If you haven't been reading the ongoing theatrics concerning Congressman Bob Goodlatte (Rep., VA) and the reintroduction of his Internet Gambling Prohibition Act [IGPA], then you haven't been paying attention to much beyond that maniac chip-flinger in seat three. Intended as an upgrading of the Wire Act for modern times, this revision of the IGPA is intended to specifically criminalize the type of gambling that takes place over the Internet --- what most of you readers of this here blog are doing on a frequent basis.
The last time around, the efforts of Goodlatte & Friends were defeated largely by the work of now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff; the measure passed the Senate but never came to the floor of the House. This lap, the most effective opposition to the IGPA and related legislation is coming from outside the U.S., in the form of a World Trade Organization decision against the Wire Act and related American legislation as it exists today. Antigua, home of several online gambling concerns, successfully argued before the WTO that America's stance interfered with its (the U.S.'s) own international trade commitments.
The U.S. was given until April 3rd to bring its laws into accordance with the WTO's decision, but the Goodlatte legislation --- the only major pending legal activity on the topic --- would take the U.S. in the opposite direction, even farther from the requirements of the WTO decree. Nor is the U.S. the only major country searching for ways to regulate its virtual borders in these matters; Italy and Sweden have also been in the news lately on related matters.
Keep that in mind, for we'll circle back to the good Rep. Goodlatte in a bit.
The pro-gambling folks note several factors that work against Goodlatte's latest efforts. The international efforts of competing entities such as Antigua are one, of course. Another is that online/international gambling concerns are a much larger concern today than just a few years ago, with total combined valuations in the tens of billions of dollars... with the lobbying muscle to match. Third, the pending legislation doesn't prevent the online gambling; rather, it specifically includes such Internet activity as an addition to the list of banned "wire" commerce. So, the enforcement of said law would be another matter altogether.
Many opponents to Goodlatte --- American or otherwise --- point out the hypocrisy inherent in
the current laws. Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, recently chimed in with a lengthy post on the topic. Cuban's right, of course, as are the legions of others who've added similar comments to the chorus. Anyone with a thimbleful of common sense knows that the driving force behind the legislation is financial for most of the politicians involved in the push. Seriously, never put 30 Congressman in a large hall and say the words "sin tax," unless you've got a phalanx of janitors on standby to mop up the drool.
While sin tax is the motivator behind this legislation for most of the politicians, it's not the motivator for all. There's another issue here pertaining to something I think of as "face" legislation... and that's where one other hidden danger lies.
A huge number of proposed laws are introduced not because they have a reasonable chance of passing, but because the introduction and effort look so good to the introducing politician's core constituency. That's a big part of what's going on here; the effort looks good to the like-minded and generates lots of free publicity to boot. It's a win/win situation whenever a politician attempts to seize the moral high ground.
Fortunately, there's a surefire litmus test for determining when a "face" issue is at hand. Here's a quote from Goodlatte concerning the IGPA: "The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is vital to protect our children and communities from the problems of addiction, crime, bankruptcy and family difficulties that come from gambling."
Did you catch the keyword that identifies this as a "face" issue?
The answer, of course, is "children." Despite the fact that all the problems cited by Goodlatte are real, the truth is that they're less attributable to the Internet, in the case of children, than most other forms of gambling. Here's a link to a Seattle-area story about underage gambling. It's very real, very serious, but in this too-frequent tale, the internet is nowhere to be seen. It's also true that sometimes the Internet is part of the tale, as in this blog's recounting last week of the scandal concerning online cheater JJProdigy, who, in the process of being stripped of $180,000 of winnings from Party, turned out to be only 16.
No doubt Goodlatte's support staff rubbed their hands in anticipation when they heard about that.
Seriously, though, the ploys used by most politicians in these matters are about gaining leverage, not --- appearances to the contrary --- about embarking on moral crusades. It's how the game is played. So, every time a JJProdigy or a Jack Abramoff pops up --- no matter the context --- it's ammunition for the other side.
And let's not even talk about that idiot with the GoldenPalace.com t-shirt who crashed the stage at the closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Golden Palace Casino, you might recall, is the same enthusiast of guerrilla marketing who once rented out temporary billboard space on mom-to-be Amber Rainey's eight-months-preggers stomach. (The lack of a link in this blog entry to Golden Palace is intentional, and a comment, if you will.)
So what happens from here?
First, the chances that the U.S. will get its laws in accordance with the WTO decree by the April 3rd deadline are approximately equal to the chances that I'll win the WSOP Main Event later this year. It ain't gonna happen. In fact (despite the pooh-poohing from some parts of the pro-gambling lobby), there's a reasonable chance that some form of the Goodlatte legislation could make it's way into law, if not immediately, then at some point in the next few years. It may be bad law, enforceable only selectively, but that's not the point. What is important to the legislators pushing it is that it creates the leverage by which the U.S. will gain control over the industry. Control = Dollars.
What would happen, in the wake of said enactment, would be a number of high-profile busts of big-dollar Internet players. If you think of it as a Napster-like process, in terms of going after the "culprits," you'll get the picture. The busts themselves weren't the point of the Napster lawsuits; it was the attempt to "reign in" the industry that was the key. The same approach might not even work for the Goodlatte faction here, but it's the only viable path they have for attempting to accomplish their goals.
Rest assured that it's not happening today. Nor tomorrow. But sometime, off in the future....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One more update: Lou Krieger just sent me a note about the Goodlatte legislation. More specifically, he's excerpted from an e-mail that he received from an educated source, clarifying some of the provisions included in the legislation introduced by Goodlatte and others. So click on over to Lou's blog, and read for yourself. As currently proposed, some of the measures are draconian, but that's to be expected when hypocrisy and greed hide beneath the mask of moral righteousness. I hate to put it that directly, but it's the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment