Internet Horse Betting

[brndog]

:mad: :mad: Interesting bill before Congress.


http:///www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B8EC9ED82%2DFBEE%2D431D%2D9681%2D 2F474A49BD71%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

[46zilzal]

Interesting bill before Congress.
]
those third party folks want to tell you how you can spend your money or indebtedness

[Jeff P]

This is really sad even if (hopefully) it fails or if the racing industry flexes its muscle a little and gets an exclusion rider attached to the bill. I used to live in AZ and met Jon Kyl at one of those $100.00 a a plate fund raiser dinners several years ago. My gut feeling at the time was that this man cares not for the interests of the common man and that his only real agenda lay in furthering his own ends. He struck me as a clever "actor" who could pretend to smile for the camera while harboring disdain inside for those whom he was chosen to represent. This turned me off and I quitely removed myself from the circle of friends that I was involved with at the time who were interested in politics. Here it is almost two decades later and I see that nothing about this man has changed. IMHO, the very idea of trying to legislate morality is a dangerous one and goes against the very ideals upon which this country was founded.

-jp


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B8EC9ED82-FBEE-431D-9681-2F474A49BD71%7D&siteid=google

[andicap]

those third party folks want to tell you how you can spend your money or indebtedness

Third party? What third party? Kyl's a Republican.

[QuarterCrack]

I hope this never passes.
It would be a death sentence as far as my play goes.
:(

[PaceAdvantage]

This sounds a bit naive:

"We are paying very close attention to the bill," he added. "But we are confident that Mr. Kyl and other members of the Senate do not want to interfere with legal parimutuel betting [and that] whatever legislation passes will adequately protect racing."

Confident? WHY?

[Hammerhead]

After reading the article I can't even make a sane comment about this blithering idiot, self serving jerk.

[Zman179]

I wouldn't mind if the bill passed one way or the other. Because if it failed, then I would just continue to play the horses on the internet. And if it was passed into law, then I would bet on the horses still (at NYC OTB), but with far less frequence, and I would save money in the long run.

As far as Kyl goes, which one poster referred to as a "self serving jerk", you have to understand that Kyl is anti-gambling to the core. Nonetheless, all of Kyl's bills have failed beforehand and there's no reason to believe that the same will not happen here.

[highnote]

It seems to me that if this bill tries to prevent financial transactions for gambling purposes then financial transaction for any other purpose also has to be banned. No more using your credit card to pay for any service on the internet. Why should gambling be treated differently than any other service?

There are a lot of porn sites on the web that seem just as bad for underage people as gambling.

Can anyone give a good explanation why gambling is different then say buying Beanie Babies on EBay in hopes of selling them later at a higher price when there is a very real chance they could decline in value?

What is Kyl's argument?

If his argument is so persuasive then why haven't other countries adopted this same policy?

Maybe he has this agenda because gambling is an easy and safe target and he thinks it makes him look good to be anti-gambling?

Maybe if he thought being anti-gambling would cost him votes he would change his position?

[Zman179]

If his argument is so persuasive then why haven't other countries adopted this same policy?

Probably because other countries aren't so thickly tied to puritanism as the US. However, there have been instances where other countries have put forth anti-gambling legislation. The Netherlands, one of the most free-thinking countries on the planet, outlawed gambling on the internet from sites situated outside The Netherlands...only because it was siphoning business from the state-run gambling businesses. They say that "you can bet, but you'll have to bet with us."

Maybe he has this agenda because gambling is an easy and safe target and he thinks it makes him look good to be anti-gambling?
Maybe if he thought being anti-gambling would cost him votes he would change his position?

In his district, being anti-gambling is a plus. Arizona has never been, and will probably never be, known as a gambling-friendly territory. Legislation to help the state's horse & dog tracks has been shot down time and time again, and what help has come has always been slow to arrive.

[highnote]

Thanks, Zman. Makes sense.

[Bathless]

I don't know what Mr. Kyl's agenda is, but if he's going to get support for his bill in Congress, the issue will be lost revenues, not anti-gambling. I remember as a kid that everyone played 'the numbers' through the friendly neighborhood bookie. What the pols objected to was not the gambling but that some people were making money without paying their fair share to Uncle and to the states. Thus, the lotteries were born. We Americans don't mind pissing away $$ on lottery tickets, but we scream at any hint of a tax increase. So the pols took the path of least resistance -- and they became the bookies.

Politicians realize that their constituents are not going to give up their gambling or their other vices; the pols just want to make sure that they get their cut of the game. For the most part, our legislators are elitists who think they know what's best for us; but they also know how far they can push. So they'll allow us to gamble, smoke and drink, as long as we pay for the privilege. And nobody is paying them through the offshore outlets.

