Online Casino Blog » Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)

U.S. Takes on Online Gambling: Huge Fines to Microsoft, Yahoo, & Google

Mike Smack — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:10:00 +0000

Something happened recently to the big 3 of the internet: Google, Microsoft (MSN), and Yahoo. It all ties together with online casino gaming. All three lost big money because of it.

These three giants of the world of computer technology paid fines for advertising online gaming entertainment industry companies without performing proper process. The Department of Justice (DoJ) in the United States claimed that these corporations paid $31.5 Million Dollars as fines for their violations of laws regarding the online advertisement of online gambling entertainment. The United States government has emphatically said that they do not condone the encouragement through advertisement of casino gambling of websites that can be easily accessed by under-aged people, especially students. The U.S. government has stated that this is an opportunity as venue for companies to learn about the “dangers of online gambling” and a way to send a message to other search engine marketers. That is why they believe they are forced to file a law suit against these three giants in computer technology – of course, all this stems from the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

The Big Three versus the Big Government

To continue the story as it has developed, the attorneys for the United States federal government have said that these three companies have only paid the amount for arraignment. However, the three major computer companies involved did not admit nor deny the allegations of advertising these casino gambling businesses on their sites. It is important for them to protect their reputation because they are considered as the world’s premier authorities for internet information, with the most viewed sites on the web and the most used software on the planet. Because there is a possibility that each of these companies’ clients and customers will not continue their patronization of their products due to negative publicity, they have attempted to do their part on closing the case as quickly as possible. They have done this so the case will not continue and in order to not fall victim to additional negative publicity about them.

Microsoft was actually the company that paid the largest amount in fines - approximately $21 million United States Dollars (USD). The payment will go to different agencies of the government that the government feels needs monetary support to continue their projects – and to their legal funds to continue their online gambling prosecutions. Microsoft did not comment publicly on the case, the outcome, or the settlement. They have paid the amount in order to ensure that the lawsuit does not continue further and for them to protect their company against any future liability. Although there are people claiming that Microsoft Company accepted payments from many online gambling entertainment associations, they have stood on their legal position that they only provide quality service appropriate for the needs of each user of their software and MSN search engine. This issue is a great controversy faced by companies in this new internet age - the possible implications for reputations of major companies, especially those known as the world’s leading brand on computer software, are huge. Microsoft has been placed into a high pedestal which is not reached by many companies – this means that a company like theirs will be constant targets from both commercial attacks and government attacks. Google, Yahoo, and Apple are also constant targets of lawsuits – this has just been one of the first which has directly involved online casino gaming since the arrival of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. It’s amazing to think how laws passed by governments are starting to affect the online world, which was previously thought to be untouchable. Even virtual worlds like Second Life are banning casinos – what else will be affected on the internet?

The Blow of Negative Publicity

Although Google and Yahoo! have paid a relatively small amount compared to Microsoft, they admit that this is a great blow to them because they are known world wide for their undoubted credibility and reputation as the world’s online giants. The fines handed down to these three companies for illegal online gambling activities is seen by most legal sources as a deterrent to other companies. given for them is just right, says the Department of Justice for violating the rules and laws set about the online gambling entertainment.

This is a disturbing new trend of the government interferring in internet communities. For example, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is making casino gaming illegal and wants people to go to the jail and pay thousands just because they play casino games online! We of course know of the many online casinos that have left the United States market as well due to these lawsuits – contact your favorite online casino by phone to make sure they still accept players from your part of the world.

What do you think will happen in this online battle? Will online casino gaming be finally free and open or will governments force internet based casinos to close down altogether?

Resources:: Full Tilt Poker - Join More Than 95,000 Poker Players Playing Online!

Related posts:

Radley Balko: Fighting for the Cause of Legalized Online Gambling

Mike Smack — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:00:59 +0000

At least someone out there has guts.

Radley Balko, senior editor of Reason magazine, recently testified before the House Financial Services Committee on the topic of online gambling. Here’s a transcript of his testimony at the hearing titled “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?”:

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee: My name is Radley Balko. I’m a senior editor with Reason magazine and a former policy analyst for the Cato Institute. I’ve spent a good deal of my time writing on civil liberties issues, including the problems associated with the prohibition of victimless crimes. I want to commend Chairman Frank for his work defending individual freedom, and I thank the committee for inviting me to testify today.

The Unlawful Internet Gaming Act was passed under rather dubious circumstances. It passed the U.S. Senate on the last day of Congress, late at night, with no floor debate, after being attached to an unrelated port security bill.

My problems with how the bill passed, however, are beside the point. Let’s get down to the crux of this issue, Mr. Chairman: What Americans do in their own homes with their own money on their own time is none of the federal government’s business. Take online poker, by far the most popular form of online gambling.

Poker has enjoyed a surge in popularity over the last several years. The game is about as mainstream and uniquely American as baseball. Poker evolved from similar card games in the early 1800s, then flourished in popularity on Mississippi’s riverboats, winning over such iconic American aficionados as Mark Twain.

Today, most daily newspapers have a poker column, including the New York Times. The game saturates cable television. Until recently, even several of the Supreme Court justices held a monthly poker game.

Online poker is merely a new evolution of the game, similar to the way Civil War poker games introduced the straight, and gave us variations like draw and stud poker. The Internet merely removes the geographic barrier preventing those who love the game from finding opponents of similar skill who are willing to wager similar amounts of money.

No one is hurt when two or more consenting adults sit down for a game of poker, be it online or in person. Why any of this should be of concern to the federal government is rather perplexing. I respect the fact that many Americans—and many members of Congress—may have moral objections to gambling, online or otherwise. To them, I’d say, simply, “don’t gamble, then.”

But in a nation where Las Vegas is one of our fastest growing cities and most popular tourist destinations, where Indian casinos are commonplace, where horse racing is a national past time, and where nearly every state in the union derives public funds from state lotteries, singling out Internet gambling for prohibition seems arbitrary and, frankly, hypocritical.

