That’s a ridiculous extrapolation. Unbelievably, the government has no proof that gambling online is associated with terrorism or money laundering. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Recent SEC audits of major financial institutions show that online casinos are very safe places to process financial transactions. Moreover, the source of the leak in the SEC audit makes it clear that the report wouldn’t have been possible without access to the raw data held by the gambling companies.
The government also relies on the thought that Internet gamblers are addicted to games of chance. This too is a fallacy. Surveys indicate that only a small percentage of online gamblers are gamblers for the sole purpose of winning their online bets. Most play for the reason that they simply like the online betting process and online gambling itself. Thus, the notion that online gambling is a process where you can only win if you play is ridiculous.
The bogus notion of addiction is the basis for the bill, as it implies that online gambling is associated with an increased risk of gambling addiction. In reality, however, there is no increased risk. It is true that some people do tend to become addicted to online gambling, but to be addicted to something that is pleasure is not always possible. Especially with an Internet that offers literally anything anybody want at the click of a mouse.
The bill attempts to make the process of online gambling less convenient and less comfortable by making it illegal. Instead of just being able to place your bet online, you will now have to physically travel to a gambling destination in order to do so. This is hardly a benefit to the gambler, unless of course you are just looking for a new place to bet.
The notion of making it illegal opens up a whole new avenue for hackers to attack the Internet and probably the casinos as well.
- Hacking of the sort would be done specifically to gather information on the vulnerability of the Internet and casinos, which of course is relevant to gambling.
- There is little doubt that making online gambling illegal is not what the people voting on this bill had in mind. They were after something called “online gambling being made illegal.” Instead of looking at the activities behind the scenes that are actually illegal, they have an incorrect perception that it all has to do with gambling. However, the legislation as written would make it easier for the government to shut down online gambling, not just making it illegal but also making it illegal without a trace.
- The worries about online gambling not just applied to gambling online but all forms of gambling. There is worry that members of Congress who voted on this bill would liberalize the law and allow it to be published in the congress as a whole, instead of cherry picking a few pieces of it and passing it. Such a law would make it easier to regulate and also harder to commit crimes.
With this in mind, it is hard to read what the future holds for online gambling.
The first possibility is that the bill will pass completely and therefore nothing will happen with the bill in question. The house bill now stands a great chance of becoming a law that will be hard to implement and opponents of the bill see this as a perfect opportunity to take advantage of in order to try to scuttle other votes on the bill. There is also a possibility that the bill will become a law that everyone is talking about. With this possibility in mind, it is hard to say what will happen with the bill in question.
The second possibility is that the bill will not pass in its current form. Smaller lawmakers would like to bulk up the bill so that it can pass through the House with all its trappings. If this does not happen, Americans would react immediately by banning online gambling all together, using the cover of the upcoming budget battles as a means of scuppling the bill in the Congress.
The next possibility is that the bill will become a law and the implementing legislation will chaos in the Congress. The President would face a huge Republican resistance to hisisloyalty to an act that has majority support from the public. The President would decide to sign the Act but will face pressure from both sides to Signature it into law. I do not rule out the possibility that the President would sign it but that seems like a stretch to me.