S.1668 - Restoration of America's Wire Act (1 Viewer)

[mummel]

Bye bye online poker?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1668

Restoration of America's Wire Act

Amends provisions of the federal criminal code, commonly known as the Wire Act, to provide that the prohibition against using a wire communication facility for the transmission of bets or wagers, wagering information, or wagering proceeds shall: (1) apply to any bet or wager (currently, to bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest); and (2) include any transmission over the Internet carried interstate or in foreign commerce.

States that nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt any state law prohibiting gambling or to alter, limit, or extend: (1) the relationship between the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 and other federal laws currently in effect, (2) the ability of a state licensed lottery or state licensed retailer to make on-premises retail lottery sales or to transmit information ancillary to such sales, (3) the ability of a state licensed gaming establishment or a tribal gaming establishment to transmit information assisting in the placing of a bet or water on the physical premises of the establishment, or (4) the relationship between federal laws and state charitable gaming laws.

 

[abby99]

Just goes to show what -- make that who -- money can buy.

Brought to you by the party that believes in states' rights (except when they don't) and fewer government regulations (except to ban something they don't like). I'm so glad that they know what's best for me, because I'm certainly too stupid to figure it out for myself.

 

[David O]

This may not be a "party" thing but more of a revenue thing. Yes 8 of the nine sponsors are Republicans but you also have one Democrat cosponsoring this bill, Dianne Feinstein from California. That person is 6 out of the 9 sponsors/cosponsors come from states with legalized gambling of some sort. They are trying to protect the local gaming income which brings in a bunch of revenue through tax dollars!

I think they are all idiots and need to be replaced! They need to leave this alone and get on to something real important like removing Ethanol form fuel!!!

 

[DrStrange]

Both political parties have reasons to dislike on-line gambling and neither one really means it when they talk about individual liberty in general.

 

[jbutler]

Both political parties have reasons to dislike on-line gambling and neither one really means it when they talk about individual liberty in general.

Absolutely true. But it seems that Republicans are currently the party most antagonistic to online gambling. Sort of like how all religions are insane, but it can't be said that they're all currently at equal risk of, say, blowing up a subway car.

I'm just saying, if someone sees a Republican at night walking toward an online casino with a piece of legislation in hand, it might in the best interest of that online casino to cross the street.

 

[David O]

Absolutely true. But it seems that Republicans are currently the party most antagonistic to online gambling. Sort of like how all religions are insane, but it can't be said that they're all currently at equal risk of, say, blowing up a subway car.

I'm just saying, if someone sees a Republican at night walking toward an online casino with a piece of legislation in hand, it might in the best interest of that online casino to cross the street.

I still believe it is more about land based casino revenue. Why else would Dianne Feinstein be a cosponsor. I am sure they feel they will lose their tax money to companies in other states.

 

[jbutler]

I still believe it is more about land based casino revenue. Why else would Dianne Feinstein be a cosponsor. I am sure they feel they will lose their tax money to companies in other states.

Definitely Feinstein is beholden to the land-based casino interests and is merely shilling for those dollars. She is trash in many other respects as well. I'm just saying that Republicans and Democrats aren't equally bad on this issue. They are on plenty, but not this one (for an example of Dems being worse, see their denial of who is likely to blow up a subway car).

My own nonsensical psychoanalysis, but I think part of it is that Republicans still have that nagging moralism that keeps them wanting to vote down gambling in every respect and that contributes a lot to their more commonly holding an anti-online gambling stance.

 

[mummel]

Land casinos need to be supported IMO. Creates lots of jobs. Having to drive to the casino is at least some barrier for people that may be developing addiction issues etc. But how many people go to a casino for poker only? The vast majority are there for other games/entertainment. I think online poker would grow the overall market vs cannibalizing casinos (plus poker isnt very profitable for casinos). And casinos can still tun big tourneys etc. Supporting online poker only and land based casinos makes sense to me.

 

[jbutler]

Land casinos need to be supported IMO. Creates lots of jobs.

Maybe the worst possible argument for casinos.

Mandatory amputation of one toe every ten years by every citizen must be supported. Creates lots of jobs.

 

[mummel]

Maybe the worst possible argument for casinos.

Mandatory amputation of one toe every ten years by every citizen must be supported. Creates lots of jobs.

vs. an online poker company? Not even comparable. Think about the day to day operations, let along the jobs created from building the infrastructure. I think the Wynn Boston will have 4,000 employees. Amaya has ~2,000 employees. If I'm going to legalize gambling and want to create jobs doing so, land based casinos are the way to.

 

[jbutler]

vs. an online poker company? Not even comparable. Think about the day to day operations, let along the jobs created from building the infrastructure. I think the Wynn Boston will have 4,000 employees. Amaya has ~2,000 employees. If I'm going to legalize gambling and want to create jobs doing so, land based casinos are the way to.

Many more than 2000 jobs will be created if we mandate periodic amputation so I think their lobby will likely overwhelm the gaming lobby in the near future.

 

[gopherblue]

Jack, why do you have a picture of Arnold Horshack as your avatar?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Sheldon Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Venetian, Palazzo and more) has been pushing this for years. This is not new. Adelson has contributed millions to politicians (mostly republicans) to get online gaming killed.

Yes, there are villains on both sides of the isle, but far more repubs than dems.

As for job creation - Vegas jobs increased during the online poker boom. When the republican party slipped anti-gambling legislation into the port security act and online rooms got shut down, live poker card-rooms closed as well, costing jobs.

If you're concerned about creating jobs, you will create more jobs at mandatory toe amputation clinics that you will by criminalizing online poker.

Land of the free? Bullshit. Land of the "I want to make more money" is more like it... and like a bunch of idiots we just elected a shady businessman to lead us further from freedom and deeper into the land where the rich get richer and the poor and middle-class become serfs.

 

[jbutler]

Jack, why do you have a picture of Arnold Horshack as your avatar?

It's a dick pic.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Sheldon Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Venetian, Palazzo and more) has been pushing this for years. This is not new. Adelson has contributed millions to politicians (mostly republicans) to get online gaming killed.

Yes, there are villains on both sides of the isle, but far more repubs than dems.

As for job creation - Vegas jobs increased during the online poker boom. When the republican party slipped anti-gambling legislation into the port security act and online rooms got shut down, live poker card-rooms closed as well, costing jobs.

If you're concerned about creating jobs, you will create more jobs at mandatory toe amputation clinics that you will by criminalizing online poker.

Land of the free? Bullshit. Land of the "I want to make more money" is more like it... and like a bunch of idiots we just elected a shady businessman to lead us further from freedom and deeper into the land where the rich get richer and the poor and middle-class become serfs.

Poker room attendance dropped off on black friday, but so did the economy. I think poker room decreases are more likely a result of the failing economy than the laws that made it more difficult to play on-line.

Of course, since they are correlated events, we might as well blame the recession on black friday.

 

[abby99]

Would the RAWA force New Jersey and other states to roll back their legalization of online poker?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Would the RAWA force New Jersey and other states to roll back their legalization of online poker?

Yes.

 

[abby99]

Interesting article on Adelson and ten US State Attorneys General.

Money talks.

 

[DrStrange]

There are more Republican elected officials than Democrats which leads to more anti-poker Republicans than anti-poker Democrats. That doesn't mean one party is more hostile to gambling than the other. We would need a better set of data to figure it out.

I don't know that the situation would be any different in an age of Democratic dominance. There is a wide agreement in leftist policy that gambling affects the poor adversely far more than it benefits society. Just because a physical casino employs a big workforce does not mean the economy as a whole benefited.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think the Democrats would let you play on-line poker more often than the Republicans.

 

[jbutler]

There are more Republican elected officials than Democrats which leads to more anti-poker Republicans than anti-poker Democrats. That doesn't mean one party is more hostile to gambling than the other. We would need a better set of data to figure it out.

I don't know that the situation would be any different in an age of Democratic dominance. There is a wide agreement in leftist policy that gambling affects the poor adversely far more than it benefits society. Just because a physical casino employs a big workforce does not mean the economy as a whole benefited.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think the Democrats would let you play on-line poker more often than the Republicans.

I guess you rely on the small sample size for that conclusion because the available evidence regarding votes concerning online gambling prohibitions indicates that Republicans are quite a bit more likely to support the prohibition.

Taking account of the votes on the UIGEA:

In the House, Republicans voted 201-17 in favor of the regulation and Democrats were split 115-76 in favor. So the gap was fairly wide: 91% Republican support versus just under 34% Democratic support.

In the Senate, the vote was 98-0, unanimously in favor. At that time the Senate was 55 (R), 44 (D), 1 (I).​

Have you seen any examples on the Federal level of proportionally higher Dem than Repub support for online gambling prohibitions?

 

[mummel]

It's a dick pic.

 

[DrStrange]

I would be hard pressed to parse out the partisan votes against Speaker Hastert / partisan votes whipped for Speaker Hastert from Representatives voting on their actual political beliefs when casting votes for the 2006 UIGEA. What we can see from the Senate side of the vote was that in 2006 there was no appetite for supporting on-line poker from either party.

Perhaps we can find solace in figuring out which political party hates on line poker the least. Or perhaps entertainment value in debating why such animosity exists. What we are not going to find is hope that either party is going to champion a rebirth of on-line poker.

Better to hope for / work for the government staying out of our home games. -=- DrStrange

 

[abby99]

Better to hope for / work for the government staying out of our home games

Home games are already illegal in several states, including my current state of Illinois. It seems that law enforcement chooses to ignore relatively small non-raked games. I don't think the Illinois legislature will ever make home games legal because of the efforts (by which I mean money) of the casinos and the horse racing industry.

What I can't stomach is the hypocrisy of allowing some forms of gambling while banning others, especially when the correlation between legality and the flow of money is positive. The horse racing lobby in Illinois is strong, hence betting on horse racing is legal. Poker is legal when played in a casino but not when played among friends in an unraked home game. Claims that online poker should be illegal because it's impossible to prevent minors from playing are ridiculous, especially in a state that actively markets the purchase of lottery tickets online.

As I've said many times, follow the money. I find this to be disgusting.

 

[mummel]

follow the money

Always this. Ive said the same thing for years. Use the same principal when reading a "news" story. There is always some agenda, always.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Of course, since they are correlated events, we might as well blame the recession on black friday.

This is exactly why I blame the annual onset of severe winter weather on the mass turkey slaughter that happens in late fall.

 

[Mental Nomad]

That doesn't mean one party is more hostile to gambling than the other.

The Religious right and Evangelicals have been courted by Republicans for decades. As the relationship strengthened, the Republican party became less concerned with personal freedoms and more concerned with legislating a particular morality, and that includes the strong Evangelical opposition to gambling.

 

[jbutler]

I would be hard pressed to parse out the partisan votes against Speaker Hastert / partisan votes whipped for Speaker Hastert from Representatives voting on their actual political beliefs when casting votes for the 2006 UIGEA. What we can see from the Senate side of the vote was that in 2006 there was no appetite for supporting on-line poker from either party.

Perhaps we can find solace in figuring out which political party hates on line poker the least. Or perhaps entertainment value in debating why such animosity exists. What we are not going to find is hope that either party is going to champion a rebirth of on-line poker.

Better to hope for / work for the government staying out of our home games. -=- DrStrange

This is an argument calling into question the efficiency of supporting one party over another which is quite different from your previous statement that people are kidding themselves if they think that Democrats are more likely to support online poker than Republicans. All available evidence that I've seen suggests otherwise.

I'm not advocating voting for Democrats because they're less likely to oppose online poker, but to imply that the parties are equally bad on this point is not supported by the facts.

 

[SteveHNo96]

I'm not advocating voting for Democrats because they're less likely to oppose online poker, but to imply that the parties are equally bad on this point is not supported by the facts.

The Democrats had control of the Senate (with a filibuster-proof majority), White House and House of Representatives for like 14 months, and they would rather have punished people for not buying health care than work to repeal the 2006 Act.

The reality is I was hoping Trump would bring in business tycoons and just ask "Why the heck is this illegal?"

 

[Mental Nomad]

The reality is I was hoping Trump would bring in business tycoons and just ask "Why the heck is this illegal?"

Trump, and the kind of tycoons he's likely to bring in, are more likely to be the type that say, "freer online poker would harm our existing gambling businesses at casinos and tracks, so we'll make it even more illegal."

Strong history of self-dealing and self-interest above all else.

 

[12thMan]

Strong history of self-dealing and self-interest above all else.

That statement can be applied equally to both political parties with out a doubt, the issue of online gambling is not any different. Check out how blue Seattle and the rest of Western Washington is, then look up the only state in the nation where simply playing online poker is an actual felony. Can't imagine the strong lobbying efforts/"partnerships" of our beloved tribes and Democratic politicians had anything to do with that... As always it's about money.