Yes, it’s possible a parent could bet away their family’s savings, or their child’s education fund in an online poker game. They could also fritter that money away on eBay. Or on booze. Or fancy cars and exotic travel.

These are all personal decisions, of course. And if a free society means anything, it means we should have the freedom to make bad choices, in addition to good ones. The ban on Internet gambling punishes the millions of Americans who were wagering online responsibly due to anecdotal evidence of a few who may do so irresponsibly. It’s an affront to personal responsibility, and symptomatic of a Nanny Statist government that treats its citizens like children. A government based on the principle of liberty doesn’t police the personal lives of its citizens for bad habits, at any level, much less at the federal level.

Supporters of a ban on Internet gambling say the industry is unregulated, that money wagered and lost leaves the United States, and that all of these offshore gaming sites are ripe for money laundering and similar criminal enterprises.

But these are all problems wrought not by consenting adults’ decision to gamble, but by the government’s decision to prohibit gambling.

Were Congress to give its blessing to legalized online gambling, I’d suggest you’d soon see brand names like Harrah’s, MGM, and Trump immediately enter the market.

Reputable offshore brands like FullTilt poker and PartyPoker would almost certainly incorporate in the U.S. and subject themselves to U.S. market regulation and government oversight.

These companies want to win the trust of their customers. And they want to operate in a business environment that respects the freedom of contract and adheres to the rule of law.

Customers want to know that they’re playing a fair game, that their bankrolls are secure, and that their privacy is protected. Companies that set up shop in the U.S. with the blessing and encouragement of the U.S. government will almost certainly dominate the market. Winnings could be taxed. Market forces and—if necessary—the federal government could regulate and monitor gaming sites for fairness and transparency.

Most importantly, if online gambling were decriminalized, the federal government could get out of the trivial business of breaking up online poker games, and federal law enforcement officials and federal prosecutors could expend scarce taxpayer-funded resources on more appropriate endeavors, like pursuing interstate fraud, theft, and protecting the country from terrorism.

In closing, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act is a significant and disturbing encroachment on individual liberty. I’d urge the committee to correct this overreach, and let Americans do as they please within the privacy their own homes.

YouTube video of Radly Balko’s speech and testimony in front of the United States Congress:

Resources:: Full Tilt Poker - Join More Than 95,000 Poker Players Playing Online!

Related posts:

UIGEA Focus on Gambling Addiction Proven to be Wrong

Mike Smack — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:00:54 +0000

From Bill Rini:

A few days ago I did a post which was a response to Focus on the Family’s talking points against legalizing online gaming. Many of their points harp on sensationalistic claims about how many problem gamblers are at risk. While I took the position that problem gambling was a medical condition which invalidated some of their points about online gaming turning people into problem gamblers, it seems like some researchers at Harvard University have tackled the problem from another angle. According to the PokerNews article:

The study looked at both “fixed-odds” bets (e.g., bets on the outcome of a particular game) and “live-action” bets (e.g., in-game, proposition bets such as which side would have the next corner kick). The fixed-odds bettors averaged placing 2.5 bets of €4 (approx. $5.30 U.S.) every fourth day over an average period of 4 months (from first to last bet) at an average loss of 29% of the amount wagered. The live-action bettors averaged placing 2.8 wagers of €4 every fourth day over an average period of six weeks at an average loss of 18% of the amount wagered. Interestingly, the data showed that “individuals seemed to moderate their behavior based on their wins and losses.” In other words, “as percent lost increased, duration of play, number of bets, bets per day, Euros per bet, and total wagers all decreased.” As the authors point out, such a finding is particularly significant since “a hallmark feature of gambling-related problems might be the continuation of gambling despite adverse consequences.”

So not only are the pro-UIGEA folks generally misguided but a good chunk of their talking points are invalid. The article also points out that the study Rep. ~~Jackass~~ Bachus tried to introduce as evidence of the evils of gambling is a highly selective study with a small sample size compared to this Harvard study which profiled 40,000 gamblers.

Resources:: Full Tilt Poker - Join More Than 95,000 Poker Players Playing Online!

Related posts:

Focus on the Family: Anti-Gambling Group Gets Slammed

Mike Smack — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:00:41 +0000

From Bill Rini:

I recently posted a letter that Focus on the Family sent out to members. Unfortunately it was so full of complete crap that in an attempt to replay to each and every issue I was not very thorough in my responses. Here are their talking points. We should make my responses the official PPA talking points.
Internet gambling sites took approximately $6 billion out of the U.S. economy in 2005 and may have funded foreign terrorist groups or criminal organizations.

Organizations like Focus on the Family make outrageous, highly inflammatory, and completely unsubstantiated claims like this without any even the faintest bit of evidence.

First off, the FBI has never filed a single indictment involving the use of online gambling proceeds to fund terrorism. Anti-gambling proponents throw in the accusation as a way to make their cause seem pro-American and demonize anybody who supports the freedom of American citizens to decide how they spend their money despite the fact that not a single shred of evidence supports their claims.

The claim that $6 billion was taken out of the United States economy is also a highly unsubstantiated claim. The faulty assumption is that every dollar made in profit by an online gaming company is money that has forever left the United States economy. Online gaming companies have poured hundreds of millions in profits back into advertising and marketing efforts in the United States. Online gaming companies also pay millions of dollars a year to United States based affiliates who refer players to them.

Online poker, in conjunction with the massive popularity of televised poker, has resulted in millions of dollars in revenue to publishers who offer poker related books, magazines, poker chips, and other products and services. Thousands of jobs have been created in the US as an indirect result of the popularity of online poker.

While it is true that he general area of online gaming can be proven to benefit criminal organizations what isn’t being fully articulated is the fact that this is almost entirely confined to online sports betting. All this means is that bookies have been able to better lay off their bets. Since sports betting has been around as long as there have been sporting events to bet on it seems illogical to say that completely unrelated aspects of online gaming like poker have any relevance in this debate.

More than 2,500 foreign online virtual casinos were soliciting more than 230 million United States Internet users, without effective age verification, validation of payment sources and no financial accountability.

