have kid-proofing software for the net anyways. How many kids have their own CC and checking account at 17?

The compulsive gamblers are only allowed to buy lottery tickets, and the other gambling that is exempt from this bill like internet dog racing. But, lets just put the 50-$1.00 Hold'em players against the wall. Did you see where the House verison had no criminal penalties, but the Senate verison does?

MS Sunshine

[MikeyEdge]

The government is just pissed that they aren't getting their cut. They don't give a damn about kids playing or protecting people from losing money. You would think they would worry about the more important issues first, like global warfare and whatnot.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Their opposition has nothing to do with their constituency being harmed and everything to do with them not getting a piece of the action.

We can only hope that the online poker sites are resourceful enough to find a means to circumvent this. Or at least to bribe the regulators to keep NETeller exempt.

[MS Sunshine]

E-money. Just a number. Untraceable. Waiting for a market and this bill would give those companys waiting in the wings a multi-billion market in internet gambling to merge with more main-stream markets like online auctions and the such that are not big enough to jump-start the industry.

MS Sunshine

[thomastem]

Has anyone talked with these sites as to what their strategy is if this law passes?

[thomastem]

I'm not familiar with E-money

[J.R.]

Check this- what they are referring to is generally referred to as "anonymous e-money".

E-money (http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/emoney.html)

"In general, there are two distinct types of e-money: identified e-money and anonymous e-money (also known as digital cash). Identified e-money contains information revealing the identity of the person who originally withdrew the money from the bank. Also, in much the same manner as credit cards, identified e-money enables the bank to track the money as it moves through the economy. Anonymous e-money works just like real paper cash. Once anonymous e-money is withdrawn from an account, it can be spent or given away without leaving a transaction trail. You create anonymous e-money by using blind signatures rather than non-blind signatures."

[Jeffage]

I have a significant (to me anyway) amount of money at the poker sites and Neteller. When do I have to worry about getting it all out? I'm considering doing it today to tell you the truth...government is so hypocritical, it's disgusting. Telling me what I can do with my own time and money. So if I like poker, I guess I have to uproot myself from a good job in Washington, DC and move to Atlantic City or Nevada? What a load...When do I have to get all my money out?

Thanks,
Jeff

[Mavraam]

Calm down everyone!

There is way too much interest in on-line gambling for the Government to stop it. This will fail much more severely than prohibition did in the 20's.

We're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry that just isn't going to go away because the US Government says so. If anything, this will backfire because people may be affraid to declare gambling winnings and that will lower tax revenue.

The US Government can't stop people from walking accross the border with Mexico. They can't stop drugs which are just as available and cheap as the were before the 'War on Drugs'. They can't stop internet gambling either. As long as there is a demand, suppliers will find a way to get it to you.

Markets are much more powerfull than regulation.

[MS Sunshine]

Don't stress about this bill until six months after it becomes law, about your large BR being on a site. Even then, worse case you open a bank account in Canada or you cash a Neteller check there in person. Best case the big sites work around this problem for you.

The problem with this bill is making it difficult for the average fishie to bankroll his account at first. Fishies have been proven to have very short attention spans. You will get your money somehow that you have on the site.

MS Sunshine

[bob2007]

Agreed. The U.S. wants Americans to spend money within its own country. The government doesn't tax upon companies outside the US running online casinos. Those are businesses which are competing with your domestic BM cardrooms. There is most likely, pressure from the domestic casinos proposing for this law.

I really hate to see all the American fishes die out online. Save the fishes!!

[bull7]

As I understand this bill, it effects only credit card funding for online gaming. Most credit card companies already block these transactions anyway, due to the high default and fraud rates stemming from these type transactions.

The industry has known for a long time Congress was likely to restrict funding options. The writing has been clearling on the wall for a considerable time, esoecially since 9/11 and the all-out effort to "dry-up" potential terrorist funds.

Online gaming has not been banned. You are gambling essentially in the locale of the server. To prohibit gambling Congress would have to pass legislation requiring all U.S. ISP's to block access to these sites. That has not happened. Congress has not even yet acted to require the same ISPs to block "child porn" sites".

As I have outlines in previous posts, the internet poses a wide range of legal, ethical, and social issues our society has not even begun to address. Gradually though, our society will develop means of dealing witgh these unique issues. It is a very grey area, to say the least. The world wide web offers many benefits, as a product of our technological age. Still it poses threats as well. Our society must sort through some heavy issues invvolved in any potential regulation of the 'net. Freedom of speech, right to privacy, pursuit aand practice of free enterprise, and many other concepts must be weighed and carefully considered. This is still a huge legal area largely untapped to date.

