WASHINGTON, July 12 (UPI) -- The House of Representatives Tuesday voted to pass a bill aimed at curbing online gambling, but there is already concern that the legislation is long on tough talk and short on real solutions.
The bill, which passed by a 317-93 count, makes it illegal for online gambling sites to accept payments from credit cards, checks or electronic payment services.
"Internet gambling is a scourge on our society," said Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., one of the bill's authors. "It causes innumerable problems in our society."
Even on Capitol Hill, congressmen expressed doubts about the bill's effectiveness, given that offshore gambling sites can easily conceal their identities.
"It cannot possibly be enforced," said Bobby Scott, D-Va.
Jeffery Modisett, an attorney with Byan Cave LLP and former attorney general for the state of Indiana, agreed with Scott about the bill's effectiveness.
"It will have practically no impact," said Modisett. "I think it's just going to be a feel-good piece of legislation." He argued that the bill merely underscores that online gambling is illegal, without offering anything that can be done about it.
"Just because Congress passes a law that says 'thou shalt not do whatever,' in this case with online gambling, doesn't mean anything," Modisett said. "With no structure in place to do that, this is a meaningless gesture."
He added that in general, the lawmakers' approach of making online gambling illegal is not going to work because of the type of industry it is. The attorney said that a more effective approach would be to allow the industry to come to the United States and regulate it.
"The people making all the money are the people that are willing to go offshore," he said. "We need reputable brand name companies setting up these sites. We're letting the 'Wild West' characters run the whole $12 billion industry instead of people who have more credibility."
However, Modisett said the lawmakers behind the bill are more concerned with playing the right cards to voters than trying to fix the problem.
"They can score more points saying they're being tough on gambling," he said. "It's the same strategy as to pick on other moral issues."
The House bill targets sports betting and poker while it seems to let other types of gambling off easy. Modisett said this is evidence of the power that lobbyists still hold in a post-Jack Abramoff Washington.
"It's clear that the exceptions they've allowed for show it's still an issue of who has the most influence in Washington," he said. "From an analytical viewpoint, there's not much difference among the various types of gambling. It shows that this is a symbolic move, not a realistic move."
Modisett said that this is a bill is more about news-making than lawmaking, so he doesn't expect it to get through the Senate.
"The odds are the Senate has other priorities," he said. "This could just be put on the back burner," pointing out that with one-third of the Senate up for re-election this November, some forces in the Senate may push the issue to the forefront.
"It's possible in this election year that the Senate could sign off on it," he said.
Either way, Modisett said, Congress's approach to the problem is off base.
"I am firmly in the camp of believing the only way you can influence behavior is to admit there are billions of dollars spent in online gambling in the United States. ... You've got to open your eyes to it and regulate it and impose a structure that can work."<!-- / message -->
The bill, which passed by a 317-93 count, makes it illegal for online gambling sites to accept payments from credit cards, checks or electronic payment services.
"Internet gambling is a scourge on our society," said Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., one of the bill's authors. "It causes innumerable problems in our society."
Even on Capitol Hill, congressmen expressed doubts about the bill's effectiveness, given that offshore gambling sites can easily conceal their identities.
"It cannot possibly be enforced," said Bobby Scott, D-Va.
Jeffery Modisett, an attorney with Byan Cave LLP and former attorney general for the state of Indiana, agreed with Scott about the bill's effectiveness.
"It will have practically no impact," said Modisett. "I think it's just going to be a feel-good piece of legislation." He argued that the bill merely underscores that online gambling is illegal, without offering anything that can be done about it.
"Just because Congress passes a law that says 'thou shalt not do whatever,' in this case with online gambling, doesn't mean anything," Modisett said. "With no structure in place to do that, this is a meaningless gesture."
He added that in general, the lawmakers' approach of making online gambling illegal is not going to work because of the type of industry it is. The attorney said that a more effective approach would be to allow the industry to come to the United States and regulate it.
"The people making all the money are the people that are willing to go offshore," he said. "We need reputable brand name companies setting up these sites. We're letting the 'Wild West' characters run the whole $12 billion industry instead of people who have more credibility."
However, Modisett said the lawmakers behind the bill are more concerned with playing the right cards to voters than trying to fix the problem.
"They can score more points saying they're being tough on gambling," he said. "It's the same strategy as to pick on other moral issues."
The House bill targets sports betting and poker while it seems to let other types of gambling off easy. Modisett said this is evidence of the power that lobbyists still hold in a post-Jack Abramoff Washington.
"It's clear that the exceptions they've allowed for show it's still an issue of who has the most influence in Washington," he said. "From an analytical viewpoint, there's not much difference among the various types of gambling. It shows that this is a symbolic move, not a realistic move."
Modisett said that this is a bill is more about news-making than lawmaking, so he doesn't expect it to get through the Senate.
"The odds are the Senate has other priorities," he said. "This could just be put on the back burner," pointing out that with one-third of the Senate up for re-election this November, some forces in the Senate may push the issue to the forefront.
"It's possible in this election year that the Senate could sign off on it," he said.
Either way, Modisett said, Congress's approach to the problem is off base.
"I am firmly in the camp of believing the only way you can influence behavior is to admit there are billions of dollars spent in online gambling in the United States. ... You've got to open your eyes to it and regulate it and impose a structure that can work."<!-- / message -->