This is a typical catch-22 argument. In order to have an effective means of age verification, validation of payment sources and financial accountability one would need to be able to legally contract with United States companies and government entities that could facilitate all of the previously mentioned. If Congress were to simply define acceptable standards in all of the three areas then online gaming companies would be able to meet those criteria. Countries like England have implemented very stringent standards that online gaming operators need to adhere to in order to legally offer their products there. There is absolutely no reason why similar standards could not be required of companies offering services in the United States.

As long as the United States government takes a prohibitionary stance on the topic it guarantees that only those companies willing to violate United States laws are the only options available to United States residents. If anything the fact that companies like PartyGaming, SunPoker, CS Casino, and OmniCasino were willing to walk away from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue after the passage of the UIGEA proves that gaming companies are willing to comply with any reasonable oversight and regulation the United States may wish to impose.

Another ridiculous argument often put forward is that there is no age verification technique that has 100% accuracy. Well, I used to buy alcohol when I was 18 using a fake ID. Does that mean that since offline verification techniques are not 100% accurate we should ban all activities that have an age restriction? Before you answer please keep in mind that you have to be 18 to vote, 21 to drink alcohol, and 65 to collect retirement benefits. Just because all of those systems can be scammed should we do away with them?

Internet gambling holds catastrophic potential for organized crime, funding terrorists and laundering money.

Again this is a completely illegitimate argument. The entire basis for this argument rests on the shoulders of the word “potential.” The US stock markets have a potential for organized crime, funding terrorists and laundering money. Services like Western Union have a potential for organized crime, funding terrorists and laundering money. Since there are more proven cases of organized crime involvement in labor unions than there are in online gaming should we also conclude that labor unions should be made illegal as well?

The other major flaw in this argument is a direct result of proponent’s attempts at turning this into an emotional plea rather than a logical decision. There is not a single case on the books of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) or Department of Justice (DOJ) uncovering a connection between online gaming and terrorism. And even if there were, what would prevent both the funder and the fundee from moving to Canada, England or any of the other countries where online gaming is legal? Making it illegal to play online poker would serve absolutely no anti-terrorism purpose.

Betting on sports is illegal in the United States, with the exception of Nevada and Oregon (Montana and Delaware chose not to wager on sports). Online sports-betting sites were – and still are - making a mockery of U.S. legislation by violating federal Internet gambling laws daily.

This is a highly deceptive argument. It is perfectly legal for me to go to Hollywood Park in Los Angeles and place a sports wager on a horse racing event. In fact it’s perfectly legal for me to place horse race bets in many, many states. The only thing being made a mockery of is the United States Constitution which was intended to limit the powers of the federal government just so it couldn’t poke it’s nose into issues just like this.

The integrity of amateur and professional sports is compromised by the growing number of online sports-gambling sites (i.e. point shaving, player payoffs, corrupting coaches, etc).

The integrity of professional sports is being compromised by 21 year olds making $20 million a year. Sports betting is the least of the sporting world’s problems.

The other thing that makes this argument such a farce is that people already bet on sports. There’s a thriving illegal sports betting industry that the US hasn’t been able to stop in over 100 years of trying. Players, coaches, and sports journalists regularly quote the Vegas line on games. Sports betting is so integrated into the fabric of the sporting world that to say that allowing online sports books (like BetUS) to do what people are already doing either displays a naive understanding of the situation or intentionally deceptive.

The American Psychological Association found high school and college-aged populations to be at an increased risk for Internet gambling addiction. [APA Advisory on Internet Gambling, March 17, 2002] See Advisory …

First off, high school aged children are not allowed to play on any mainstream online gaming site. Even with their limited ability to do age verification of US citizens onling gaming sites have set a hard line at 18 and if online gaming were to become legal and regulated in the US the legal age to participate in wagering could be set at 21.

Machines cannot verify your age, and children are at extreme risk for exploitation and addiction. Already, gambling addiction with adolescents and on college campuses is at epidemic proportions.

Machines can, with a high degree of certainty, verify who you are and various details about you (like age). Again, we go to the “save the children” emotional appeal because the logical, empirical case doesn’t stand on its own. Gambling has been a problem on college campuses before the internet. If the real concern is gambling addiction wouldn’t we be much better off if part of the gaming fees licensed online gaming sites paid was put towards providing help to addicted gamblers?

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) calculated that approximately 7.9 million adolescents have a problem or pathological gambling addiction. Imagine filling 113 NFL football stadiums to capacity; that’s how many under-aged teens and children have gambling problems. Read more of the NGISC Report …

According to Wikipedia:

According to the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery Recent evidence indicates that pathological gambling is an addiction similar to chemical addiction. It has been seen that some pathological gamblers have lower levels of norepinephrine than normal gamblers.

According to a study conducted by Alec Roy, M.D. formerly at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, norepinephrine is secreted under stress, arousal, or thrill, so pathological gamblers gamble to make up for their underdosage.

Further to this, according to a report from the Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions there was an experiment constructed where test subjects were presented with situations where they could win, lose or break even in a casino-like environment. Subjects’ reactions were measured using a fMRI, a neuro-imaging device very similar to a MRI. And according to Hans Breiter, MD, co-director of the motivation and Emotion Neuroscience Centre at the Massachusetts General Hospital, “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine.”

Deficiencies in serotonin might also contribute to compulsive behavior, including a gambling addiction.

So, if problem gambling is an illness or biological defect, as suggested by researchers, to some degree the argument that offering gambling creates problem gamblers doesn’t seem to hold water. These people have a defect that causes them to crave gambling as a way to compensate for a chemical deficiency. In other words, they’re problem gamblers before they’ve wagered their first dollar.

This is further evidenced by the Illinois Institute for Addiction Recovery’s discussion of different types of gaming as they relate to problem gaming.

Video poker and slot machines have been referred to as the “crack cocaine of gambling.” Because of their immediate and effective reinforcement schedules, problem gamblers who regularly play these machines appear to progress into pathological gambling much faster than problem gamblers who only gamble at horse races, or other games that do not have such an immediate rate of gratification.

