MA Proposes Two Year Jail Term for Online Gambling 248
tessaiga writes "The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is trying to sneak a provision to criminalize online gambling. The bill, if passed, would make online gambling punishable by up to 2 years in prison and $25k in fines. Ironically, the provision is buried deep within a bill to allow the construction of three new casinos in Massachusetts to bring more gambling revenue into the state. 'If you were cynical about it, you'd think that they're trying to set up a monopoly for the casinos,' said David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Democratic House representative Barney Frank, who earlier this year introduced federal legislation to legalize regulated online gambling, also criticized the move as 'giving opponents an argument against him.' Indeed, groups such as the Poker Player's Alliance, who were previously supportive of Patrick's plans to open the new casinos, have already announced opposition to the bill because of the online gambling clause."
Online gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I disagree with the idea that gambling is somehow immoral, it wouldn't be so bad if that was the position that was being taken. But no, it seems that gambling itself is fine, it's just that Internet gambling somehow is not. Perhaps the supposed rationale[1] is that it's not regulated the same way that in-state gambling is. But then by that token, online shopping should be banned, too.
I'd be intrigued to see the wording of the bill. After all, spread betting on the financial markets is gambling. Indeed, the entire futures market is gambling. Hell, even taking out an insurance policy is gambling. Which of those will be made an offence punishable by incarceration, and which won't? Who determines which activity falls on which side of the line, and why?
Disclaimer: I make my living through online gambling.
[1] Yes, I know the public rationale is in all likelihood utterly unrelated to the real reason, but I have to at least go along with the pretense.
Proportional punishment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Online gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it. I cannot be a morality reason...since OTB for horse races and apparently some lotteries can be planed online...so, what is the big deal with banning online gambling?
Lets get rid of the nanny state mentality, and let people do what they wish. True freedom means freedom to fsck up, and deal with the consequences too....
prohibition didnt work for my grandparents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Online gambling (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't think this is a case of corruption, so much as one of protectionism. Listen, gambling web sites are only a threat because most of them operate offshore and therefore the suckers who use them are funneling their money to small Caribbean islands, not into the coffers of the States or the Federal Government. So, here's a bill that seeks to build casinos in Massachusetts while at the same time preventing gambling dollars from slipping the country. You have a State government trying to fund its programs off the backs of the poor (not unlike what happens with lotteries). It's not overt corruption, unless of course some of the new MA casino money makes its way into the pockets of the governor. This bears watching.
Re:Online gambling (Score:4, Insightful)
Brick and Mortar Casino - Taxed...heavily...easy for the auditors to swoop down on and maintain control to make sure the state gets it's cut. Physical location clear, so no question as to what taxing authority "owns" it. Opportunities for additional taxable revenue from tourists, as they have to physically come to the state, and buy fuel, food, hotel rooms, souveniers, etc.
Online Casino - Theoretically taxable, but probably based overseas, so good luck collecting. Open question regarding what jurisdiction gets to tax it. No person actually travels, so no auxilliary income.
Re:Online gambling (Score:2, Insightful)
Forget about the profits from the casinos the state makes/etc (although that too is VERY signifigant). I'm Canadian (dont hold that against me) and I play a shitpile of online poker. Make a damn fine amount of cash on it too.
I don't pay a single cent of income tax on my winnings. Part because the online gambling sites have no mechanism for reporting gambling income to the governments. Although I'd still pay my fair share if Canada taxed gaming "income" - thankfully we do not.
All this asshole wants is for Mass. to reap its taxation windfall from all of you who win gambling online. If its thru the state casinos - he has a direct line. If its from some cayman islands offshore gambling company, they know you aren't going to report the income, nor pay taxes on it. Add in that the offshore site reaps the profits (your gambling losses) as well, its no-win for Mass. to open casinos & do nothing to stop you from playing on an offshore site.
Dosn't mean this guy isn't a douche. He most decidedly is. Of course the government wants a monopoly on gaming, its all about the dollars. But thankfully some are standing up to this asshat-ery - you should be able to choose where you spend your gaming dollars.
There is NO better way (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for smaller government sooner rather than later. Apparently, at least in Mass., it's okay to propose legislation that makes you look so corrupt that half the world is reading about you. The throngs of people (Honorable J Carter even) that want to decriminalize things that have been prohibited for a while is getting bigger and bigger, approaching critical mass, yet the US believes it can ban all online gambling? WTF? Prohibition and censorship do NOT work. I wish the US had a government that understood that. Oh, let me add abstinence to that list also. If only god had been so forward thinking as to add an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not legislate morality. Even if Moses had had an epiphany on the way down the mountain... two really good opportunities missed!! Just one little commandment, 5 words, even in stone tablet writing costs, that is cheap.
