Latest On US Online Gambling Ban
Published: Friday, May 26, 2006 Online-Casinos.com
LATEST ON US ONLINE GAMBLING BAN
As we went to press today the news was emerging through IGN that the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee approved Rep. Bob Goodlatte's HR 4777,
"Internet Gambling Prohibition Act" as well as Rep. James
Leach's HR 4411, "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act of 2006."
The decision of the committee means that both bills take another step forward
and will proceed to the full House of Representatives for further consideration.
Predictably, the question of allowing Internet horse racing betting came up
and was debated, with an amendment introduced that clarifies that HR4777 makes
no judgment about the legality of remote horse race wagering and instead leaves
the issue to the Department of Justice to interpret whether or not it believes
the Interstate Horseracing Act permits such wagering. Rep. Chris Cannon
was mainly responsible for the amendment and revealed that he and Goodlatte
had worked together to create the recent amendment to make Goodlatte's bill
clearly neutral on horse racing. Cannon and Goodlatte also stated that the Department
of Justice approves of the Goodlatte bill in its new amended form. The move
was seen as a sidestep designed to avoid the "carve out" pitfalls
that have had such a negative effect on earlier attempts to strangle online
gambling.
Another amendment, proposed by Rep. Robert Wexler and intended to include
all remote pari-mutuel wagering, including dog track and jai alai wagering as
part of the horse racing carve-out, failed.
A follow-up amendment attempt by Wexler sought to ban all online gambling, but
Goodlatte urged against the bill on the grounds that it would restrict states'
rights - another contentious area in the past. Goodlatte called the amendment
a "poison pill," stating that it threatened to kill the bill by removing
protections that ensure legal gambling stays within the states. Wexler's second
amendment was also defeated.
Goodlatte stated that that he is working with the banking industry on their
problems with his legislation and will continue to do so, thus adroitly side-stepping
other amendments that Rep.Robert Scott had been about to propose in regard
to the obligations placed upon the banking sector.
Scott introduced an amendment that would have caused a furore among online gamblers.
He sought to impose a criminal fine on anyone who places an illegal wager over
the Internet, but it was defeated.
After almost an hour and a half of debate and consideration, Goodlatte's bill
came to a vote before the committee in its amended form and passed 25-11. Before
the committee moved on to the next order of business, Scott submitted to the
record a letter from the government of Antigua that stressed concerns that Goodlatte's
bill violated international trade laws established by the World Trade Organization.
Goodlatte's office distributed a press release almost immediately after the
bill's passage. According to the statement:
"The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act allows states to continue to regulate
gambling within their borders with tight controls to be sure that it does not
extend beyond their borders or to minors. It also prohibits a gambling business
from accepting certain forms of payment, including credit cards, checks, wire
and Internet transfers, in illegal gambling transactions. The legislation also
allows federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement officials to seek injunctions
to prevent and restrain violations of this Act and obtain cooperation in the
fight against illegal gambling."
Later in the afternoon the committee addressed Rep. James Leach's Unlawful Internet
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The bill passed by a voice vote in less than
five minutes, with the only relevant action of note being a proposed amendment
from Cannon that attempted to make the bill more consistent with the Wire Act
by clarifying that wagers that violate the Wire Act should be blocked. Rep.
John Conyers stated that he opposed HR 4411 and Rep. Scott stated that
it, like HR 4777, does not appear to prohibit online gambling, only the offering
of such services.
It is anticipated that the Judiciary and Banking Committees may work to integrate
the two bills.