Just as crack cocaine referred to as the “great precipitator” shortened the length of time between first use of cocaine and chronic addiction, so too have video poker and slot machines apparently reduced the length of time between first wager and pathological gambling. In the past, a gambler would experience 15 to 25 years of “sick” gambling at the horse track before he or she reached the desperation phase. Today, it is not uncommon for a gambler addicted to slot or video-poker machines to progress into the desperation phase in two or three years.

So, my read on this is that online gaming doesn’t create new problem gamblers. These people are already problem gamblers.

I guess my real point is that online gaming is not the cause of the problem. In fact, offline gaming isn’t the cause either. A certain percentage of people (estimated to be 2% - 3%) have this problem regardless of the availability of gambling. Obviously providing an avenue to gamble is going to give the illness an opportunity to manifest itself but as I said earlier, wouldn’t society be much better off if a percentage of tax and licensing revenues from online gaming were to fund treatment?

Doesn’t it seem illogical to say that 97% - 98% of the population can enjoy gambling in a responsible manner and help fund treatment programs for the other 2% - 3% but we would rather ban all forms of gambling and force the 2% - 3% into underground gambling while providing minimal funding for treatment?

Four out of five students under the age of 18 say that going online is a vital part of their schoolwork. One in five adults says their children spend too much time on the Internet. This age group is extremely vulnerable to online solicitation and subsequent gambling addictions. [USC Annenberg School, 2005] Read more …

I want to meet that fifth student because he’s probably failing out of school. The internet is a way of life. In the coming years it will impossible for anyone of any age not to interact with the internet in some way.

One in five adults can say a lot of things. Opinions change constantly. I’m sure one in five adults thought Rock n Roll was devil music at one time.

Of course, all of this tangential information is to attempt to make a connection between kids and online gaming. It’s one more try and tugging at the heartstrings rather than appealing to logic.

Availability and accessibility are key components in creating addiction to gambling. The Internet is available and accessible 24/7 with no accountability. Addicted gamblers can remain anonymous and feed their addiction in secret. Pathological gambling addiction doubles within 10 to 50 miles of a casino – one can only imagine the addiction rates for 2,500 or more casinos within the reach of a mouse click. Read more …

No they are not! Availability and accessibility facilitate problem gambling. The creation of problem gambling, the disease, is biological.

But again, the facts are being played with to arrive at illogical conclusions. If you tell me that pathological gambling addiction doubles within 10 to 50 miles of a casino I would say that to be an obvious outcome. Pathological gamblers are going to move closer to casinos than people who want nothing to do with gambling. Allowing online gambling isn’t going to create problem gamblers (despite the causality suggested by the talking point) it will simply provide an outlet for existing problem gamblers.

And they can’t feed their addiction anonymously. If online gambling was licensed and regulated an even more effective system to help problem gamblers could be developed than is available in offline casinos and racetracks. A licensing requirement could be that whenever a casino either identifies a problem gambler or a gambler identifies himself to the casino as being a problem gambler (self-reported) his name could go into an industry shared database which would deny him access to all online gaming sites. And because a licensed and regulated online gaming industry could require a social security number (for tax filing purposes) from all players, there would be no anonymity.

Video gambling is the most addictive form of gambling in history. Research finds that addiction can occur in about one year, compared with gambling addictions to traditional slots and card games occurring in three to four years. Read more …

As has been pointed out several times previously the problem gambling illness already exists. Notice how they say video gambling when the actual research said video poker and slots? Anyway, the real issue is identifying these problem gamblers and blocking access while pointing them towards treatment. Something that can ONLY be done in a licensed and regulated environment where the casino actually knows their customers.

Taxpayers and the federal government should not be burdened with monitoring thousands of separate, foreign gambling sites for corruption, illegal activities or jeopardizing homeland security.

Actually taxpayers and the federal government should not be burdened with enforcing prohibitionist laws designed to keep 2% - 3% of the population with gambling problems from harming themselves. And as has been stated several times previously, the taxes and licensing fees paid by online casinos would not only pay for monitoring gambling sites for corruption, illegal activities, and the absurd fear of jeopardizing homeland security but would be a net gain for taxpayers as the costs of those activities would pale in comparison. Also, by bringing these operations onto US soil it would create hundreds (if not thousands) of new jobs not only at the casinos but in advertising and other tangential areas.

Effective and strong regulations are necessary to ensure that the online gambling industry does not infiltrate millions of homes, destroy children, ruin families and mock U.S. laws prohibiting Internet gambling.

As their is no proof whatsoever that online gaming will do or has done any of the above it’s a final last ditch appeal to emotion rather than logic with no supporting evidence.

Resources:: Full Tilt Poker - Join More Than 95,000 Poker Players Playing Online!

Related posts:

Politics: A Poker Playing Vice President

Mike Smack — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:00:24 +0000

Is it possible we might have a poker playing Vice President on the WSOP tour?

Poker Pro Greg “Fossilman” Raymer, who won the 2004 World Series of Poker (WSOP), is making his case for a vice presidential run in 2008 for the Libertarian Party in the United States.

I can only assume he’s against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Well, he better be. Barney Frank would definitely tap him for his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).

His decision will be coming Spring of 2008 which happens to be the Libertarian National Convention.

What’s the Libertarian Party all about?

First the raw facts. They have 200,000 registered voters and more than 600 people in public office. This is way more than any of the other “third parties” have - combined. They’ve been around since 1971 so they have experience on their favor over other more recent third parties. Of course, this still pales in comparison to the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States but it’s still better than some of the other parties that started up 2 days ago in someone’s basement.

How are they different from the Democrats and Republicans?

The Libertarian Party has some principles that they favor. They like having markets that are minimally regulated. Laissez-faire is the word for that - which comes from the French word “let do”, meaning the government shouldn’t be handing out privileges to certain organizations or markets - just let the chips fall where they may. They are very much in favor of strong civil liberties - which is essential for those of us that really want online casino regulation. They are also in favor of non-interventionism in foreign policy - meaning that they want freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.

