PDA

View Full Version : Online gaming debate deserves a public hearing




Brian4Liberty
04-07-2014, 03:26 PM
Live, from the intersection of Corporatism Avenue and Legislating Morality Street....


Online gaming debate deserves a public hearing

By Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) - 04/07/14

We need to have a debate about whether we really want a full casino attached to every smartphone in America. With the wave of the executive branch magic wand, unfettered Internet gambling could soon be imposed on all 50 states. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) unilaterally reinterpreted the 1961 Wire Act in December 2011, the DOJ circumvented the democratic process and opened the door for a massive policy change absent any significant public debate.

We unequivocally oppose the legalization of online gaming. However, whether one supports or opposes online gaming, there are valid reasons to subject this far-reaching decision to public scrutiny.

Previous administrations have uniformly held that the federal Wire Act bars Internet gambling. That position has enjoyed bipartisan support from the public, their representatives, and from the attorneys general of most states. But without any notice, consultation with Congress, or public input, the DOJ on December 23, 2011 issued a legal opinion reversing that interpretation. The reversal unleashes the potential for a completely unregulated gambling industry to be imposed nationwide.

Such a fundamental change in policy should be driven from the bottom up, not imposed from the top down. A full and fair hearing process is the right approach. We should hold Congressional hearings, consider legislation, have a public debate and hear the whole spectrum of arguments on this topic before ultimately taking a vote.

To that end, we have introduced the Restoration of America’s Wire Act which restores the long-standing interpretation of the Wire Act and allows the debate to occur. The people deserve nothing less.

It’s hard to see how the rollout of an uncoordinated and unregulated new gambling industry wouldn’t be botched. In states where casinos operate legally, they are subject to strict regulation. However, online gaming implicates a host of issues that traditional brick and mortar gaming does not.

DOJ’s ruling leaves many important questions unanswered. How effectively can age restrictions be enforced when the “casino” cannot see the person on the other end of the phone? Can we be certain that gamers are physically located where they say they are located? How practical is it for states to enforce a patchwork of regulations on this industry without impacting neighboring states? Does law enforcement have the resources to prevent criminals from using online gaming sites for fraud or to launder money?

In our federalist system, we would argue states have a right to regulate gambling within their borders. Two states, Utah and Hawaii, have consistently rejected all forms of gambling. South Carolina became one of the only states to roll back gambling when it outlawed all 33,000 video poker machines from within its borders.

Is it practical to expect these states to be able to maintain this position when residents can access online gaming through their phone?

Can Nevada regulate the online gaming industry as carefully as they do the brick and mortar casinos?
...
More:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/202699-online-gaming-debate-deserves-a-public-hearing