Senators Goad DOJ Into More Pointless Online Gambling Takedowns

from the wanna-bet? dept

As we should all know by now, any potential moral qualm, whether minor or major, is roughly infinitely worse if you add these magical little words to it: "on the internet." Oh yes, people, don't you dare be confused. Prostitution, drug-dealing, and ghost stories are all bad, but if they're on the internet then we must all wage sanctimonious political jihad against them. Left out of the above examples is internet gambling, the process by which people who probably can't afford to lose their money hand it over to other people in games of chance in which the odds are stacked firmly against the former. But, while most (all?) states in our glorious union operate a lottery, and many others are home to horse/dog tracks, OTBs, and some flavor of casinos, online gambling is treated as the stuff of nightmares. This has resulted in misguided applications of legislation to shut down internet sports and poker gambling sites, all dressed up as an effort to create a more moral nation, when it's really all the result of heavy lobbying by terrestrial casinos.

Somehow, the DOJ's crusade against gambling sites had reached a lull as of late. A couple of folks in Congress aim to change that with a sternly-worded letter to Eric Holder.

“We must act before we find virtual casinos making gambling pervasive in our society, invading living rooms, bedrooms, and dorm rooms across the country; a result we know the DOJ does not want to see,” the letter said.

The letter was signed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who earlier this year introduced a bill that would overturn a 2011 DOJ opinion that opened the door to online gambling.

Thank goodness for the nanny state, here to save us from doing...well...stuff we want to do. I love the entire concept behind this now-publicized letter to the DOJ, which essentially says: "The common people are lowly animals and if you let them gamble with their money, instead of doing the sensible thing and gamble invest it in Wall Street, the moral fabric we have woven for these plebes will unravel like it was a Weezer song."

Here's my counter-argument: go to hell, Congress. A government this bad at spending the money they take from me probably shouldn't be waxing on about how I spend what they graciously allow me to keep. Lindsay Graham in particular simply doesn't get to make this argument, given his love of shilling for land casinos on a manufactured moral wave.

In March, Graham and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced a bill — backed by GOP megadonor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson — to restore the pre-2011 DOJ interpretation of the Wire Act.

In their letter this week, the senators wanted [sic] that the 2011 ruling if “left on its own, … could usher in the most fundamental change in gambling in our lifetimes by turning every smart phone, tablet, and personal computer in our country into a casino available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

Right! Those people should instead by driving to Sheldon Adelson's casinos to do all that same gambling that gives these congressmen the heebie-jeebies. That's the thing about trying to use morality as a basis for legislation: you had damned well better be consistent or you end up looking like a freedom-jacking bag of lies. All the more so when you're talking about telling the American people how they're allowed to spend their money.

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, doj, gambling, kelly ayotte, lindsey graham, online gambling, sheldon adelson

Congress Flips Out About 'Snowden The Traitor' As They Try To Pass Legislation To Stop The Program He Revealed

from the cognitive-dissonance dept

Congress is quite incredible at times. Compare and contrast the following two articles. First, we've got the news that Congress is pushing very, very hard to roll back and limit the various NSA surveillance programs -- programs that we only really know the full details about because of the leaks from Ed Snowden to the press. Then, we've got a bunch of Senators calling Snowden a traitor and arguing that Russia has "stabbed us in the back" by taking Snowden in. It's as if they don't even realize what they're saying and how fundamentally ridiculous they look:

“Russia has stabbed us in the back, and each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another twist of the knife,” said Senator Chuck Schumer....

[....] “I think this is a troubling pattern,” Ayotte said, pointing to Putin’s support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, his crackdown on adoptions and a string of other decisions in which he’s “basically just trampling on what we’ve expressed to him that we want to see happen … we’re not just talking about Snowden here.”

[....] “I think Snowden is a traitor, and Putin did a wrong thing."... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told BuzzFeed.

[....] “Russia’s action today is a disgrace and a deliberate effort to embarrass the United States,” McCain said in a statement.