How much death and mayhem could have been avoided in the world?
things that make you go hmmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
hell, this man may even drive an suv!
NYSE related anecdote (Score:4, Insightful)
People got cold feet and it evaporated as U.S. legislators gave hints that it would become illegal, but it seems to me that there remains a very grey area inhabited by the stock exchange, online gambling, virtual worlds like second life and massive multiplayer games with their own currencies and conversion rates. Games of chance and skill abound in already addictive and immersive worlds.
At the time even experienced people thought the line was drawn in one place but now it is perhaps in another. I would like to note that the venture I mention was not a casino. It was supposed to teach you about the stock market.
I think the definition of gambling these days has little to do with people's welfare. The definition is made by legislators and government executives, and involves a cynical calculation and the creation of a protected and coveted revenue source for a municipality.
Re:Constituants (Score:4, Insightful)
Now MA, like most states, has had a lottery for a while. It generates money that gets passed on to towns, mainly for schools. The lottery is run by a state agency so all of the money stays in it. If they have casinos though, most of the money will go into private hands. There is only so much cash people have to piss away on gambling so this money is going to come from, you guessed it, what they would've spent on the lottery. So the state is taking from one pocket and putting it in another except this one has a hole in it.
The response to this is the proponents say "The money will come from what would've gone to CT casinos so it won't hurt the lottery very much and we'll have the CT money too." Well, no one should expect Monhegan Sun to sit on its butt and let us take its business. It will fight and CT may agree to take less for the state. Other states like NH and ME may jump in. Competition would cut state shares and in the end more would go down the private profit drain and the state (and citizens) would lose.
All this because people can't face reality and deal with taxes.
Re:It could get quite amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
It will indeed be interesting. I'm not sure how the US will handle this. Unlike many other countries, when the US fed. government signs a treaty, it really does NOT become the law of the land, superseding other laws. This is especially true if parts of the treaty could be translated as violating the Constitution. Nothing, no treaty can supersede that. Here is an interesting link [wikipedia.org] that I saw before on Slashdot about all this. Read the part in Domestic vs International law.
"The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments."
So...it is going to be an interesting test of this indeed...with respect to how the US works within true international bodies and treaties such at the WTO. Our government isn't really set up to sign a treaty and have it set in stone and binding...at least, that's how I read it.
Anyone else find it strange......... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's way more complicated. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, you must understand that Massachusetts has lotto, scratch offs, "mega" scratch offs which cost $20, participates in multi-state mega jackpot lotteries, and has keno.
Then, you must understand that a Native American tribe is currently trying [with the help of a major casino corporation] to build a casino on their tribal lands in MA.
Then, you must understand that MA's left and right oriented folks are generally unified against the casinos, fighting against a likely larger but certainly more apathetic middle group of moderates.
Then, you must understand that due to Prop 2.5 which restricts property tax revenue from growing more than 2.5% each year on existing property -- which is lower than general inflation and gov't cost inflation due to health care costs and energy costs growing upwards of 10% per year -- is putting a tighter and tighter squeeze on local government. Property taxes are the primary way that local governments obtain revenue, necessary to pay their share of infrastructure, education, safety, and overhead costs.
Then, you must understand that the supermajority Democratic state legislators are petrified of raising any taxes any where at any time.
Then, you must understand that Governor Deval Patrick proposed some local options taxes, where a town or city could add an additional levy on restaurants and keep some of that money and share the rest with the state. This is opposed by the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader, making it effectively dead on Beacon Hill. There were a few other local options of which I've forgotten.
Then, you must understand that the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader are very powerful in MA government, and that legislators who buck them tend to find all of their bills dead in committee, don't get any influential committee assignments, and get assigned to the leaky, small, smelly basement offices.
.
.
.
So, you've got a financial crunch at the local level. The Lege won't pass the Gov's revenue initiative. As far as casinos go, it's not clear what the Governor wants to see happen.
My guess? He wants the casino bill to fail. He's effectively added poison pills to the bill, exploiting NIMBYism and perhaps now this ban on Internet gambling so that the bill loses supporters. If the casino push crashes and burns, the Lege may have to revisit his proposal for local options. In short, this is way more complex than the standard
Disclaimer:
I live in MA
I am a very local elected [unpaid] official
I was an early supporter of Deval Patrick's campaign for governor
I was a Democratic Party precinct captain
I am opposed to any and all legalized gambling in MA, including the state-run lottery monopolies
Re:For the last time -Femocrats are not socialist! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Proportional punishment (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, a two year prison sentence tends to tear families apart just as well I would imagine.
Re:It could get quite amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Online gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constituants (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It could get quite amusing (Score:3, Insightful)