Politicians Want to Protect us From the Evils of On-Line Gambling Part 3
This is the third installment in a series of articles that discuss proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this piece, I delve deeper into the reasons put forward to justify the need for such legislation. Specifically, I examine the connection to Jack Abramoff and the addictive nature of online gambling.
It can be difficult to discern the legislators' true motives behind this legislation. As previously discussed in earlier articles, both the House and Senate are revisiting the issue of online gambling, and bills have been proposed by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, as well as Senator Kyl.
Rep. Goodlatte's bill, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, aims to update the Wire Act to prohibit all forms of online gambling 메이저사이트. This bill also seeks to make it illegal for gambling businesses to accept credit and electronic transfers, and to require ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling-related sites at the behest of law enforcement.
Sen. Kyl's Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling bill seeks to make it illegal for gambling businesses to accept various forms of payment, including credit cards, electronic transfers, and checks, for the purpose of placing illegal bets. However, this bill does not address those who place bets.
Rep. Leach's Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is similar to Sen. Kyl's bill, as it also focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting various forms of payment, but it does not make any changes to what is currently legal or illegal.
Rep. Good latte has been quoted as saying, "Jack Abramoff's total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to continue thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts individuals and their families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering."
This article discusses several noteworthy points.
Firstly, there is a misconception about Jack Abramoff's opposition to certain bills and his disregard for the legislative process. The idea that one should vote for bills simply because Abramoff opposed them due to his corrupt actions is absurd. Legislation should be evaluated based on its own merits and not based on the reputation of an individual.
Secondly, when Abramoff opposed previous bills, it was on behalf of his client, eLottery, who wanted to exclude the sale of lottery tickets over the internet from the legislation. Ironically, the new bill includes the same protections that Abramoff was seeking, which suggests that he may actually support this legislation. However, lawmakers like Goodlatte use Abramoff's downfall to make their bill appear better, even though it rewards Abramoff and his client.
Thirdly, Goodlatte claims that online gambling harms individuals and their families. It is likely that he is referring to problem gambling, but it should be noted that only a small percentage of gamblers become problem gamblers.
Lastly, Goodlatte and others suggest that online gambling is more addictive than casino gambling. However, research has shown that electronic gambling machines found in casinos and race tracks are actually more addictive than online gambling. According to a study by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University in Australia, electronic gaming machines have been referred to as the "crack-cocaine" of gambling because they contribute more to causing problem gambling than any other form of gambling activity.