For now, Neteller, for example, is a Canadian company which is allowed to do business with U.S. financial institutions. Wire transfers (or EFTs) to and from U.S. banks and Neteller have not been prohibited, either by law or regulation. Future credit card transactions through Neteller may be impacted in the future. I refused to pay the fees associated with this method of funding anyway.

Gaming web sites, then, face the challange of developing alternative funding methods not prohibited by U.S. law and/or banking regulations. I believe appropriate concepts can be easily developed to meet funding needs.

It is true, however, future funding methods may not be as convienent as is desireable to attract fish acting on impulse. So, as a fish I may have to plan ahead to fund my gaming addiction. Better yet, I may elect to pursue other forms of entertainment, which is the ultimate nightmare of all those I regularly feed. Still, with the increased exposure poker in general, and internet poker specifically has recently received, I believe me and all my fish friends will be readily available for explotation for the forseeable future.

Chill Out. . .be concerned, but it's not yet time to panic or withdrawl your bankrolls as though the bank is about to be looted.

[CreamPuff]

Gaming web sites, then, face the challange of developing alternative funding methods not prohibited by U.S. law and/or banking regulations. I believe appropriate concepts can be easily developed to meet funding needs.

I agree...Also Neteller needs to to wake up and
start another branch of business...Best I can tell
all they do is porn and gambling. If they
were to start an online auction site or something
banks would have a hard time cutting them off.
At worst neteller could just have every user agree
by way of a checkbox that the funds are not going to be
used for online gambling.

As far as the sites themselves go, they could literally
change banks and business names every week to
keep US banks off balance.

It also seems like someone could come up with a company
that assist US citizens in starting a foreign (Canada..)
bank account right from their own homes via internet....I know its
legal to have a foreign bank account as long as you
inform the US gov. about it...But not sure if the
foreign banks would let you start an account without
being there in person.(Maybe fax ID, etc)

[Ted Geisel]

This bill is MUCH more braodly worded than just credit cards. If it passes, forget about Electronic payments to gaming sites or to sites like Neteller, which are primarily gaming deposit portals.

PLEASE read the Bill.

Ted

[Ted Geisel]

Write to them ALL.

[bull7]

I don't think so Tim, err, Ted. The legislation concerns FUNDING. . .FUNDING . . .FUNDING . . . It does not prohibit the sites.

Anyway, there is no law at all yet. It hasn't passed the full Senate. If passed by full Senate, then the Senate & House have passed different versions. At best it will require a conference committee. Then IF a consenus is reached in conference comittee, it must pass both houses again w/o amendment, and be signed by President.

I wouldn't do any victory laps yet, Ted. This dog ain't hunting yet.

[lefty rosen]

I fear the worst after reading this bill any site that relys on American players primarily will become a ghosttown, if the rounders are the only ones left. Oh well British sites here I come...........

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The NETeller issue is unclear in the bill. It will be left up to the regulators to flesh out the definitions necessary to enforcement.

I believe that the reason there has been seemingly zero lobbying to this point is that the internet gaming industry understands implicitly that they are in a no-win situatuion at the *legislative* level. Support for the bill is basically bipartisan. The industry will focus its efforts to preserve its client base at the regulatory level. There is nothing stoppong the regulators from judging that US banks will be free to deal with NETeller.

Some of the best political lobbying occurs at touch points that are separated from the legislators.

I agree with Bull7 here and think we're all screaming "the sky is falling" when the industry hasn't even stepped to the plate. Ted's right in that the language of the bill indicates that NETeller can be included in the ban. But just because it *can* be doesn't mean it *will* be.

Bureaucrats hold more real power than legislators. They are also easier to manipulate. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about. But the the battle's far from over.

[Emperor]

If your read the bill it talks about what games are exempt.


Funding SITES that offer "Games of Education" i.e. Skill, where the "payout schedule is determined before the start of the game" are EXEMPT & LEGAL !!!

READ THE BILL!!!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

For this to be relevant, the site would have to exclusively offer tournaments.

[lefty rosen]

It's true it's not like these companies have rallied and tried to fight this proposed legislation. This industry is just too large for it to go away(as the republicans want). The only problem is as other players have stated if you make it too complicated to send money to various sites, that aren't British. You will have party's .5/1 resembling paradises 20/40 game and only 1 percent of players can beat that game.........

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

as the republicans want

If you really believe this is a partisan issue, I've got a bridge you can buy, real cheap.

Don't get me wrong, I know there's more support from the Dixiecrats that hijacked the GOP, but if there was any consensus opposition from the Democrats, this would have been killed in committee.

