Veteran watchers of this fledgling online gaming industry are all abuzz over the prohibition bill offered 2/20/97 by Sen. Jon Kyl R. of Arizona. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997 brought a flurry of media responses also which have been interesting to read.
The bill makes changes to the Interstate Wire Act which were requested by the National Assn. of Attorneys General in a report on Internet Gambling last June. A number of AG's lent their support in D.C. last week when it was introduced.
For example, the Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal had this to say, "Gambling and the Internet is a mix that is a recipe for
deceit and financial disaster. This legislation would clarify existing law and explicitly ban any gambling communication -- including Internet communications -- not authorized and regulated by the states."
This bill gives state attorneys general the power to go to court to block Internet gambling and provide fines of up to $10,000 and two years in prison for those who operate Internet gambling enterprises. It would also provide fines of up to $5,000 and one year in prison for those who use the gambling service.
"Given the tremendous potential for abuse, addiction and access by minors, online gambling should be prohibited," Sen. Kyl said. "My bill will protect children from logging on to the family computer, borrowing the family credit card, and losing the family home, all before their parents get home from work," Kyl said. "And for those people with a gambling problem, my bill will make it harder to gamble away the family paycheck."
He added, "The law must keep pace with technology. Gambling is either heavily regulated or expressly prohibited in the states. In the Internet, it is neither."
Currently, only computer gambling on sports events is prohibited under the Interstate Wire Act, a piece of legislation designed in the 30's to curtail bookie operations. The legislation would extend criminal penalties to companies who offer all types of computer gambling.
The bill also clarifies the definition of bets and wagers, Kyl said, "ensuring that those who are gambling cannot circumvent the law." Virtual gaming businesses have been known to offer prizes instead of money, Kyl said, in an attempt to evade the law.
In other provisions regarding Senate bill 1495, communications companies regulated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be required to discontinue services to any companies they carry that offer
gambling.
Senator Kyl has enlisted the bipartisan support, with Democratic Senators Bob Graham (Florida), Tim Johnson (South Dakota) and Dianne Feinstein (California) and Republican Senators Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Tim Hutchinson (Arkansas) as original co-sponsors.
Kyl is chairman of the Technology, Terrorism and Government
Information Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. By the way, that's sort of an odd combination of topics to be thrown into one committee, isn't it??
Media Response
One thing Sen. Kyl did accomplish was to generate lots of media activity. Wired picked up on the provisions regarding ISPs and their storyline was that ISPs would be turned into cops under Kyl's scenario.
ABC News tech reporter, Gina Smith, took another tack in the Sunday San Francisco Examiner. She called such regulatory efforts a "long shot"...one she wouldn't bet on. "Even if the legislation passes, there's not much the government can do to enforce such a ban. For one thing, most on-line gambling sites are already playing it safe by placing their computers on offshore islands and foreign countries. That means, of course, the head of state would be liable in cases of onshore casinos taking bets from American citizens. So if the computer is in Antigua, as is the case with several of the sites, does the United States go after Queen Elizabeth? Highly doubtful. Noriega, maybe. But the Queen?"
Smith seemed, rightfully so, particularly incensed at the now famous "casual bettor" provision in the bill. She said, "And if the government decides to go after individual bettors, which is what the Senator is proposing, how in the world is it supposed to do that? Last year, a similar bill died in committee for the simple reason that the government does not have the time or desire to go after penny-ante bettors. The government has always gone after the gambling organizations, never the bettors. So not only is it a long shot, it's crazy, to boot."
Read the Full Kyl Bill here.
Here's what they're saying about the Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill in Senator Kyl's back yard.