Barney Frank's Attempt To Allow & Tax Online Gambling Moves Forward (Again)

from the with-caveats dept

Back in 2006, some politicians included a bill that effectively banned online gambling as a part of a law designed to protect our ports (don’t ask what one has to do with the other). Pretty much since then, Rep. Barney Frank has been seeking to legalize online gambling (in order to tax it), and he just got a step closer to that as the House Finance Committee has passed a version of his bill. There were, not surprisingly, complaints against how this bill would “bring gambling into everyone’s homes,” but that ignores (of course) that it’s already available in homes, and the feds have long admitted that they have no idea how to enforce the original law.

Of course, this is not the first time that the House Finance Committee has approved such a bill, and in the past it went nowhere. So, there’s still a half decent chance that this really means nothing much.

Still, there are some interesting provisions in the bill, as a few amendments were added, including banning the companies who have currently been letting Americans play poker online from getting approved for a license. Yes, all of those online gambling sites who are still offering services and hoping this bill passes… may get shut out by it. Of course, they might have a pretty strong legal case that this is not legal, seeing as some courts have suggested that poker is not technically gambling. Another amendment would bar those who are behind in child support payments from visiting online gambling sites, though I don’t see how they enforce that one.

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 “Barney Frank's Attempt To Allow & Tax Online Gambling Moves Forward (Again)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Barney Frank is a joke.

He is the same person who believes “we can tax enough of the rich people”

I wish I was kidding but Source

Just to show how scary Barney Frank is… Meltdown.

And it’s a problem we have today…

The same politicians that have helped to cause our downfall are still in their positions!

We, the US, really need to work on our incumbency rate.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Cheating

> that’s the rub, anything you can do to improve
> your odds, the “house” gets it made illegal to do it

Not true. Card-counting has been specifically ruled not to be cheating, per the Nevada Supreme Court. Cheating at a casino is a crime and if caught doing it, you can go to prison. When the court ruled card-counting is not cheating, that meant the only thing the casino can do is kick you off their property for doing it. They can’t call the police, have you arrested/charged, etc.

Michial Thompson (user link) says:

Re: Re:

Actually they should be concerned about it. The US will just keep the same pressures on them which are simply to make it difficult for players to send and receive money from them. This will basically send the traffic to the sites that can simply take your credit, debit, or paypal money and let you play.

Most CC companies, paypal, western union and money gram all refuse to allow money to be sent to these companies. So if the US keeps this same pressure on them then the customers will go where it’s the easiest.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Incorrect. I currently work in Gibraltar, where a lot of UK gaming companies are based (those from other European countries tend to prefer Malta). At least 2 of the gaming companies here were sent to the brink of bankruptcy after these laws were enforced, and the CEOs of several companies arrested when in the US for either business or pleasure.

I think that most gaming companies would love to target the large US market free from the threat of arrest and imprisonment for doing something completely above board.

Michial Thompson (user link) says:

Child Support restriction

little mikee;

It’s not so much about how they would enforce the rule on not letting those with back child support play on these sites, but rather what they would be able to do with them.

Currently they are pretty rough on people with back child support, do things like take their drivers license and any professional licenses away, even their fishing licemse. Which is all somehow supposed to encourage them to pay. I’m not sure how taking a Drs licence to practice his profession away actually can help him pay, or how taking a truckers license to drive a truck away helps, but thats just some of the things they do.

They can also put guys in jail for not paying. Currently that sentence cannot exceed a year because the tecnical charge is contempt of court. By adding the charge of gambling while behind on child support they can simply add to the time in jail and futher delay the payments for child support. OH what sense does it make to also put someone in jail for a year for not paying, AND also keep racking up the support amounts that they are behind???

Anyway, as I said, it’s not about preventing them from playing online, just about the sentence that can be handed down.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The thing that I find interesting is that the reason for allowing online gambling is that then we can tax it.

You have it backwards. The way it’s supposed to work is that there has to be a really compelling reason to disallow something, otherwise it’s allowed. In this case, the ban is to protect the profits of casinos and dog and horse tracks. So the reason to allow online gambling is that the law banning it has no legitimate purpose.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not to turn this into a religious thread but there’s a few states that ban gambling on religious grounds. If I had to name a few, it’d be Utah or even Colorado.

So what happens is that people play online to get around the hard ban.

Like I said, it becomes an entirely different ball game once people get religion involved with gambling.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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...