Rep. Jon C. Porter, R-Nev., author of HR 5474, "The Internet Gaming Study Commission Act", on Friday distributed a letter to the other members of the House of Representatives, urging them not to "make any rash decisions" on Internet gambling policy. He attached to his brief two-paragraph letter an editorial titled "Don't Bet the House," which ran the same day in the Los Angeles Times.
The body of Porter's letter reads:
Dear Colleague,
I would like to draw your attention to an editorial in today’s Los Angles Times on Internet Gaming. This editorial is consistent with my belief that Congress should not make any rash decisions without a comprehensive understanding of this intricate issue. That is why I have introduced legislation that would establish a bipartisan commission to study issues posed by the continued spread and growth of interstate commerce with respect to gambling.
If you would like to cosponsor H.R. 5474, The Internet Gaming Study Commission Act, or if you have further questions about this legislation, please contact Brigitte Buehlman at 5-3252, or via email at brigitte.buehlman@mail.house.gov.
Sincerely,
Jon C. Porter
Member of Congress
Porter introduced his bill on May 24, but it has seen no action since then. Co-sponsored by 43 representatives--41 Democrats and two Republicans--his bill would mandate a study similar to the one the American Gaming Association (AGA) said it would endorse when it announced in April a shift in its legislative position on Internet gambling. AGA President and CEO Frank Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., stated at the time that he hoped to see the introduction of a study bill at the beginning of the next session of Congress since there was not much time remaining in this session. He also stated that the AGA remains neutral on the prohibition bills from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. James Leach, R-Iowa.
The Los Angeles Times editorial that Porter refers to explained that the two online gambling prohibition bills that the House of Representatives is considering favor "sound bites over sound policy."
It goes on to explain that the proposed legislation would continue to prohibit domestic casino operators from accepting remote wagers while foreign-based companies would be free to continue accepting wagers from American citizens. Further, the article states, while significant new regulatory burdens would be placed upon the country's financial companies.
The editorial goes on to question whether the federal government has more important things to do, and it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the legislation whereby horse race betting companies would be permitted to continue operating online. It also points out that it is "a hallmark of a free society that we don't outlaw otherwise inoffensive vices simply because some people harm themselves."
The editorial suggests that if the United States truly seeks to protect its citizens from online gambling it should regulate the industry as Britain has done. It concludes: "The issue is whether Washington is to have any leverage over the burgeoning online gambling world, or whether that world will remain beyond the reach of U.S. law."