Whitehouse Accused Of Trying To Push Through Anti-Gambling Regulation No One Wants
from the hurry-up-and-regulate dept
Even as some of our elected representatives are trying to re-legalize poker, the White House appears to be trying to shove through the regulations put in place a couple years ago to stop online gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 put the responsibility on financial institutions to stop any financial transactions used in online gambling. As we see all too often, it's a situation where the government is putting the liability on a third party to stop an undesirable activity, rather than on those actually involved in the activity. Not surprisingly, financial institutions have been protesting any regulations enforcing this law -- and with the current financial collapse going on, they're pushing back hard on any effort to enforce the law. So, what happens? Apparently, the White House has assigned a former NFL lobbyist working for the White House to try to force the regulations through, apparently putting tremendous pressure to get things moving. Congress is now asking the White House to explain why they're trying to rush this through, just as financial institutions are having so much trouble. It certainly does raise questions. Considering the push to reverse the law in the first place, combined with the protests from financial institutions that it shouldn't be their problem to stop online gambling, why is the White House putting excess pressure to try to make it happen?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gambling, laws, online gambling, regulations, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not So!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slash and Burn
*sigh*
Thank god the rest of the Supreme Court justices hung on, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slash and Burn
The fact is that it is very difficult to get rid of laws in this country once they are on the books. Even for a bad law there is always someone benefiting from it that will fight to keep it, and the status-quo has the advantage. That is why things keep getting worse.
What we need badly is an automated review process. Prior to implementation of a law the intended goals and timetable must be stated. If the goals are not met in the given time the law is automatically repealed. This would remove all stupid "vice" laws since the goal of eliminating (or even reducing) the vice is never achieved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slash and Burn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slash and Burn
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I enjoy internet poker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-363
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morality as law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are you looking forward to Obama - are you thirsting for an increase in the push for regulations with blatant socialist overtones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I, for one, AM "thirsting" for an increase in regulations. If you've read anything about the economic collapse, then you'd know that the Bush camp was explicit in removing limitations *ahem, regulations* on securities trading, which directly contributed to the problem (if not singlehandedly causing it). Regulation isn't always a bad thing; this article shows that regulation can be misguided and implemented poorly, Bush is always good for demonstrating that, but I don't see how you can complain about a push for regulation at this point in time.
I don't see where your fear of socialism comes from, either. Adam Smith himself, the father of capitalism, advocated the rich being taxed at a higher rate than the poor. "Spreading the wealth" in this way is the only thing about Obama that might smack of socialism, according to McCain's vitriolic campaign at least, though it DOESN'T.
The government owning major stakes in our finance industry is cause for greater worry, and that was - oh look - the solution that Bush's crowd came up with.
Bottom line? Don't worry about increased regulation - Obama is smart. And don't be afraid that Obama is a socialist, he's not anywhere near. Besides, you've got much bigger things to be scared of right now than our president-elect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read past the headline, willya
"Frankly, I'm surprised Bush isn't salting the Rose Garden,"
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/trashingthewhitehouse.htm
"
Don't know what you're trying to say, eleete. Clinton didn't salt the Rose Garden; his staff members pulled a few pranks, and nobody's mad about it (except you, apparently). There was some damage, but Bush's own General Accounting Office said it was "...consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
I suspect you think that you're providing evidence about how republicans are better than democrats. You just look like a petty and bitter partisan loser to me.
Instead, why don't you try to actually defend Bush's recent behavior, which includes bypassing Congress to pass many deregulation rules that will - without question - have a huge negative impact on the environment and public health? Not to mention, of course, this really stupid legislation on regulating online gambling through banks.
This is the "salting the Rose Garden" metaphor - Bush is trying to do as much as he can before he leaves, as any president would, but turns out the vast majority of Americans (76%, in fact) agree with me that his priorities and policies are destructive to our national interest along many fronts.
If you have anything actually logical to say about Bush, instead of trying and failing to bash Clinton, I'd love to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read past the headline, willya
Funny, $20,000 worth of 'pranks' and an investigation into the matter, but I'm the only one mad? First off, I provided a link and commented nothing. You ASSumed. I also didn't say anything about salting the Rose Garden, the inference was, trashing the White House, the link shows that it's been done before.
I am not a republican, I did not vote for McCain, but I do criticize my government when either party fails their constituents. That happens more often than you think.
Also, I can barely defend Any of Bush's actions nor have I, but I see YOU asserted your partisan opinion quite nicely.
"this really stupid legislation on regulating online gambling through banks."
If you bothered to read the other link I posted here, you would know it was voted for on both sides, Dems and Repubs. In your eyes, the 'perfect party' you contend, voted for the very item you damned in your post.
Now, do YOU have anything logical to add ? I'd love to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]