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
"What if you're a goofball that just catches cards?"
Sam Grizzle to Phil Helmuth a few hands before Phil eliminated him from the World Series 2003

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - You could also have " 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif - What Sam Grizzle called someone's all in raise with." I loved when he got pissed that the guy was holding jacks.

[Sarge85]

IF it is a FUNDING is designed to stop credit card, EFTs, or other electroninc based methods of money. What prevents me from going to my bank to purchase a cashiers check/money order/hell even a travelers check for XXX.00 and then mail that money order to my gaming site of choice. I realize that not all sites currently accept money orders (I know UB does though) but once purchase the money order isn't essentially cash?? The money is already withdrawn from my account...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The bank issuing the money order, or AMEX, still has to release the funds. If the law says it's illegal to release funds to a given recipient, the method of funds transfer is irrelevant. They won't do it.

[Mavraam]

That was the most entertaining hour of poker I've ever seen on TV. Give me Phil Helmuth and someone who's willing to get under his skin and you've got a fun round of poker!

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
So this means exactly what?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means, like always, "We're from the government, and we're here to help you."

[RollaJ]

Anyone else find it funny that at this point Iraqis have more freedom than we do.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Anyone else find it funny that at this point Iraqis have more freedom than we do.

Hey, I'm not happy about this legislation either, but your statement is so far from the truth it isn't even in the same galaxy.

[SirFoldsAlot]

Hey you can always fund your Party Poker account through Western Union and then move it to neteller...As long as internet gambling exists I am sure there will be a way to fund it

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Actually, I think I can still fund my Party account with my ATM. But it's been self-funding for a while [furiously knocking on wood]

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the reason there has been seemingly zero lobbying to this point is that the internet gaming industry understands implicitly that they are in a no-win situatuion at the *legislative* level. Support for the bill is basically bipartisan. The industry will focus its efforts to preserve its client base at the regulatory level. There is nothing stoppong the regulators from judging that US banks will be free to deal with NETeller.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you see zero lobbying for this bill is because the internet gaming industry is not terribly concerned with it. First, is restricts the actions of banks and credit card companies Not the players . Second, there are ways around it. Its going to be quite easy to fund your online poker accounts. You won't have to go to Canada or anything like that. I predict a year after this bill is passed it will be easier to fund your poker account than it is today.

Once this impotent bill is passed, congress will have considered its work done, firm in the belief they did everything they could to stop internet gambling. At least thats what they can say to thier constituents. The industry won't have anything to worry about for the next ten years. The democrats will blame the republicans for ramming an internet gaming ban that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor(and for once they may just be right).

Stu

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, there are ways around it. Its going to be quite easy to fund your online poker accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assumption: The regulating agency in place when this bill becomes law will flag Neteller and all similiar sites that may spring up.

What methods do you forsee coming about that will make funding an account easier?

[GrannyMae]

What methods do you forsee coming about that will make funding an account easier?

i'm not attempting to answer for stu, because i am really interested in his ideas as well.

it was told to me tonight that a US Postal Money order and a 37 cent stamp would satisfy sites.
this "simple" solution would be good for the veterans, but maybe not so good for the impetuous newbies. however, a way around the "wait-time" that would result from this is by allowing players to establish a line of credit where approved players could get chips immediately. it is like a marker for a check in the mail.

this is one thing that can be done, but is illustrative of the type of alternatives that could be used immediately if necessary. what may happen, AT WORST, is that there will be an entire shift in the process to fund the accounts. players will not like it, but they would get used to it.

further, cashouts would be very simple. we would be mailed a bank draft. again, these are not optimal solutions, but they clearly show that internet poker could operate just fine, even if the funding prohibition were signed into law.

we will be fine. we just may have to get used to new procedures. if we cooperate and embrace the new ways of doing things, and MAKE SURE to support the different ideas as a group, internet poker will be here forever.

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/icon_grouphug.gif

[jek187]

While the money order idea may or may not be feasible (Some have said on here that they wouldn't work under the new law) I certainly don't see this being easier. That was the part that really intrigued me about Stu's statement.

[GrannyMae]

i absolutely agree that nothing could be easier than the current program, that is why i wanted to hear more from stu.

as far as the money orders, everyone is missing an important distinction about money orders.

there are basically 2 types: us postal, and the REST.

the REST are all drawn off of financial institutions and therefore disallowed. us postal money orders are like cash, and are not an instrument of any financial institution.

would the feds close this loophole? maybe.

however, the current proposed bill does not address this issue, and it is doubtful that the language would be changed to include postal money orders.

the beauty of it, according to a site person i spoke to, was that the federal government would in essence be our new funding method.

now *that's* democracy.

http://emoticons4u.informationalot.com/country/flag46.gif