[Skanoochies]

Zman179 (or anyone else) can you explain to me how they can police that? :confused:

[GMB@BP]

I see this affecting a company like Youbet and TVG if it were to become fruition, which I think is a longshot.

How can they stop you from sending western union to whatever offshore compnay you would like? Sure they may be able to stop a direct wire transer from party to party, but throw in a paypal or netteller and I dont see how they can even do a thing.

[eclecticapper]

Looks like a case of history repeating itself; Kyl tried this in the late '90s and was up for re-election in 2000. Here we are in 2005 with Kyl up for re-election in 2006, so in part he's likely trying to appeal to his political base. One thing that resulted from his last attempt is that the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 was modified by Congress:

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/Horse-Racing-Act.htm

[andicap]

Overreaction is the price we pay for the Internet I guess.

Story in Thursday's DRF that should reassure people where the government is negotiatig with the WTO so that the country gets into compliance with its rules without turning the Internet bookies wild.
Seems Kyl's bill is meant as leverage in these talks.

Kyl's bill will never pass unless US-WTO talks break down. Compromise is inevitable.

http://drf.com/news/article/65264.html

[kenwoodallpromos]

AZ residents' gambling includes going over the NV border to Laughlin to gamble live or indian casinos in AZ, and R-Pombo is trying to stop any more of them.

[Vegas711]

The question concerning Kyle is who is lining his pockets on this one. I learned a long time ago there is no such thing as a honest politician. How can a politician take a stand on morality when they themselves are corrupt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[highnote]

Kyl's bill will never pass unless US-WTO talks break down. Compromise is inevitable.

http://drf.com/news/article/65264.html

From the link above:

"Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, has begun circulating a draft of a bill that would prohibit any bank or financial provider from providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites."

I think the key phrase here is "any bank or financial provider from providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites."

If you break this phrase down, you're left asking, "What the hell does this mean?"

First of all.... "any bank or financial provider". Any bank in the world or any bank in the U.S.? Same with "financial provider". What the hell is the definition of a "financial provider"?. Pretty broad. A U.S. financial provider or an offshore financial provider?

"providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites." Does that mean U.S. customers using offshore gambling sites or onshore gambling sites or both?

All this is so vague. I get the feeling the powers that be put out these little tidbits of information and then see what kind of ripples in the pond are made. Then using those ripples as a guage they can refine the legislation.

It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Unless they shut down the internet online gambling is here to stay.

Plus Kyl must know there is not much he can do about it. He's been trying to get this legislation through for I don't know how long. Even if it passes how many people are really going to obey it. Organized crime still runs illegal gambling games. They're illegal and people still play them.

But in defense of Kyl, murder is illegal, people still do it. But just because it's illegal and people do it, doesn't mean there should not be a law written prohibiting it.

[Zman179]

From the link above:

"Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, has begun circulating a draft of a bill that would prohibit any bank or financial provider from providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites."

I think the key phrase here is "any bank or financial provider from providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites."

If you break this phrase down, you're left asking, "What the hell does this mean?"

First of all.... "any bank or financial provider". Any bank in the world or any bank in the U.S.? Same with "financial provider". What the hell is the definition of a "financial provider"?. Pretty broad. A U.S. financial provider or an offshore financial provider?

"providing funds for U.S. customers of Internet gambling sites." Does that mean U.S. customers using offshore gambling sites or onshore gambling sites or both?

All this is so vague. I get the feeling the powers that be put out these little tidbits of information and then see what kind of ripples in the pond are made. Then using those ripples as a guage they can refine the legislation.

It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Unless they shut down the internet online gambling is here to stay.

Plus Kyl must know there is not much he can do about it. He's been trying to get this legislation through for I don't know how long. Even if it passes how many people are really going to obey it. Organized crime still runs illegal gambling games. They're illegal and people still play them.

But in defense of Kyl, murder is illegal, people still do it. But just because it's illegal and people do it, doesn't mean there should not be a law written prohibiting it.

It means that ANY bank anywhere in the world would not be allowed to process a transaction for internet gambling purposes for a US resident.
The bill would not prohibit a US resident from gambling via the internet but it would make it very inconvenient to fund the account.

[highnote]

It means that ANY bank anywhere in the world would not be allowed to process a transaction for internet gambling purposes for a US resident.
The bill would not prohibit a US resident from gambling via the internet but it would make it very inconvenient to fund the account.

That would be difficult to enforce.

What if a person has a bank account with a foreign bank...
and then that person gets a credit card from that foreign bank...
then that person goes to an online gambling site and funds their gambling account with their credit card linked to their foreign bank account funded with their own money?

Whose gonna stop a person from doing this? Does anyone think the U.S. gov't has time to enforce this. I think they have other more important things to attend to than trying to stop people from funding their online poker accounts. Well... at least I hope they do.