They’ve never really made a serious run for the presidency of the United States - but at this point of the game they really just want to expose their ideas and get them out there so people can take notice of them. Maybe get some defectors from the “Big 2″.

“I had a conversation with one of the top guys in the Libertarian party who wanted to get a famous poker player involved,” said Greg Raymer. “I know they approached other guys like Andy Bloch, but I don’t think Andy is very libertarian and may be too liberal. I contacted the guy after hearing of the plan and I told him I might be interested. If I decide to run, I will do some campaigning in time for the national convention next spring and hope for the best.”For the most part, third party organizations like to get one of two groups of people on their side. Either they get an experienced politician to defect from the Republicans or Democrats - or they go after a celebrity from a part of society that feels disenfranchised with the current state of affairs in the country. This is where Raymer and the poker and casino communities come in. With the United States waging war against gambling, this is a ripe time for the Libertarian Party to get sympathizers.

“It sounds like this guy (Raymer) can get the party media coverage that otherwise wouldn’t exist,” said Professor Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. “The media always covers celebrities who are running for office and that’s the advantage. The danger is it looks too pragmatic. The negative part of that is it can diminish his candidacy and the image of the party. It can work, but it’s a delicate balance. I think a Libertarian candidate would do a better job of running the country than any of the Republicans or Democrats we’ve seen. It’s inherently better when a candidate believes in the philosophy of being able to do what you deem is right, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else in the process. A third-party offers room for him to enter into the political realm. These parties need someone with some type of appeal.”

The political views of a poker professional

Raymer thinks if you use cocaine, then, well you’re “extremely stupid”. But he won’t stop you. He feels that politics should be free from judging on morality and should leave it in the decision of conscious choosing adults. He favors protection from the government for underage gamblers but once you hit adulthood you’re on your own - you do what you want, when you want - the government won’t stop you. He is in favor of some other government initiatives like having a national defense and police force.

What comes as a little bit less of a surprise is that Raymer is definitely in favor of legalized gambling anywhere, everywhere, and for everyone.”Personal morals are great and it’s good for a person to have them. But when you apply your morality to me, we’re talking fascism,” said Raymer. He continues: “A poker player is more likely to be a Libertarian. It’s a game of self-sufficiency where self-discipline often produces success. It’s a natural fit.”

Raymer has worked as a board member for the Poker Player’s Alliance, so he’s not a total political rookie. He’s not done with poker though. Even though he won about $5 million dollars for his 2004 WSOP win, he wants to win at least one or two more before he leaves poker for good and tries his full-time hand at politics.

Resources:: Full Tilt Poker - Join More Than 95,000 Poker Players Playing Online!

Related posts:

Poker Gets Talked About in Harvard Law School

Mike Smack — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:30:14 +0000

Harvard got a taste of poker.

Crandall Addington and Howard Lederer appeared at Harvard Law School, making their case for the full legalization of poker. And yes, they want legal online poker too.

The gathering at the university was arranged by the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society (GPSTS). This group was begun by Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson and Harvard Law student Andrew Woods. This organization is focused on getting poker to be looked at as a way for people to learn about life skills while enjoying the card game. They want promotion of poker to focus on this. Other colleges and universities that are getting on the “poker life skills” bandwagon include Yale, Stanford, Tufts, Boston University, University of Southern California (USC), Penn State, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Tufts.

“Poker is a microcosm of life. Good players make their own luck. Poker is a game that should be treated differently on the Internet. It deserves separate status,” said Lederer.

Poker may have the best chance at legalization

I wonder how far this initiative will go. We know how much online poker sites have riding on getting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) repealed or at the least modified. There’s no question online poker has taken a big hit since UIGEA. At the same time, we know of poker sites that still cater to the United States audience (e.g. PokerStars and BetUS) and poker sites that have completely pulled out of the United States poker market (SunPoker). Even with this, you know that players in the United States know ways to circumvent anti-casino laws anyway - we’ll keep that hush-hush though.

Barney Frank still wants to get his IGREA (Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act) passed - but that’s still in limbo for now. Can you imagine the surge in new visitors to online casinos will be once the doors are fully open to legal casino gaming again? Beginners would flood the internet casino and poker worlds. The poker craze would go through the roof. Other card games like baccarat and blackjack may also see a sharp rise in gamblers online.

As we mentioned earlier, it’s naive to think people in the United States won’t get online to play. We need regulation, smart regulation, to get casino gaming going in the U.S. market. Lotteries are legal - with proceeds supposedly going to education. Horse racing at racebooks are legal. Like we’ve mentioned before, it’s all about the money and until legislators find a way to get a cut of online casino profits, we won’t have a resolution.

But the signs are there that it’s going to happen sooner than later. And having these kinds of frank and open discussions at places like Harvard Law School are steps in the right direction for an intelligent way to legalized online gambling.

Related posts:

Advocacy Group Opposes Online Casino Gaming

Mike Smack — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:00:53 +0000

From Bill’s Poker Blog:

Someone on 2+2 posted a link to the website for Focus on the Family who is actively campaigning against Barney Frank’s bill. Their passion and zeal should be frightening for all online poker players.

Internet Gambling Take Action
3-29-2007

by Chad Hills

In 2005, U.S. citizens illegally exported $6 billion dollars to unknown, unaccountable foreign online casinos. Congress passed legislation to stop Internet gambling in the U.S., but the Department of Treasury needs to hear your voice to keep this legislation strong. Representative Barney Frank, however, introduced dangerous legislation that would legalize Internet gambling and promote its expansion. The fight is on and we need your help to defend the family!

Look at how they use scare tactics to appeal to tug at one’s emotions. These offline sites were not unknown. They advertised on major television networks like NBC. And despite it being a common mistake, most online casinos are not unaccountable. I’m unaware of any casino that does not have a license to operate somewhere which means that they are accountable to the gaming commission of the entity that they have their license through. Most are licensed with the Kahnawake gaming commission in Canada but there are others such as the Alderney gambling commission which are very stringent.

