Kyl Removing Internet Gambling Stmts From Website - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

Kyl Removing Internet Gambling Stmts From Website

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Page 1 of 2

1 2

03-07-2012 , 10:34 AM

FiveAce

newbie

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 41

I saw this tweet this morning. It was a tweet by PokerFuse and re-tweeted by KevMath. Does anyone know what the comment said, that was removed from the website? Was it the anti-gambling comment or the comment that said he wanted to look into the topic further?

Poker Scout‏@PokerScout1
RT @pokerfuse Sen Jon Kyl has removed his statements regarding internet gambling from his website:http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/crime.cfm#3 (h/t @sluggger5x)

Quote

03-07-2012 , 11:23 AM

qdmcg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,870

Assuming the news is accurate and this is a recent development, can't help but assume this is not a good thing, though I think the report that Kyl/Reid had come to an agreement still more important than what Kyl leaves on his website.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 12:38 PM

Do it Right

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,890

The internet is forever: http://web.archive.org/web/201107071...nter/crime.cfm

The exact statement removed is:

Quote:

Internet Gambling

I have opposed efforts to legalize Internet gambling in the past because evidence suggests that it fosters problems unlike any other forms of gambling. Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of cash — leading to possible addiction and, in turn, bankruptcy, crime, and even suicide.

Efforts to carve out an exception for games like poker, which many believe is a game of skill, may be considered later this year. Until I have the chance to review them, I cannot make a judgment about their merits; but I will consider them carefully as long as they leave in place the broader proscriptions against online betting.

I'm usually a cynic when it comes to potentially ambiguous actions but I don't see how removing internet gambling from a page whose topics include murder and drug-related violence can be anything but positive.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 12:46 PM

gnvsnnkv

old hand

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,455

Thx, DiR. I think this statement had been there for a while. Perhaps it'll be "updated" with something more concretely positive (like "Now, I do support iPoker as a carve out from the rest of iGaming").

Quote

03-07-2012 , 02:13 PM

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,842

this was my response to slugger when I saw him post that info...not going to try to read too much into whether it's good/bad/neutral

Quote

03-07-2012 , 03:02 PM

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

everybody's in super silent ninja mode leading up to this cybersecurity attachment.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 03:06 PM

alien prophet

enthusiast

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

everybody's in super silent ninja mode leading up to this cybersecurity attachment.

Probably a good thing, then. I'll at least take it as a good thing. I no longer have any emotional attachment regarding pending legislation. If something positive takes place, huge BONUS, if not, ehhhh....

btw, 50th post! Yay! Now back to strategy...

Quote

03-07-2012 , 05:00 PM

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

No way that's bad news!

Quote

03-07-2012 , 05:28 PM

The Outsider

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 96

I really wanted to get another big sweat going, but I suppose I am remiss to the emotional toll it took on so many to be greeted with nothing but anti-climax the last go-round.

Whatever, I'm going to give it a good ONE TIME for the cybersecurity act.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 05:34 PM

#10

TBadr

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,669

sigh, I am glad I will be on vacation and mostly disconnected from the net for while in the near future. I just want to take a break from all of the disappointment and hopefully come back refreshed and optimistic.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 05:37 PM

#11

RazzSpazz

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 399

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

everybody's in super silent ninja mode leading up to this cybersecurity attachment.

Super silent ninja mode is fine with me if things like this are going on:

Quote:

Now Lieberman is working with Obama to impose a sweeping set of cybersecurity rules. The president, he said, called him personally last week to say the White House was “preparing to do anything” to help his bipartisan plan become law.

Joe Lieberman could back third-party candidate

Quote

03-07-2012 , 06:01 PM

#12

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

I mean, terrorists have obviously been using unlicensed Internet poker sites to launder money to cause 9/11s for years.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 06:04 PM

#13

Jerle Minara

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 95

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

everybody's in super silent ninja mode leading up to this cybersecurity attachment.

Can anyone link me to where this is discussed slash the Kyl/Reid arrangement because I don't see it anywhere and I'm not sure what to search for

Quote

03-07-2012 , 07:01 PM

#14

Go Get It

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 12,506

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

No way that's bad news!

So no way, thats good news. As in its good news or no way thats good news as in there no way its good news?

Quote

03-07-2012 , 07:10 PM

#15

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go Get It

So no way, thats good news. As in its good news or no way thats good news as in there no way its good news?

Yes...there is no way that could be bad news.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 08:19 PM

#16

gnvsnnkv

old hand

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,455

Rich, could you elaborate a bit?

Quote

03-07-2012 , 08:37 PM

#17

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnvsnk

Rich, could you elaborate a bit?

Sure. Removal of a section condemning online gaming must be a good thing -- especially as that section attacked poker directly in the past:

Quote:

Internet Gambling

Internet gambling has been illegal for some time, but law-enforcement agencies lacked effective mechanisms to enforce the ban. No one is entitled to circumvent the law simply because it is hard to enforce. With that in mind, I sponsored legislation to better enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet gambling. That measure became law in 2006.

Internet gambling is unique: online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can play without effective verification of their age; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of the money that the player is losing – leading to possible addiction and, in turn, to bankruptcy, crime, and suicide. Professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois put it best when he called Internet gambling the “crack cocaine [of gambling]…There are no needle marks. There’s no alcohol on the breath. You click the mouse and lose your house.” (“Online Wagering Under Attack in Congress,” Associated Press, July 10, 2006.)

The Federal Trade Commission has warned that computer-savvy young people are at particular risk, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, concerned about the risk to college students, urged enactment of a legislative remedy. The impact of Internet gambling on young people is well documented. For example, the one-time president of the sophomore class at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania robbed a bank to pay off his Internet gambling debt, and a young man in Scotland attempted suicide after using 13 of his parents’ credit cards and running up Internet gambling debts in excess of $300,000. (“The Hold-‘Em Holdup,” N.Y. Times, June 11, 2006; “Internet Addict Gambled away £158,000 on his Parents’ Cards,” The Times (London), June 16, 2006.)

Internet gambling is more than a social problem. It “carries a potential for fraud and money laundering and the involvement of organized crime in online gambling,” according to officials at the Department of Justice. The FBI’s Assistant Director pointed out that “Internet gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry. A significant portion of that is the illegal handling of Americans’ bets with offshore gaming companies, which amounts to a colossal criminal enterprise masquerading as a legitimate business. . . . The FBI is adamant about shutting off the flow of illegal cash.”

To thwart those who seek to evade the existing ban on Internet gambling, I sponsored the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. This legislation was supported by the National Football League, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, pro-family groups, anti-gambling groups, and 49 state attorneys general. It directed the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Attorney General, to write regulations to halt financial transactions for Internet gambling businesses and shut off the cash flow. The regulations have been issued and will take effect in December 2009. Off-shore gambling operations and others would like to overturn the regulations, and they’re spending millions to do so; they know shutting down illegal payments could put them out of commission.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 09:13 PM

#18

gnvsnnkv

old hand

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,455

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Sure. Removal of a section condemning online gaming must be a good thing -- especially as that section attacked poker directly in the past:

True, this was his stance in the ~distant past. Although, it was his last stance (ban iGaming, iPoker could be ok) that was so valuable to us poker ~enthusiasts… And his last stance was taken down, so what I'm getting at is that perhaps it's not so solid, and that it's not so "no way", he can flip-flop back to his original position. Or he can (hopefully) put a much stronger statement favoring us.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 09:16 PM

#19

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

My take: he is not interested in perusing any i-gaming legislation, either for or against.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 09:26 PM

#20

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnvsnk

The statement regarding online poker possibly being okay wasn't on his site for very long. He pulled that some time ago. What he removed this time was a purely anti-gaming statement.

Quote

03-07-2012 , 10:00 PM

#21

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

The statement regarding online poker possibly being okay wasn't on his site for very long. He pulled that some time ago. What he removed this time was a purely anti-gaming statement.

Thanks for the info, I was curious about this. If he had removed the one that included potential positive consideration for poker, then this could have maybe been bad, but now it seems all good for sure.

Quote

03-08-2012 , 05:39 AM

#22

sajeffe

banned

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by repulse

Same thing I was thinking.

God forbid we have reason to be optimistic. I have no energy left.

Quote

03-08-2012 , 10:31 AM

#23

gnvsnnkv

old hand

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,455

Hmmm... But his iGaming opposition is the biggest/only leverage we really ha(d)ve (in this context), our only ticket, so to say.

But I really can't see Kyl altogether "giving up" his opinion on iGaming like this.

Quote

03-08-2012 , 01:27 PM

#24

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

I'm fairly certain he still opposes non-poker gaming as adamantly as ever.

Quote

03-08-2012 , 04:03 PM

#25

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

I doubt anything has changed on Kyl's stance. Im not sure why we are trying to read anything into this.

Sounded like the opposition at this point is less Kyl and more state lotteries and perhaps some tribal interests.

Quote

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 2

First

1 2

Last