DriveThru – Get What You Need

 In a recent gambling-news article, Tribal leaders called Barney Frank’s online gambling bill, H.R. 2267 , “…the greatest threat to Indian gaming in 20 years.”

Tribal leaders clearly feel threatened by the possibility of more competition. “… the threat of Congressional legislation that will transfer billions of dollars from Indian Reservations to foreign offshore internet casinos,” said Daniel Tucker, leader in the California Nations Indian Gaming Association and chairman of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.

 Tribal opposition to Frank’s bill is expected to escalate in coming weeks and months, as is the opposition from pro-family groups. Frank’s bill would pipe thousands of online, virtual casinos into approximately 91 million U.S. homes via the Internet.

About 230 million men, women and children access the Internet for business, school and information. Many feel that Frank’s sponsorship of policy legalizing online gambling is irresponsible legislation that is being pushed by foreign, online gambling interests and their U.S.-based front-group, Poker Player’s Alliance.

If you want to learn more about this issue, visit our Internet Gambling Take Action site.

Don’t bet on Internet gambling becoming legal anytime soon. The Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) challenged the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) in an oral argument on June 7, 2009, in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing did not bode well for the online gambling interests, who are pushing to legalize Internet gambling in the U.S.

Prior to the hearing, online gambling’s iMEGA chairman, Joe Brennan Jr., smugly remarked, “This law will finally have to stand on it’s own two feet in court, free from politics and all other outside influences. We feel very confident that when the judges take a look at the law, they will see just how defective it is, and they will overturn it.” That didn’t happen. And, ironically, it’s the “other outside influences,” like foreign Internet gambling interests, who are pushing U.S. politicians to overturn UIGEA.

The two iMEGA lawyers attempting to overturn UIGEA met sober opposition with their tired arguments. They claimed that UIGEA is too ambiguous and it violates gamblers’ First Amendment rights. Their arguments were aptly rejected by the three judges who were not impressed.

The 3rd Circuit judges discarded the supposed ambiguity in UIGEA. “I’m struggling with what’s vague …” said Judge Kent, “[gamblers] could have a beef [with state laws] … that doesn’t mean this statute is vague [UIGEA].”

None was impressed with iMEGA’s arguments claiming that UIGEA violates gamblers’ First Amendment rights. Judge Ambro asked one of the iMEGA attorneys, “Are you asserting that you have a privacy right that trumps the police powers of the state?”

Overall, the judges seemed to unanimously uphold UIGEA and the face of Internet gambling’s oral arguments. More to come as Rep. Frank attempts to overturn UIGEA with his bill to legalize Internet gambling (H.R. 2267), but the House Financial Committee has more important, pressing concerns with the teetering U.S. economy.

• Read a summary of the 3rd Circuit – iMEGA hearing on Law.com
• Read more about the ongoing efforts to protect families against illegal, predatory online gambling operations …
• Read the UIGEA Fact booklet
• CitizenLink.com News
• Read the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in Title VIII of the SAFE Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954)