Whitehouse Accused Of Trying To Push Through Anti-Gambling Regulation No One Wants

from the hurry-up-and-regulate dept

Even as some of our elected representatives are trying to re-legalize poker, the White House appears to be trying to shove through the regulations put in place a couple years ago to stop online gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 put the responsibility on financial institutions to stop any financial transactions used in online gambling. As we see all too often, it’s a situation where the government is putting the liability on a third party to stop an undesirable activity, rather than on those actually involved in the activity. Not surprisingly, financial institutions have been protesting any regulations enforcing this law — and with the current financial collapse going on, they’re pushing back hard on any effort to enforce the law. So, what happens? Apparently, the White House has assigned a former NFL lobbyist working for the White House to try to force the regulations through, apparently putting tremendous pressure to get things moving. Congress is now asking the White House to explain why they’re trying to rush this through, just as financial institutions are having so much trouble. It certainly does raise questions. Considering the push to reverse the law in the first place, combined with the protests from financial institutions that it shouldn’t be their problem to stop online gambling, why is the White House putting excess pressure to try to make it happen?

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Whitehouse Accused Of Trying To Push Through Anti-Gambling Regulation No One Wants”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
21 Comments
Gyffes (profile) says:

Slash and Burn

Frankly, I’m surprised Bush isn’t salting the Rose Garden, he’s going out in such a blaze of inglorious regulations: it’ll take Obama his entire first term (Christ, I hope he gets 2.. maybe we can amend the constitution to get him a few more terms?) just to undo the damage the Bush Admin is causing in these final months, let alone HAS caused over the past 8 years.

*sigh*

Thank god the rest of the Supreme Court justices hung on, no?

Simple Mind says:

Re: Slash and Burn

Wait until he (Obama) actually does anything before you start petitioning him for godhood why don’t you? Amending the constitution the way you suggest would be a very bad law.

The fact is that it is very difficult to get rid of laws in this country once they are on the books. Even for a bad law there is always someone benefiting from it that will fight to keep it, and the status-quo has the advantage. That is why things keep getting worse.

What we need badly is an automated review process. Prior to implementation of a law the intended goals and timetable must be stated. If the goals are not met in the given time the law is automatically repealed. This would remove all stupid “vice” laws since the goal of eliminating (or even reducing) the vice is never achieved.

Simple Mind says:

I enjoy internet poker

I (used to) play texas hold’em online quite often. Over the long run I lose money at it. But the amount is insignificant to my net worth. I am not stupid. I do not need the gubment babying me or holding my hand in this matter. Get out of my life where it does not concern you or any one else! At some point I may actually get angry. You won’t like me when I am angry.

eleete (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well your assumption that I am a republican certainly made an ass of one of us. I don’t live with my mother and that can be found out rather easily. As for republicans sucking, the link I provided proves that in this post, they both suck equally because they BOTH voted FOR the legislation in question. Have fun with THAT !

pranks4fun says:

Re: Re:

Wow, Prosecutor – still on that Socialist thing? You don’t even know what socialism is, do you? All you conservatives must be shaking in your boots right now, with the promise of DEADLY CHANGE hanging over your heads.

I, for one, AM “thirsting” for an increase in regulations. If you’ve read anything about the economic collapse, then you’d know that the Bush camp was explicit in removing limitations *ahem, regulations* on securities trading, which directly contributed to the problem (if not singlehandedly causing it). Regulation isn’t always a bad thing; this article shows that regulation can be misguided and implemented poorly, Bush is always good for demonstrating that, but I don’t see how you can complain about a push for regulation at this point in time.

I don’t see where your fear of socialism comes from, either. Adam Smith himself, the father of capitalism, advocated the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor. “Spreading the wealth” in this way is the only thing about Obama that might smack of socialism, according to McCain’s vitriolic campaign at least, though it DOESN’T.
The government owning major stakes in our finance industry is cause for greater worry, and that was – oh look – the solution that Bush’s crowd came up with.

Bottom line? Don’t worry about increased regulation – Obama is smart. And don’t be afraid that Obama is a socialist, he’s not anywhere near. Besides, you’ve got much bigger things to be scared of right now than our president-elect.

pranks4fun says:

Read past the headline, willya


“Frankly, I’m surprised Bush isn’t salting the Rose Garden,”

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm

Don’t know what you’re trying to say, eleete. Clinton didn’t salt the Rose Garden; his staff members pulled a few pranks, and nobody’s mad about it (except you, apparently). There was some damage, but Bush’s own General Accounting Office said it was “…consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy.”

I suspect you think that you’re providing evidence about how republicans are better than democrats. You just look like a petty and bitter partisan loser to me.

Instead, why don’t you try to actually defend Bush’s recent behavior, which includes bypassing Congress to pass many deregulation rules that will – without question – have a huge negative impact on the environment and public health? Not to mention, of course, this really stupid legislation on regulating online gambling through banks.

This is the “salting the Rose Garden” metaphor – Bush is trying to do as much as he can before he leaves, as any president would, but turns out the vast majority of Americans (76%, in fact) agree with me that his priorities and policies are destructive to our national interest along many fronts.

If you have anything actually logical to say about Bush, instead of trying and failing to bash Clinton, I’d love to hear it.

eleete (user link) says:

Re: Read past the headline, willya

“Clinton didn’t salt the Rose Garden; his staff members pulled a few pranks, and nobody’s mad about it (except you, apparently).”

Funny, $20,000 worth of ‘pranks’ and an investigation into the matter, but I’m the only one mad? First off, I provided a link and commented nothing. You ASSumed. I also didn’t say anything about salting the Rose Garden, the inference was, trashing the White House, the link shows that it’s been done before.

I am not a republican, I did not vote for McCain, but I do criticize my government when either party fails their constituents. That happens more often than you think.

Also, I can barely defend Any of Bush’s actions nor have I, but I see YOU asserted your partisan opinion quite nicely.

“this really stupid legislation on regulating online gambling through banks.”
If you bothered to read the other link I posted here, you would know it was voted for on both sides, Dems and Repubs. In your eyes, the ‘perfect party’ you contend, voted for the very item you damned in your post.

Now, do YOU have anything logical to add ? I’d love to hear it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...