NEWS FLASH: Barney Frank Bill Threatens Families, National Security

Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, sponsored a bill (H.R. 2046) that would legalize Internet gambling in the United States. His bill, if passed, will undo nearly a decade of Congressional efforts to protect children and families from gambling predators on the Internet. It also threatens homeland security in the midst of terrorist threats.

It will undo a cowardly backdoor insertion of legislation that the majority of Americans didn’t want. And the UIGEA, as has been pointed out in many other venues, does absolutely nothing to protect minor from gambling. There isn’t one single item in the law that does anything to protect families and children from gambling. And, obviously the statement about gambling being a threat to homeland security is so hollow that they don’t even attempt justifying it. Instead they just float it out there letting it tug at the emotional strings of those too stupid to think for themselves.

Before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was signed into law, children were being assaulted by Internet pop-ups and advertisements for more than 2,000 instant, online casinos. More than $6 billion left the U.S. economy and poured into questionable off-shore gambling operations. Barney Frank’s bill must be defeated for the sake of children, families and homeland security.

These numbers are simply absurd. Games like poker are zero sum. One player makes money, another player loses money. The $6 billion they claim that left the US economy also came back into the US economy. Besides, what business is it of anyone’s where I spend my money?

The pop-up ads thing is laughable. I’m far more likely to get a pop-up from GM or Nissan reading the Yahoo News or Forbes than I am to see a pop-up ad for gambling sites.

Lastly, notice the emotional appeal again. Save the families. Save the children. Homeland security.

This coming Friday, June 8, at 10 am, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on Rep. Barney Frank’s legislation, H.R. 2046, the “Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.” H.R 2046 has 19 Co-Sponsors.

H.R. 2046 sets up a scheme for legalizing, licensing and regulating Internet gambling operations. Rep. Barney Frank’s bill excuses Internet gambling operators from prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law, if they simply obtain a license and follow the bill’s requirements. Thus, H.R. 2046 effectively overrides all other gambling regulations or limitations under Federal or State law.

Yes, if these people simply follow the law it exempts from from prosecution! How dare they! They should be prosecuted even if they follow the law!

Are you tired of being assaulted by thousands of online gambling pop-up ads? Are you worried about your children, a spouse or an extended family member becoming “hooked” on highly addictive Internet gambling? Barney Frank seems more concerned about a handful of poker players and the special interests of foreign casino operators.

Oppose Barney Frank’s bill (H.R. 2046) and support strong regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Take action now!

Why don’t you just not visit those sites or put a blocking program on your computer to keep your children from visiting gaming sites? No, instead it’s better to take away someone else’s right to play online poker rather than exercise any sort of self-restraint.

Take Action - Barney Frank Bill

Oppose Barney Frank’s legislation (H.R. 2046), because it jeopardizes the safety of our families and our nation.

The House of Representatives, specifically those who serve on the Financial Services Committee, need to hear an outcry from families and pro-family groups by this Thursday (6-7-07).

*
Fax, call or e-mail your Representative. Urge your Representative to oppose HR 2046. If your state has a Representative on the House Financial Services Committee, contact them as well (see Committee members). This Committee will hold a hearing on Barney Frank’s bill this Friday (6-8-07).

Other Things You Can Do:

* Submit testimony (your experience, your thoughts) about Internet gambling for the Congressional record (by 6-8-07).
* Send out e-mails to friends to call their Representatives.
* Mention this issue in your church, to radio programs or other pro-family organizations
* Write to the local newspaper editor with your concerns.

Background on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was attached to the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) and passed in 2006. This legislation delegated authority to the U.S. Department of the Treasury to determine the details and regulations pertaining to the Internet gambling portion of this legislation (Title VIII).

Needless to say, the foreign online gambling industry hired a number of lobbyists to influence this legislation and ultimately weaken the UIGEA. Foreign Internet casino operators lost an estimated $6 billion when Congress passed this legislation in 2006. They are intent on lobbying to reclaim their lost business by advocating porous Internet legislation and regulation.

The U.S. Department of Treasury is expected to release their regulations very soon, so voice your concerns today (see talking points listed below). Read the letter written by professional and amateur sports organizations that encourages strong regulations against Internet gambling.

Take Action - Unlawful Internet Gambling

Send a message to President Bush:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461 (most effective)
E-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov

Emphasize these points:

* The Department of the Treasury is tasked with drafting strong and thorough regulations. Word from legislators working closely with this bill is that the regulations are too weak, and the law will may be undermined by the rules and regulations. A handful of federal agents could create and maintain a list of unlawful Internet gambling operations to existing Pro-family organizations and citizens must contact the White House and urge President Bush to direct the Treasury to create strong regulations to uphold this legislation.

* A second concern is Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) bill, HR 2046. His bill would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, reversing nearly a decade of Congressional efforts to keep families safe from the predatory online gambling industry. Citizens need to voice their opposition to the dangerous bill that would open the gates wide for all Internet casinos.

Citizens should also be aware that Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) sponsored a bill that seeks to “study” the option of Internet gambling in the United States and ultimately justify its legalization. Oppose HR 2140, because more than 230 million Americans access the Internet, including children. We do not want thousands of virtual casinos tempting adults and children to gamble, nor can we verify whether these sites are funding criminals or terrorists. We don’t have to study Internet gambling to know that risks are too great.

This is one of my favorites. “We don’t have to study Internet gambling to know that the risks are too great.” These family-first types are proud of their own ignorance. Facts might muddy the debate.

You can also contact Secretary Paulson, of the Department of Treasury. Express your concern for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act regulations to remain strong.

The Honorable Henry M. Paulson

Secretary of the Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

Phone - 202-622-1100

Phone - Department of the Treasury Main Switchboard - 202-622-1100

Fax - 202-622-6415

Web site: http://www.ustreas.gov/

Talking Points:

(Choose three or four)

* Internet gambling sites took approximately $6 billion out of the U.S. economy in 2005 and may have funded foreign terrorist groups or criminal organizations.

There is absolutely to evidence to support this statement. None!

* More than 2,500 foreign online virtual casinos were soliciting more than 230 million U.S. Internet users, without effective age verification, validation of payment sources and no financial accountability.

