Lawmaker Seeks to ‘Gamble’ with Families’ Futures
by: Doug Carlson - Jun 2, 2009 - comments: 1
In late 2006, the online gambling industry was dealt what many hoped would be its death blow. Less than three years later, the battle begins anew.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the Internet gambling industry’s biggest cheerleaders, has introduced legislation in Congress with a two-fold aim: to legalize online gambling in the United States and tax its revenue. His target is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. The act was designed to starve the multi-billion-dollar Internet gambling industry of profit by blocking financial institutions from handling online gambling transactions.
The law is showing success. Even though the regulations will not take effect until December, online gambling has already taken a hit. A University of Pennsylvania study found that Internet gambling among college students dropped significantly one year after its passage. And Canadian researchers found that solicitation of Americans to wager by offshore sites has been cut in half.
But these successes could be reversed. Under Rep. Frank’s bill, H.R. 2267, online gambling would become legal in the United States, requiring only that the sites become regulated and licensed by the U.S. Treasury. This would neuter not only the 2006 law, but also gambling laws dating back nearly a half-century. Contrary to widespread myth, online gambling did not become illegal in the U.S. with passage of the 2006 law. The practice has always been illegal, as covered by a 1961 law on wireless communication.
Adding to its flaws, H.R. 2267 is also deceptively crafted, leading many to believe online sports betting would still be banned. In reality, it provides no such exception. That’s why all the major sports associations—the National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, and the NCAA—have locked arms to defeat Rep. Frank’s efforts. A joint May 14 letter by the sports groups to the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by the congressman, underscores the hidden truth: “H.R. 2267 reverses nearly 50 years of clear federal policy against sports betting and it opens the door wide to sports gambling on the Internet.”
A sister bill introduced by the 15-term congressman is no better. H.R. 2266 would simply buy Internet gambling profiteers more time to skirt the law by pushing back one year the date by which financial institutions must comply under the 2006 law.
There is no escaping the harsh realities of Internet gambling. It is anything but harmless entertainment. Some call it the crack cocaine of gambling. Its addictiveness often breeds financial ruin, devastating lives and dividing families. As families continue to fall apart at horrifying rates, Internet gambling laws to protect them from heartache should be celebrated not subverted.
If you agree, please tell your representative to oppose H.R. 2266 and H.R. 2267, as well as any other bill that would weaken the widely supported Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Addictions, Gambling, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Legislation
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Jun 3rd, 2009, at 1:49pm, Ross Wolf wrote:
I live in Nevada. Interestingly I can find nothing published concerning whether Nevada unions support or oppose Rep. Barney Frank’s bill H.R.2267 to legalize online gambling? I have not been able to determine which if any “casino/hotel employee unions” support or oppose Rep. Frank’s bill H.R.2267. This bill if passed would repeal the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006” and legalize Online Casino Gambling. Online casinos don’t hire Casino/hotel employees; bartenders, kitchen workers; bellhops and card dealers.
Legalization of Internet gambling will provide millions of Americans lawful access to online gambling; any home with a computer has the potential of becoming a 24/7 Casino. It is problematic “legalized online gambling” might take market share from Nevada’s brick and mortar casinos e.g., if California gamblers elect not to travel when they can gamble in comfort at home.