Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Business


INTERNET GAMBLING: States want bet ban bill intact

Attorneys general oppose bill repealing 2006 law

WASHINGTON -- Attorneys general from 43 states have come out against a bill to roll back a ban on Internet gambling.

In a Nov. 30 letter to congressional leaders, the National Association of Attorneys General expressed "grave concerns" about a bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would repeal the 2006 ban and appoint the Department of Treasury to regulate online wagering in the United States.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • Harrah's Entertainment plans to lay off more workers
  • Casinos must wait for $800,000
  • $475 MILLION FOR SANDS: Loan fails to impress investors
  • FAA: Planes can't fly these crowded skies
  • PLAZA VERSUS PLAZA
  • Macau's drop-off hurting Las Vegas
  • INSIDE GAMING: Forty days, 40 nights and a cry of protest
  • Vegas atop home-price record drop
  • Greenspun Media Group lays off up to 10 percent of staff
  • Battle on tip sharing on tap



  • The attorneys general praised the ban, saying it has driven many illegal gambling operators from the American marketplace.

    "But now, less than a year later, (Frank's bill) proposes to do the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal licensing program that would permit Internet gambling companies to do business with U.S. customers," the letter said.

    The attorneys general also voiced skepticism about "opt-outs" in the bill, which would allow states to continue prohibiting Internet gambling within their borders.

    Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto did not sign the letter. Other states with attorneys general who did not sign the letter were Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and New York.

    Frank said he would be willing to work with the attorneys general who signed the letter to address their concerns, but he also said the letter puzzled him.

    "It seems inconsistent that conservatives would want states to regulate the Internet," Frank said.

    In addition, the current federal ban on Internet gambling does not give states a regulatory role, Frank said.

    Despite the concerns of the attorneys general, Frank acknowledged his bill remains stalled and is unlikely to advance in 2008.

    "We still don't have enough support. We're waiting to see if gamblers on the Internet are going to generate that support," Frank said.

    So far, Frank's bill has 45 co-sponsors.

    An alternative bill by Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., has 68 co-sponsors, including Frank.

    Berkley's bill calls for a one-year study of Internet gambling by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Unlike Frank, Berkley expects her bill to gain traction next year.

    "I think my bill would be the appropriate first step," Berkley said. "Otherwise, we are going to continue to legislate piecemeal without having any information from a study whatsoever."

    Both Berkley and Frank said this week's settlement between the European Union and the United States should bolster their bills.

    On Monday, the European Union agreed not to pursue damages against the United States for banning Internet gambling in exchange for U.S. concessions in other trade sectors.

    Still pending is a decision by the World Trade Organization on how much the United States must pay the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda. A WTO judicial panel this year ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda, which claimed the U.S. ban on Internet gambling damaged the island nation's economy.

    Mark Mendel, the lawyer representing Antigua and Barbuda, is asking for $3.4 billion. The decision is expected next month.

    "Just by making concessions this week demonstrates the United States is trying to walk across quicksand on this issue," Berkley said.



    Leave Your Comment 2 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    douglas wrote on December 20, 2007 09:48 AM: it seems that the spokes-people i've seen televised regarding internet gambling, have ulterior, for profit motives. if internet gambling is permitted then absolutely, positively, states must not bar anyone of any age from gambling in "brick and mortar" casinos. to permit children to gamble on the internet yet to prohibit them from entering a licensed, nevada "strip" and other casinos is blatant discrimination against those u.s. casino hotels. surely the legislator "frank" should oppose any type of discrimination.

    that minnesota trail is i believe, $700 thousand.

    an amusing fact was revealed on various independent news media. the 3400 page "omnibus" [read, packed with pork projects unrelated to the bill's intent] bill was presented to those who would vote on it, about 24 hours from the scheduled vote. my, what speedy readers must be our employees/legislators.

    these bills must be subject to a line item veto. kinda like a dog with fleas, they need a pass through the sheep dip to get the parasites off before being enacted.


    Fed up with it wrote on December 20, 2007 04:07 AM: Like Washington is not all ready spending enough money. Now they are going to have to pay $3.8 Billion, because joining the WTO was such a good deal for the American people.

    Just like all the so called free trade deals!

    Now all of a sudden the $700 Million for the Minnesota bike trail looks like a good deal. LMAO