All online casinos have age verification. Just try getting a withdrawal from Mansion. They require that you send a passport, proof of residence, etc.

* Internet gambling holds catastrophic potential for organized crime, funding terrorists and laundering money. Read more …

Unless, of course, it was legal, regulated, and open to inspection by state and federal agencies. Duh!

* Betting on sports is illegal in the United States, with the exception of Nevada and Oregon (Montana and Delaware chose not to wager on sports). Online sports-betting sites were – and still are - making a mockery of U.S. legislation by violating federal Internet gambling laws daily.
* The integrity of amateur and professional sports is compromised by the growing number of online sports-gambling sites (i.e. point shaving, player payoffs, corrupting coaches, etc). Read more …

The integrity of professional sports is being compromised by 21 year olds making $20 million a year. Sports betting is the least of the sports world’s problems.

* The American Psychological Association found high school and college-aged populations to be at an increased risk for Internet gambling addiction. [APA Advisory on Internet Gambling, March 17, 2002] See Advisory …

Then control your kids! Don’t take away my rights because you’re an incompetent parent.

* Machines cannot verify your age, and children are at extreme risk for exploitation and addiction. Already, gambling addiction with adolescents and on college campuses is at epidemic proportions.

What?! Considering the epidemic problem of identity theft, people don’t seem to be able to verify age/identity that well either.

* The National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) calculated that approximately 7.9 million adolescents have a problem or pathological gambling addiction. Imagine filling 113 NFL football stadiums to capacity; that’s how many under-aged teens and children have gambling problems. Read more of the NGISC Report …

Those people shouldn’t be gambling. How about you work on the problem - keeping problem gamberls from gambling - rather than violating the rights of the other 230 million people without a problem. Imagine filling 3250 NFL football stadiums to capacity; that’s how many people’s rights you’re willing to trample.

* Four out of five students under the age of 18 say that going online is a vital part of their schoolwork. One in five adults says their children spend too much time on the Internet. This age group is extremely vulnerable to online solicitation and subsequent gambling addictions. [USC Annenberg School, 2005] Read more …

This argument is so weak it’s laughable.

* Availability and accessibility are key components in creating addiction to gambling. The Internet is available and accessible 24/7 with no accountability. Addicted gamblers can remain anonymous and feed their addiction in secret. Pathological gambling addiction doubles within 10 to 50 miles of a casino – one can only imagine the addiction rates for 2,500 or more casinos within the reach of a mouse click. Read more …

Yeah, because people with gambling problems wouldn’t move closer to the casino. This argument tries to make it sound like once a casino goes in that it spreads a problem gambling virus into the surrounding community.

* Video gambling is the most addictive form of gambling in history. Research finds that addiction can occur in about one year, compared with gambling addictions to traditional slots and card games occurring in three to four years. Read more …

Are they really arguing that the speed at which it dawns on you that you have a gambling problem should be the criteria for whether or not something should be legal?

* Taxpayers and the federal government should not be burdened with monitoring thousands of separate, foreign gambling sites for corruption, illegal activities or jeopardizing homeland security.

Believe me, with the increased taxes coming in, I don’t think the government is going to look at this as a burden.

* Effective and strong regulations are necessary to ensure that the online gambling industry does not infiltrate millions of homes, destroy children, ruin families and mock U.S. laws prohibiting Internet gambling.

I guess being a good, responsible parent is out of the question.

Related posts:

The Massachusetts Mandate: Bet Online and Go to Jail

Mike Smack — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:00:02 +0000

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick vs Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank.

They’re battling it out. And online casino gaming laws are at the center of the debate.

The two sides in the battle

On one side we have Gov. Deval Patrick that really wants the licensing to construct three new casinos in Massachusetts. The revenue he expects that these new casinos will generate will be about $200-$300 million dollars. Yup, that’s $200-$300 million dollars. That’s the kind of money that’s make your eyes get real big - and I’m sure the Governor’s eyes got huge when his advisers told him that big number. And guess what he doesn’t want. Yes, that’s right, he’s against online casino gaming. Can you take a guess as to why he might be against internet gambling? Yup, that’s right, because he’d be getting no money from that. Less competition equals big payday.

In fact, the governor is so against online casino players that he wants to make internet gambling completely and totally illegal in his state for all citizens and all state residents. If you live in Massachusetts and you’re caught by the government trying to bet online or through the telephone you will have to pay $25,000 in fines and fees and be placed up to two years in prison. That’s what the governor wants.

Our good buddy Barnett “Barney” Frank, who’s trying to pass the IGREA bill is obviously real pissed off about this. “Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?” said Barney. “He’s making a big mistake. He’s giving opponents an argument against him.”

Money is a major issue

That’s not the end of this story however. There’s an interesting twist. David Schwartz, who’s the director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, has said that the motivation for Gov. Deval Patrick’s desire to make internet casino gaming illegal in Massachusetts is to feed his financial bottom-line. He may actually be attempting to be getting more money from the casinos by eliminating competition - in this case, web casinos. “If you were cynical about it, you’d think that they’re trying to set up a monopoly for the casinos,” says David.

The Poker Players Alliance is opposed to the internet casino aspect of Gov. Deval Patrick’s bill. “It makes absolutely no sense to me,” said director Randy Castonguay. “It’s actually kind of laughable if you think about it.”

The idea that Gov. Deval Patrick wants to do this to enact a sort of gambling monopoly is an interesting one. It makes sense when you think about it - you can see the rationale here. He sees the in his future and he figures eliminating competition will bring even more money.

What people do for money

It’s amazing to think of the depths that government officials will go to in order to ban online gaming. Is it really so evil? It seems that these government officials love to paint a picture of internet gambling as a “scourge of the Earth” or as “the beginning of the decay of modern society”. But of course gambling at brick-and-mortar casinos is A-OK and perfectly fine and legal, of course because of the kickback these morality-thumpers get from these casinos. It makes me think about that track by old-school hip-hop artists Wutang Clan:

Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y’all

And really isn’t that’s what it all comes down to? Online casinos want the money, and hey, that’s fine, they have a business to run. We want the money, cause hey, we love playing and we want to play with freedom - where we want and when we want. And the government wants its money - and they’ll throw you in prison to get that cash in their hands. And they’ll send you a nice fat fine to line their coffers even more.

