"Michael Isikoff writes: Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader from Nevada, is pushing ahead with his efforts to legalize Internet poker before Congress adjourns this year, despite new criticism from state lottery officials, including a former Democratic National Committee chairman, that Reid's plan was an “outrageous” reward for big Las Vegas casino interests that heavily backed his campaign for re-election."
Actually, the big Las Vegas casinos were the ones who pressed for the earlier law that, while not banning online poker, made it vaguely illegal for banks or credit card companies to process transactions for consumers that are related to onlike poker... except that the rules never fully kicked in, and the banks thought they weren't really enforceable based on the language of the statute.
The reason the casinos wanted the practice banned was because they weren't controlling it - the biggest operators are overseas. And as far as online poker competing with Las Vegas casinos or state lotteries, the academic studies that exist seem to indicate strongly that the audience is young males 21 to 34 who are more financially successful than the median for their group. And the social impacts surveys that have been done indicate the greatest threat of online poker to an individual is how rapidly an addiction can lead to economic destruction, because you can play so many more hands per minute than you can at a casino.
The Dems decided to try to legalize it and tax it partly out of a sense that trying to stop it in the modern Internet world is foolhardy and partly because the big casino operators started yawning when asked if they were still opposed. Meanwhile, critics like Republican Senator Jon Kyl, whose 2006 legislation capped a nine-year effort to put restrictions on internet gambling, didn't really weigh in with opposition to the trial balloons.
And now you know, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story.
Actually, the big Las Vegas casinos were the ones who pressed for the earlier law that, while not banning online poker, made it vaguely illegal for banks or credit card companies to process transactions for consumers that are related to onlike poker... except that the rules never fully kicked in, and the banks thought they weren't really enforceable based on the language of the statute.
The reason the casinos wanted the practice banned was because they weren't controlling it - the biggest operators are overseas. And as far as online poker competing with Las Vegas casinos or state lotteries, the academic studies that exist seem to indicate strongly that the audience is young males 21 to 34 who are more financially successful than the median for their group. And the social impacts surveys that have been done indicate the greatest threat of online poker to an individual is how rapidly an addiction can lead to economic destruction, because you can play so many more hands per minute than you can at a casino.
The Dems decided to try to legalize it and tax it partly out of a sense that trying to stop it in the modern Internet world is foolhardy and partly because the big casino operators started yawning when asked if they were still opposed. Meanwhile, critics like Republican Senator Jon Kyl, whose 2006 legislation capped a nine-year effort to put restrictions on internet gambling, didn't really weigh in with opposition to the trial balloons.
And now you know, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment