Senator changes view on gambling, bingo

A state senator who blocked legislation to change the rules for bingo in Greene County and had spoken out against gambling’s influence in Alabama, is now the attorney for a group planning to open a gambling hall that would compete with nearby Greenetrack.

Sen. Hank Sanders, D-Selma, is the legal counsel for the Eatman School Alumni Association, which announced in September that it had obtained a bingo license from the Greene County sheriff.

Alumni association president James Morrow said the group hopes other non-profit groups will join them to establish a new Greene County bingo parlor.

Morrow said he’s most interested in opening on the site adjacent to the Cotton Patch restaurant, where construction has begun on a new building on the 30-plus acres of land now owned by Sidetrack, LLC.

‘The last thing I heard from Sen. Sanders was that Sidetrack was going to provide that facility for us,’ Morrow said. ‘I imagine the building will be going up in the next week or so. I’m just waiting on word to go ahead with the organization.’

Morrow also said he had yet to speak to anyone from Sidetrack himself. Rather, Sanders has been his liaison with Sidetrack.

Morrow also said Sanders was providing the legal work at no cost.

‘He’s doing it pro bono because, you know, right now we don’t have the necessary funding,’ Morrow said. ‘If we can get the operation

going, then his fees will be paid at that point.’

Sanders did not return several calls to his home and law office on Thursday and Friday seeking comment.

Sanders broke with Senate protocol earlier this year by blocking a bill that would have changed the rules for bingo in Greene County. Ordinarily, legislators do not interfere with local bills outside their district if the local legislative delegation is united.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Bobby Singleton, would have removed authority over bingo from Sheriff Ison Thomas and given it to the Greene County Racing Commission.

Under the constitutional amendment that legalized electronic bingo in Greene County in 2003, only charitable organizations can be licensed to operate bingo.

Yet questions have arisen over the legality of bingo operations at Greenetrack, a private company. Greenetrack officials have said that it serves only as the host site of the games and does not operate them. They maintain that the actual bingo operators are the more than 80 Greene County charities and non-profit groups that have licenses for that purpose.

Sanders, too, has previously questioned the legality of bingo, noting that its profits are unknown because Alabama does not require public disclosure of gambling profits.

In April, he voiced concerns over bingo operations in Alabama in one of the regular columns that he has published in several newspapers in his nine-county district for the past 20 years.

‘Electronics have made bingo parlors into low-scale casinos,’ Sanders wrote in April in the weekly column titled ‘Senate Sketches.’

He went on to write that bingo’s power influences everyone from lawmakers to the news media, which ‘does not aggressively raise how gambling is unregulated, that it does not benefit the state and that it ties up the Legislature.

‘Bingo is so powerful it has friends distrusting friends, allies turning against allies, and members of both the Republican and Democratic caucuses threatening to bolt …,’ Sanders wrote. ‘I hope it’s not too powerful for Alabama.’

Sanders also described in that entry why he stood in the way of another senator’s bill during this year’s Legislative session.

Sanders cited the Greene County sheriff’s objection to relinquishing oversight of Greenetrack, West Alabama’s only legalized gambling facility, to a three-member gaming commission. This was one element of Singleton’s sweeping bill that would have changed many of the rules regarding Greenetrack’s operation.

‘Sheriff Thomas contacted me when he heard that local legislation had been filed to transfer his authority to regulate bingo,’ Sanders wrote on April. ‘He said that no one had talked to him about it. I agreed to help. I just could not contribute to the injustice.’

But a document obtained by The Tuscaloosa News shows otherwise.

Thomas did not return calls seeking comment, but his signature is on a March 19, 2007, document that says he has no concerns about the racing commission assuming oversight duties of Greenetrack.

‘I, Ison Thomas, Sheriff of Greene County,’ the document says, ‘do not oppose current legislative efforts to change the regulating of bingo in Greene County to the Greene County Racing Commission.’

It’s not clear why Thomas changed his mind, and the reversal also confused Singleton.

Singleton, D-Greensboro, described in September the drama that unfolded in the Senate once he and a Macon County senator introduced similar bills regarding bingo operations in their respective counties.

Once Singleton and Sen. Myron Penn, D-Union Springs, learned of Sanders’ opposition, they spoke with him, Singleton said.

‘At that time, [Sanders] said he was not in support of the bill because the sheriff of Greene County had contacted him and stated he was not aware of the bill and, therefore, wanted Sen. Sanders to represent him in that manner,’ Singleton said. ‘We knew that not to be true, because the sheriff of Greene County had already signed a letter saying he was in support of the bill removing him from the regulator of bingo and moving the oversight to a three-member commission.’

Sanders, in his ‘Senate Sketches,’ said he attempted to compromise with Singleton to allow Thomas to appoint the racing commissioners.

‘The powers that be would not agree,’ Sanders said. ‘I held on to my vote.’

At the end of his ‘Senate Sketches No. 1090,’ Sanders reflected on his acquired understanding of what bingo means to the state.

‘Sometimes,’ he wrote, ‘we think we know about something but we don’t. When we face it in struggle, we know it differently. I have known about gambling in Alabama for years but did not perceive its dimensions clearly.

‘Now, my eyes are opened wide.’

Jenny Woo Talks To Barney Frank: Online Gambling Not Bad for Economy

As one of the key allies for the online gambling industry, Democratic Congressman Barney Frank has been working diligently to have the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) repealed.  As  chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank oversees housing and banking industries.  He has been especially vocal in recent weeks working hard to help those who are facing foreclosure on their homes and voting on behalf of a $700 billion bailout for the banking sector.

Gambling911.com’s own Senior correspondent Jenny Woo sat down with Barney Frank to discuss his stance on Internet gambling and what he believes will be the future for the industry.

JENNY:  What was it like teaming up with one of the most conservative Republicans, Ron Paul (Texas Congressman) to co-sponsor an online gambling bill?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  He’s a libertarian and he’s actually one of the honest ones who really want to help low income people and when it comes to interfering with peoples freedoms.  Ron and I worked together on legalizing marijuana and on opposing some restrictions on free speech.  I refer to him as being a very good ally; he’s a very non-hypercritical conservative.

JENNY:  Why are you so adamant about ensuring that online gambling becomes legalized?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  I think it was a terrible mistake that the war of human activity should be divided into two groups, things that the government allows because it approves of them and things that the government prohibits.  The point is that it’s not up to the government to find whether something is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s up to the government to decide whether it would hurt somebody.  It’s a gratuitous interference with adults.  The House responds, according to the bill, it doesn’t add into the gross domestic product, that’s a terribly authoritarian idea that we shouldn’t allow people to do things if it doesn’t go with the gross domestic product.

People would say to me, “do you want to encourage people to gamble”, again that’s a terrible notion.  The idea that the world should be divided in things the government prohibits and things that the government encourages.  The world ought to be filled with a government that let’s people do on their own.

JENNY:  On that same note, why is it that there are those who are so adamant about ensuring the activity remains illegal?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  Well some have a religious view about it, which puzzled me because the problem is – there’s something in the Bible that  says gambling is a terrible thing except Bingo? I just don’t understand some of my liberal friends, who should know better, (but) are opposed to it (online gambling).  And I don’t understand why.  Generally my liberal friends have been able to read what they want and there’s something cultural that leads them to be defensive.  I can’t understand what rational arguments that they make against it, but that’s where they are.

JENNY:  You got H.R. 2046 passed through House Committee.  Obviously the year is about to end and we have a new administration coming in, what is the process to get your bill passed?

Fast Facts: What is H.R. 2046? To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and for other purposes.

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  The problem that we have now is that after the House Committee passed the bill this administration sort of panders.  The Treasury Department tries to rush through these regulations.  I’m very concerned by that.  We got word that they’re trying to get this approved in this administration.  So prospects for doing this all depends on whether or not they sneak this one through.

JENNY:  Do the odds increase with an Obama administration?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  Yes, that would be much better with more Democrats.  Much more support.  I also think with the Obama administration you wouldn’t see these bad regulations.  But what the Bush people try to do is to get this one done very hastily and with little preparation so it’s in place when the Obama administration takes over.  But clearly we have more support opposing (these attempts to stop regulation) with more Democrats in Congress.  I wish it weren’t an issue but the Republicans have made it one.

Did You Know? Just days before the Republican Convention, that party dropped online gambling prohibition from its platform.  But the elation among online gambling enthusiasts was short lived.  The Republican party ensured an amendment was added to make online gambling prohibition part of that platform once again.  But to be certain, Ron Paul is not the only Republican Congressman opposed to Internet gaming prohibition.  It is after all a former Republican Senator who is now chairperson of the powerful Poker Players Alliance.

JENNY:  We know that Senator Jon Kyl was one of the co-authors of the UIGEA; do you see him railroading any attempt to get the bill passed through the Senate?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  They don’t have to pass the bill; the bill has already been signed into law.  What I’m worried about is that the bill calls for regulations by the Treasury Department.  That’s what we tried to stop.

JENNY:  We’ve often said you are one of the hardest working Congressman between this and taking center stage with the economy.  With the economic situation deteriorating do you think the online gambling initiative may have to take a back seat for a year?  Or, on the other side of the spectrum, can your bill be passed based on the premise that this is a multi-billion dollar industry that can actually help to fuel the US economy?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  No, I think it helps.  I think if we do this right we should make online gaming legal and subject it to a reasonable taxation like anything else.  This does not conflict to our effort to stimulate the economy.  This isn’t bad for the economy.

JENNY:  France and Italy both have taken a complete about face on the subject of Internet gambling.  Last year they were arresting executives of gaming firms, this year both countries have begun to embrace the industry.  What do you think has to happen before these opposing groups can be convinced online gambling can be a good thing here in America?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  I wish I knew.  If I had an easy answer I would have put it into effect.  The ones who are notably opposed will not change their minds.  The problem now is that the people who are losing out because of this ban need to get much better organized and each one of them needs to talk to his or her representative and senators.  Especially from the voters who say, “will you please mind your own business and stop interfering with my choices.”

JENNY:  What are your plans for the future?  Barney Frank for President in 2016?

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  Haha Oh no no.  I’ll be older in 2016 then John McCain is today.  I am very happy with the chairmanship that I have with this committee, it gives me the chance to get a lot accomplished that I want to accomplish.  I expect to serve a few more years as chairman of this committee.

JENNY:  Thank you Congressman.

CONGRESSMAN FRANK:  Thank you.

Excellent prospects for online gambling in Ireland

The United States may be adopting more and more laws against online gambling, but Ireland – as it seems – has an opposit view that looks forward to the online casino industry as an opportunity to create more jobs and stimulate the domestic economy.

The Gaming and Leisure Association of Ireland has asked the government to vote on legislation, which will attract online casino operators in Ireland. It is estimated that with favorable arrangements and with the effective institutionalization of online gambling, would create 10,000 additional jobs in information technology and in the areas of financial and support services such as accounting, tax, advertising and legal services.

The report also mentions that the institutionalization of online gambling will bring the country an amount of about $ 68 million every year!

And the question arises: Could the United States follow the example of Ireland, with a result that jobs and revenue in general will be 100 times more than what is estimated for Ireland?

This is kind of difficult at present for the United States since there is strong opposition to gambling in several ‘conservative’ parts of society. This is mostly based on ‘moral’ grounds, and despite the economic downturn and increase in unemployment rate, the attitude against gambling is not expected to change.

It has been a while now that Irish authorities allow citizens of the country to participate in online gambling without however establishing the appropriate legal framework. Some online gambling companies took advantage of the lack of legislation and unsuspecting customers became victims of several scams.

However, the proposed regulations are in the process of approval, and online gambling will become much safer for the Irish public.

The online gambling firms would be particularly excited to relocate their businesses in a country like Ireland, where exists specialized personnel in the field of information technology and also the industry infrastructure is highly developed and readily available.

We expect Ireland to develop into a paradise for online casinos, such as Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus.

Government eyes Internet gambling as source of revenue

Bermuda could tap into a market worth billions of dollars — but also enter an international legal row — by becoming an offshore host for online gambling.

The Island is currently assessing its suitability as a centre of Internet gaming, following a path taken by rival jurisdictions including Antigua and Barbuda and Costa Rica.

It would mean gamblers abroad, most likely from the US, having their wagers processed in Bermuda — giving the betting companies tax breaks on profits and keeping them out of reach of anti-Internet gambling American authorities.

Several years ago, Antigua turned to Internet gambling — a $12 billion global business — as a way to end its reliance on tourism, a problem Premier Ewart Brown is equally keen to solve in Bermuda.

In 2000, Antigua’s online gaming industry generated $37.5 million in taxes, provided 3,000 jobs and was said to be giving people a route to affluence other than drugs trafficking. However, about five years ago the US introduced laws blocking its residents from using online casinos, claiming it needed to protect children and prevent financial crimes such as money laundering.

Antigua hit back by becoming the smallest country ever to successfully bring a case with the World Trade Organisation, arguing such a move was illegal and unfair as American operators were allowed to offer remote betting on horse- and dog-racing.

Since then there has been much tweaking of the US online gambling laws, with commentators saying the authorities have been trying to clamp down on it, while Antigua has been pushing for compensation from the US.

Some claim it is very difficult to enforce US law in jurisdictions which do not respect US statutes and that banning online gaming would drive it into the wrong hands.

Meanwhile, figures from two years ago show more than 200 Internet-gambling companies have set up shop in Costa Rica, earning it the tag: ‘the Internet’s Las Vegas’.

Poker is among the most popular Internet games — for many players in Bermuda as well — while gamblers can also have an online flutter with blackjack, craps and roulette among others.

Internet gaming is one of a series of possibilities, including casinos and a national lottery, being looked at in the $300,000 feasibility study by the Innovation Group.

The Premier, through his press secretary Glenn Jones, has refused to give any information about what we could expect to see in Bermuda, or to confirm exactly what he had in mind when he announced Innovation would determine Bermuda’s suitability as a centre of Internet gaming.

Dr. Brown’s predecessor as Tourism Minister, Renee Webb, backed the study, telling The Royal Gazette: “I was publicly in support of legalising gambling. Firstly, because it already exists through bingo, horse-racing, football pools and Crown and Anchor.

“So you are not legalising gambling but extending what already exists Islandwide. I supported a national lottery where the benefits go to education, the arts and other national causes similar to the British lottery.

“With respect to casinos, I supported them in principle as sophisticated entertainment centres — containing restaurants, shows, and gambling tables.

“These forms of gambling endeavour exist worldwide in places that once outlawed gambling, such as Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Caribbean islands. In these cases it is not widespread but restricted to certain areas like hotels.”

Ms Webb said she had two feasibility studies done in her time as a Minister and met with at least two groups who were interested in opening operations in Bermuda. The Premier also mentioned the feasibility study in an interview with the BBC World Service while on his current trip to the UK.

“Bermuda has a history of having had two significant economic bases. One is tourism and the other one is international business,” Dr. Brown said.

“We don’t export anything; we import 90 percent of what we consume and so we haven’t been able to come up with another pillar for our economy, although we are exploring new revenue streams … like gaming.

“We’ve actually announced last week that we’re going to have a feasibility study on gaming. That’s going to start next week.”

Asked if big casinos would be opened, he replied: “Well I don’t know. I don’t know that it’s going to be big casinos opening up. We are studying everything from Internet gambling to lotteries.”

Legal World Meets Gaming World

There has been a long standing legal battle between online gaming websites based outside of the United States and governmental agencies within the US borders. An epic battle centering on whether or not United States based players should be allowed access to online gaming websites is at hand. Both parties have presented strong arguments for their side and against their opponent. A judge has refereed the battle that took online games off the internet and into the courtroom.

Recent rulings have determined that lead state Kentucky government officials may block its players from accessing such gaming websites. Enforcement from these structures was expected to be handed down the moment the verdict was rendered. There has been an unexpected result that has come out of the legal battle as well.

Online game network giant Microgaming is taking steps to block United States based players from accessing its poker websites. Not all of the states are being blocked from use. At present time there are only 13 states on the banned list. Those states are as follows: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin and Utah. It should come as no surprise that Kentucky appears on the list. It is the governmental agencies in that state that started the battle in the first place.

The premise behind the Microgaming decision can be largely attributed to the legal decision handed down. A judge made the ruling that websites had a 30 day period to block United States players. Almost immediately Microgaming began taking the necessary steps to block a selection of player states from poker and casino gaming websites.

State of the art technology is being utilized by Microgaming to ensure regulations are followed. IP blocking software is in the process of being added to the network of websites. The purpose of the software is to detect IP computer addresses from US player computers in the banned list of states. Those users will be blocked from entering the websites for play. An added step is being placed into the blocking software.

Microgaming is utilizing the technology to block third party proxy servers as well. These are used by players in an attempt to bypass a blocking system that has been put in place to prevent access to a website. With these technological blockers put into place, United States players in those banned states will not have access to a variety of Microgaming websites. Among the list included are 32redpoker.com; Intertopspoker.com; Crazypoker.com; Pokertime.com; Royalvegaspoker.com and Pokerwize.com.

Site Advocating Boycott Adds Petition for Online Casinos Defense

Dr. Jeffrey Reynolds’ site, BoycottKentucky.com, has added a page allowing interested individuals to sign a petition asking Governor Beshear to stop in his efforts to force forfeiture of the domain names of 141 online casinos. The website, which Reynolds began in protest of the unconstitutional action without proper jurisdiction by the governor and a Kentucky court, lists ways to boycott aspects of Kentucky’s economy.

The petition states, “We, the undersigned, urge you to immediately cease and desist your efforts to undermine Internet commerce and civil liberties in your state and beyond. Your wanton seizure of 141 gaming-related domain names is capricious and has become a source of embarassment worldwide for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

“As Kentucky endures the fiscal crisis sweeping the entire nation, we are apalled that taxpayers must foot the bill for your misguided crusade and we urge you to publicly disclose the total costs to date associated with your investigation and prosecution of this case. Please let us know that you will withdraw this case and re-focus your attention on governing responsibly and the multiple challenges facing Kentucky.”

Reynolds states the petition wil be delivered to the governor and to the presiding judge, Thomas Wingate, before the next hearing in the ongoing case.

Reynolds joined the call to boycott first suggested by Online Casino Advisory gambling analyst Sherman Bradley as news of the idea swept through the online gambling industry and expanded to sites dedicated to promoting Internet business and protecting Internet freedom from censorship.

Election 2008: McCain hard to pin down

Is McCain enough of a maverick to go against his party and allow online gambling?

Because neither of the two major party candidates, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama, has come out either in favor of or against online gambling, we are looking at their past record, their comments and their party’s position for guidance as to how pro-online gambling legislation might fare under either presidency. This article focuses on Senator John McCain.

Before we examine McCain’s record, we have to look at his party’s record with respect to online gambling. It is well-known that the congressmen who led the fight to push anti-gambling legislation through Congress, and who spearheaded the drive to slip the UIGEA into the SAFE Port Act to guarantee its passage, were Republicans.

There is also no dispute that it is the Republican Party platform which contains the following anti-Internet gambling language: “Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.”

But as the recent Congressional Ratings released by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) show, it would be wrong to think of online gambling as a Republican-versus-Democrat issue.

Although Republican Jon Kyl, John McCain’s fellow Arizona senator and the father of the anti-Internet gambling initiative, received a well-earned F-minus rating, so too does Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of neighboring California. In Arizona, Republican congressman Jeff Flake earned an A, while his Democratic counterpart one district over received an F.

Unfortunately, like his opponent, McCain has not stated his opinion on Internet gambling for the record in any speech or on any campaign site. So what can we glean from John McCain’s record and his associations to determine how receptive his administration would be to pro-Internet gambling legislation?

Many of McCain’s top advisers and donors have ties to the gambling industry, from tribal and Las Vegas land-based casinos to online gaming. PPA Chairman Alphonse D’Amato is a McCain supporter, as are PPA lobbyists Wayne Berman and John Green.

Leading McCain’s campaign is Rick Davis, former lobbyist for GTech, an Internet gambling company. Also on McCain’s team are Charlie Black and Brian Ballard, both former lobbyists for Internet gambling companies.

While D’Amato’s endorsement is as an individual, and not on behalf of the PPA, John Pappas, executive director of the PPA, appears pleased with the opportunity D’Amato’s relationship provides the association to enlighten McCain on its issues.

Pappas has been quoted as saying about D’Amato’s endorsement, “He knew McCain; they served together in the Senate. He believes McCain has qualities to be a strong leader for America. I can only hope that, should McCain be elected, we’d have some insight into his thought process. If you have someone that’s on the fence on your issue, then what better way to educate him than to surround him with people that understand the benefits of regulation, like D’Amato? We have a great open door to be able to engage him on the issue.”

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, McCain has been instrumental in the shaping of laws to spur the growth of the Indian gaming industry. “One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, was quoted as calling McCain in a recent New York Times article.

And his relationship with other sectors of the gambling industry seems strong; thus far in the presidential race, McCain has raised twice as much money from the gambling industry as Obama.

But there is no clear evidence of McCain’s opinion today with respect to Internet gambling. While he voted for the SAFE Port Act which contained the UIGEA, so too did Obama and his running mate Sen. Joe Biden. The bill was included in a must-pass piece of legislation, and it is unclear how aware any of the senators who voted for the bill were of the anti-Internet gambling language buried inside.

Ten years ago, McCain voted in favor of the 1998 Internet Gambling Amendment which, if passed, would have banned placing, receiving or otherwise making a bet or wager on the Internet. His opponent’s running mate, Sen. Biden, was one of just 10 senators to vote against the amendment, which ultimately failed to become law.

As a strong supporter of Indian gaming, and with the tribes’ anti-online gambling stance, it is assumed McCain would not support online gambling. A 2004 article for ESPN by Peter Keating said that McCain would ban Internet gambling – “not because it’s addictive, but because players typically have no way of knowing whether they are in fair games.” But it is not clear if this is the writer’s opinion, as the statement is not attributed to McCain.

In a July interview with Erin Neff of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, McCain gave what the writer viewed as evasive responses to her questions about his opinion on online gambling. According to her article, “First he tried to back away from his position because he hasn’t been involved in it lately. Then he said it was really fellow Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl’s deal.”

One bright spot in his analysis of the issue, according to Neff, was that he was quoted as not blaming the economic woes of the gaming industry on Internet gambling: “The economy is what’s hurting the gaming industry in Las Vegas today. It isn’t sports betting or Internet gaming.”

However, when pushed for his position, according to the writer, McCain punted. “Let me get back to you on it,” he said. “I haven’t thought about the issue.”

One person who is not vague or undecided is Las Vegas lawyer Anthony Cabot, who is on record as concerned for the future of online gambling under a McCain presidency. In an interview with the Las Vegas Business Press he said bluntly, “If [Arizona Sen. John] McCain is elected, the Internet gaming ban would never be repealed.” Unfortunately, the interview provides little to back up this opinion, so the voter is left wondering what effect McCain really would have.

There is no issue about McCain’s general opinion on gambling – he’s quoted as saying, “I am a gambling man.” His penchant for craps is well documented and there is little fear of him being ideologically opposed to gambling in general.

Also, McCain has spent almost his entire political life running as a “maverick” and is known to have distanced himself from the Republican party on a number of issues, so it’s hard to say whether he would go out of his way to veto a pro-online gambling bill that was sent to his desk for signature from a Democrat Congress.

The only other hint that McCain may be amendable to legislation to license and regulate online poker comes from his opinion on regulation of Indian Gaming. He has supported Congress clarifying and toughening the National Indian Gaming Commission’s enforcement ability at land-based casinos, saying, “If there is not sufficient regulation, corruption seeps in.”

It is probably fitting to say that voting for McCain because you believe he will support online gambling is a crapshoot. At best, his record shows someone who has not led the fight against online gambling, who does not view gambling as inherently immoral, and who is supported by many who are pro-Internet gambling.

The third and final installment of the Election 2008 series will focus on which of the third-party candidates running for U.S. President would be best for online poker and gambling. It will publish on Wednesday.

Online Gambling Boycott Expands to Bourbon, Jack Daniels Smiles

Kentucky industries have been facing a growing movement to boycott products from the state. The ongoing attempt by Governor Beshear to crush constitutional rights and trample Internet freedom by seizing online casinos’ domain names has created a backlash.

Stirred by Online Casino Advisory’s Sherman Bradley, what began as a message to Beshear that offended individuals would not support his protectionist policy by shunning the state’s horse racing and online gaming has now become a wave of rejection of all Kentucky products.

The website BoycottKentucky.com continues to list more businesses to avoid as an expression of displeasure. The latest renowned Kentucky industry to be called on the carpet is the distilling business.

For a whiskey to be labeled bourbon, it must by law be distilled in Kentucky. To join the boycott, therefore, a good rule of thumb would be avoid bourbon. Similar taste can be found in Jack Daniels, which is sour mash; the Seagrams family of VO, Seagram’s 7,and Canadian Club, which are blended whiskeys; and Southern Comfort, a sweet liqueur.

BoycottKentucky.com provides a complete list of distillers and their contact information. In the meantime, Churchill Downs prepares to start live racing in the face of controversy, and TwinSpires.com refuses to provide data regarding business since the boycott was first suggested.

Argentina to Ban Online Gambling?

Recently, the Argentinean province of Buenos Aires was presented with a bill which aims to prohibit all forms of gambling via remote connection, including internet and mobile phone gambling.

If the bill is passed into law, it would mean that all telecommunications operators would have to block access to all sites that offer any form of gambling. Any operator that doesn’t block access or tries to circumvent the bill will receive a penalty equal to ten or twenty times the amount of bets received in the region of Buenos Aires.

Deputy Liliana Piani, the politician behind the bill, argued that banning forms of remote gambling is essential so that the state can have full control over gambling activities. Piana was quoted as saying that this was to prevent “certain fundamental values from being endangered,” such as “public health, public order and the protection of minors.”

She complains the Argentinean government is not doing enough to address the problems associated with such forms of gambling, and she pointed out the issues addressed by her bill had been expressively excluded from all current gaming legislation.

This is essentially another form of the prohibition versus regulation debate. Regulation is where a set of laws exist which attempt to balance the need to protect the public from dangerous or harmful activity against the need for a free flow of legitimate commerce.

Prohibition on the other hand, is where all activities associated with something like gambling are banned and considered a crime. This has the unintended consequence of opening a black market for the activity.

The best example of this is the recent exclusion of Online Casinos like PartyCasino and 888 Casino from the US market. As both companies are publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange, they are subject to heavy regulation and constant monitoring to ensure safe and fair standards for their players. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) effectively forced both companies to withdraw from the US market. Their departure only created a gap in the market for unregulated, unlicensed online gambling operators. The ironic but unsurprising result is that American online gamblers are now less protected than they were prior to the UIGEA being signed into law.

Prohibition of regulated Online Casinos leads to an increase in unregulated and unscrupulous operators looking to fill the gap. The consumer no longer has protection against cheating operators and the games are no longer guaranteed to be fair. You are essentially gambling with the operator, with no safety checks and balances or right of appeal on decisions made.

In stark contrast to the United States, the United Kingdom decided to regulate the online gambling market in Britain. Regulation is the only intelligent and responsible way to ensure that operators behave responsibly. Prohibition simply prevents good companies from doing business, with less-than-ethical competitors not the type to let some legislation get in the way of doing business.

Prohibition didn’t stop Americans from drinking during the 1920’s and the UIGEA won’t stop Americans from gambling online in the next decade. It appears once again that the primary lesson we can learn from history is our infinite capacity to simply make the same mistakes over and over again.

The Biggest South African Online Gambling Portal Has Now Been Launched

A new South African Online Gambling portal
PlayCasino.co.za has launched their innovative and informative website showcasing the most reputable South African Online Gambling destinations.

With the new law passed in which Online Gambling has now been legalized in South Africa, we should expect an influx of new gaming companies entering the South African gaming market. “Even though pending amendments to the South African Gambling Act (an Act that aims to regulate the SA online gambling industry) will open the doors to online gambling for many such service providers, we felt that it will be great if South Africans can find information on these sites before deciding to play” said the directors of
PlayCasino. “PlayCasino.co.za showcases the most reputable online gambling sites in South Africa and internationally. Our team has personally played at all these gambling sites and have listed the best of the best so you too can enjoy them.”

PlayCasino.co.za is leading the way, offering an honest and trustworthy service, establishing itself in what is soon to become an enormous South African online industry.

With more than 10 years experience in the online gambling industry, you can rest assured that they have what you’re looking for, having tested the market place and assessed all the online casinos listed on their website, so that it can provide South African gamblers with only the best and most reputable
online casinos that accept South African Rand as a currency.