The worst part of it all is just how transparent this bill is. It’s obvious Gov. Deval Patrick doesn’t give a crap about coming off like a bad guy to the online casino gamers out there. It’s like the old days when the tobacco companies gave kickbacks to government officials to keep quiet and shut their mouth about regulation. Now the brick-and-mortar casinos are giving the money - the government is very happily accepting that cash - and we’re all the losers.

The questions and discussions arise

When is this hypocrisy going to stop? How can we get these government officials to know we want freedom to do what we want when it comes to our choices? It comes down to making a difference - even if just on a local level. Get to know your local politicians. Research their positions on subject and topics important to you before elections come up. Be informed about what they are for and what they are against - in this case, online casino gaming. Find out who supports Barney Frank’s IGREA act and who is against it - and I’d strongly suggest supporting those that support the IGREA!

It’s almost scary to think how far this is going to spread. Some states are very heavily enforcing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Massachusetts is just the latest battleground between those want their freedom and those that want those freedoms taken away.

We can’t let these government officials bully us around and tell us what’s good for us and what’s “moral” - all the while they’re stuffing money by the boatload into their pockets. Don’t sit idly by while you get screwed. Stand up and get counted - make a difference.

“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote.” - William E. Simon

Related posts:

Online Casinos Banned at Second Life

Mike Smack — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:00:01 +0000

Online casino gaming is illegal even in video games.

Second Life, a virtual world created by Linden Lab, has shut down all casinos and gambling establishments in the virtual reality game world.

What is Second Life?

Second Life (SL) is an Internet-based virtual world that was launched in 2003 - think of it like a more advanced version of The Sims. The “Residents” of Second Life download the Second Life Viewer which allows you to interact in the world, talking to people, trade items, play games etc. It’s like a massive multiplayer game version of MySpace - like social networking but video game style. Players in the game do business using the Linden Dollar (Linden / L$) which can be exchanged for real-world currency. About 10 million accounts are currently registered.

How would players bet and gamble on Second Life?

Well, they would use Linden Dollars to bet. As a Second Lifer puts it, “Definitely, no more sploders & raffle balls. Can also see prize pot games getting the ax because they select winners by random. Seems the only way to pick up a few L$ that hasn’t been nuked by LL is camping. I understand the policy, and I do agree with it for the most part, but it just seems like SL is being forced to taste more and more like tofu with every new policy - bland and flavorless.”

What’s going to get affected by this decision?

Well this is going to affect the Casino-style islands that are found in the video game. This will then be a snowball effect which will then directly affect Linden Labs because the owners of these islands are some of the biggest financial contributors. They pay land rental fees and currency fees to Linden Labs, so this must have been a hard decision for the company.

Ugh - UIGEA strikes again

It’s obvious that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) is behind this. Linden Labs, even though they are potentially losing big money from the players by banning this, is trying to prevent heat coming from government officials and the FBI. There’s no word if the FBI has contacted Linden Labs - but I wouldn’t doubt there’s at least some conversation that lead to this decision.

I’d love to know how the loyal gambling population of Second Life feels about this decision. Furthermore, I have a more interesting question. Has anyone done any research to see if the players who gamble on Second Life are gamblers in real life? In other words, do they also play at online casinos like SunPoker or real life casinos like the Mirage?

If they don’t, then this poses an interesting question. Does stopping players from gambling actually promote players to move to “real” gambling at online casinos? Maybe these players that used to get their gambling fix at virtual worlds like Second Life now move to the big boys of gambling like PokerStars. All this while the supposed reason for the UIGEA was to prevent gambling addictions by making gambling too accessible.

Will the power of the UIGEA ever fade away?

Related posts:

Online Casino Decision Has Been Delayed by the WTO

Mike Smack — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:30:21 +0000

The World Trade Organization $3.4 billion dollar decision has been delayed.

As you may know, Antigua and Barbuda are in the middle of a Unlawful Internet Gambling Act fiasco. They had filed that $3.4 billion claim as compensation against the United States for the policy against internet casino gaming.

That WTO decision is now delayed until December 14th of 2007. That’s D-Day for the UIGEA wars.

The United States actually counter-offered the Antigua and Barbuda demand in arbitration. The U.S. offered $500,000. A&B refused and here we are, in a deadlock until December.

What’s going to happen when the decision comes out?

We’ll find out what compensation Antigua and Barbuda are getting from the United States. Think of it like lost wages when a company stiffs you. The U.S. may also get sanctioned for the anti-gaming laws that have affected so many internet casino gamers and online casinos both on the United States mainland and worldwide. Dr. Errol Cort is also firing the big guns here too.

Who is Errol Cort?

Dr. Errol Cort is the Minister of Finance and the Economy of Antigua and Barbuda. About the United States actions, he says that it “undermines the credibility of the WTO system and may seem to prove what some developing countries have feared; that the system only works to the benefit of the countries that are rich, large or powerful.” He states that Antigua and Barbuda will continue the fight despite “limited financial, human, technical and other resources, all of which exacerbate the challenge of implementing WTO agreements.”

He is the same person that after the arrest of BetonSports founder Gary Stephen Kaplan, who was charged with 20 offenses including tax evasion and conspiracy, said, “This is an important development because hitherto the American government only went after their own citizens. The repercussions that this will have on the future development of the sector could be very far reaching.”

Arbitration in “very good shape” says Antigua and Barbuda Lawyer

“We are in very good shape, this arbitration is proceeding nicely, and we’ve done a very good job,” says Mark Mendel, attorney for Antigua and Barbuda. “I think it’s presenting them with more problems than they expected, although why they didn’t expect more problems I don’t understand. We haven’t fully and completely flushed out precisely what we’re going to do or how we’re going to do it. There is no rush to do it. I think once we get it, it’ll be a pretty big weapon in our hands and we can take our time in deciding how to apply it.”

Related posts: