Bluster's Last Stand: The Noisy Debate Over Online Gaming

Bluster:
1. To force or bully with swaggering threats.
2. Turbulence or noisy confusion.

Recently, the proposed Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (IGPA) was defeated in a House of Congress vote.

All the turbulence and noise over the bill finally managed to bluster it to death, or at least mortally wound it.  The reason: everybody and his dog tried to get in on the act. What began as an attempt to curb the explosion of online gaming became a battle royal of special interest groups.  If it ever was a good clean fight, it certainly didn't wind up that way.

Let's quickly recap.  First at the post was the horse racing industry which used its influence to get an exemption from the bill.  That touched off a "me too" frenzy among all manner of gambling interests: Indian tribes, state-run lotteries, greyhound track operators and even jai alai.  Ay ay ay.

Then everybody with a stake in the issue piped up: credit card companies, professional sports leagues and Internet service providers, to name a few.

The Interactive Gaming Council promised to spend $1 million to defeat the bill, arguing that the people want the government to stay out of their home computers.

On the other hand, the most pro-gambling group in the US, the American Gaming Association, supports the proposed ban because it feels online gaming threatens more traditional forms of wagering.

The Christian Coalition, which originally backed the bill, dropped out because of the dog racing and jai alai provisions.  The Traditional Values Coalition also changed its mind for similar reasons.

And the most pertinent question of all was never answered: how will the United States government build an electronic barrier to prevent all those nasty offshore Internet casinos from doing business with American citizens?  The bill, if ever passed, only contains penalties for those who operate gaming sites, not those who use them.  That will only wind up driving US-based operators to the Caribbean, where they are beyond US jurisdiction... and where they'd likely rather be anyway.

The other problem is enforcement.  The bill as it is discourages ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, from hosting casino sites but provides no penalties.  As one observer pointed out, legislation without enforcement is an exercise in futility.  Until these puzzles are solved, another vote is futile as well.  All those special interest groups will just have to take a number and wait.  But you can bet we'll hear a lot more bluster before this bill finally has its last stand in Congress.


Reprinted with permission from The iGlobal Media News.

You can read more articles about this issue and about online casinos in general in The iGlobal Media News by clicking here:  www.iglobalmedia.com/news/index.html.  This is the only e-zine to focus on Internet casino marketing.  Also, please visit www.iglobalmedia.com to learn about their high-commission affiliate programs.