So... he's a traitor, and Russia has "stabbed us in the back" by allowing him to stay in that country... and... oh yeah... we need to fix this whole spying thing that Congress really sorta kinda knew about all along, but didn't much care about until Snowden let the public in on it. Incredible.

Filed Under: chuck schumer, congress, ed snowden, harry reid, john mccain, kelly ayotte, legislation, nsa, nsa surveillance, traitor

The Coming Fight Over Sales Tax For Online Retailers

from the congressional-battle dept

For years, we've written about the back and forth in various attempts by states to force Amazon to collect sales tax for purchases in states where it doesn't have a presence (or, well, claims it doesn't have a presence). Existing law says that states have no right to force out of state businesses to collect sales tax for transactions in states in which they have no presence. This rule came out of questions concerning the requirements on catalog retailers, but easily carried over to online retailers. For years, two main groups have been very upset about these rules: brick-and-mortar retailers and state governments. The brick and mortar retailers, of course, don't like having to compete with retailers who don't have to charge sales tax, since it puts them at a disadvantage. State governments hate it, of course, because they want more tax revenue anywhere they can find it (even if it harms their constituents).

Of course, there are some good reasons for not forcing out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax in states where they have no presence. There's the general question of the taxing authority of a state to reach cross borders to get a sales tax, for example. Related to this is the massive complication in collecting such a tax. There are so many different local tax rules, requiring any single entity to understand them all seems like a complete compliance nightmare. Separately, there's a question of the purpose behind such a tax. Generally speaking, a sales tax is supposed to cover the public infrastructure that a retailer uses -- e.g., the streets and clean downtown area that make it easy for customers to come to the store. But with the internet, the retailers aren't really getting the benefit of all of that, so why should they be taxed for it? You can argue that they still get some of the benefits in the roads/infrastructure used to deliver the goods, but that seems like a much more limited benefit. Finally, there's a more recent argument: we want to encourage growth in the internet sector, because it creates wonderful efficiencies and positive externalities that we should encourage. The brick-and-mortar folks really hate that one.

Anyway, for years there have been a series of fights and attempts to "deal" with this -- mostly pushed by the brick and mortar guys. Amazon seems resolved to accept having to collect sales tax, but has pushed for rules to simplify such taxes across borders to avoid the compliance nightmare. Unfortunately, it looks like the brick-and-mortar guys may be getting their wish with a new bill that will make it easier for states to force out-of-state retailers to pay up... and without many of the safeguards or requirements for simplified/standardized rules across states. While Amazon has suggested it might be okay with this, it could be a massive pain for any smaller retailer. In an age of micro-retailers -- think the musician selling products off his or her own website -- having to comply with every states' tax laws is going to be huge pain.

Thankfully, it appears there's at least some opposition to this. Senators Ron Wyden and Kelly Ayotte are trying to pre-empt the legislative effort, by getting a resolution through that would say that the Senate won't pass "burdensome or unfair" taxes on internet retailers. The resolution points out that such out-of-state tax requirements could become a massive burden on smaller players, and given today's unemployment situation, it seems like the wrong time to put in place such taxes:

Whereas any Federal legislation that would upset the free and fair Internet marketplace and allow State governments to impose new, onerous and burdensome sales tax-collecting schemes on out-of-State, Internet-enabled small businesses would adversely impact hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce consumer choice, and impede the growth and development of interstate commerce; and

Whereas at a time when national unemployment numbers are high and businesses across the country are struggling to keep their doors open, the Federal Government should promote pro-growth and pro-business policies instead of enacting legislation that extracts additional taxes from our Nation’s Internet-enabled businesses

For a while now, it's seemed like such taxes were going to be unavoidable, even as they could end up creating significant problems for small businesses and individuals who sell items directly. Hopefully this small bit of opposition helps those on the other side think twice about the unintended consequences of a massive new tax regime for small businesses online.

Filed Under: internet, interstate commerce, kelly ayotte, retail, ron wyden, sales tax, states
Companies: amazon, ebay, walmart