- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Messages
- 62,501
Deval Patrick Loses in Bid to Ban Online Gambling for Massachusetts Citizens
Attempting to follow in the footsteps of Washington State, angry gamblers (led by a powerful poker playing coalition) made it clear that Massachusetts Governor would not be squashing a billion dollar online gambling industry in favor of special interest casino groups based in that state. Patrick proposed legalized gambling in Massachusetts but with the stipulation that all online casinos and poker rooms be banned. Throw in the condition that actual gamblers could ultimately face felony charges much as is the case in Washington State already.
Furious poker players and others led a march this week in protest of the planned legislation.
A card-playing Harvard Law professor and his poker-crazy students were among those who voiced their outrage.
“I don’t think filling our expensive jail cells with poker players is what Massachusetts voters had in mind when they elected Deval Patrick,” Nesson said in a statement.
Gambling911.com had also warned in the past that fans of some of the nation's most bet on sports teams could ultimately be held criminally liable. There would be no more betting on the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics - at least not by those living in the state.
The provision to outlaw Internet gambling was buried deep in Patrick's bill in an effort to allow three casinos entry to the state. It also put the governor at odds with a fellow Democrat: US Representative Barney Frank, the sponsor of federal legislation to license and regulate online gambling nationally. Frank strongly criticized the governor's plan to punish online gamers while inviting casino operators to set up shop.
"Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?" Frank said. "He's making a big mistake. He's giving opponents an argument against him."
And that he did.
Nearly 6 hours of debate resulted in Deval Patrick losing his bid in a Democratic led House. Representatives voted 106-48 to send the bill to a study committee, effectively defeating the measure and ensuring it won't come back up for debate until next year.
House Speaker Sal DiMasi engineered a pivotal committee vote against the bill. After the vote, he said "big money special interests lost," while the people of Massachusetts won.
Nelson Benton of the Salem News wondered if Patrick was losing his appeal among Democrats in Massachusetts.
Who said a Democratic governor would have more clout with the Legislature?
That was one of the arguments for electing Deval Patrick after 16 years of Republican occupancy of the corner office. Yet it now appears Patrick has no more influence with Speaker Sal DiMasi and the House rank-and-file than did his predecessor, Mitt Romney.
Indeed, had it not been for the two North Shore Republicans — Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester and Rep. Brad Hill of Ipswich — on the committee that heard testimony on the governor's casino bill this week, the vote to kill it wouldn't even have been close.
Sir Ronald Sanders last year pointed out it is this very protectionist position that caused successive governments of the small Caribbean Island, Antigua and Barbuda, to bring a case against the US to the World Trade Organization (WTO), complaining that in its commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the US bound itself to provide market access and national treatment to the cross-border supply of foreign services that come within the category of ‘other recreational services’ which includes gambling and betting services.
The World Trade Organization rewarded Antigua, claiming that the US Government had engaged in "protectionism" by exempting horse racing and - perhaps to a lesser degree - state lotteries from recently passed legislation banning all other forms of online gambling.
Deval Patrick's attempts would have provided yet another slap in the face for the WTO. Thus far, the US Government has not exactly cooperated with the decision leveled against it.
----
http://www.gambling911.com/Deval-Patrick-Online-Gambling-Massachusetts-032108.html
Attempting to follow in the footsteps of Washington State, angry gamblers (led by a powerful poker playing coalition) made it clear that Massachusetts Governor would not be squashing a billion dollar online gambling industry in favor of special interest casino groups based in that state. Patrick proposed legalized gambling in Massachusetts but with the stipulation that all online casinos and poker rooms be banned. Throw in the condition that actual gamblers could ultimately face felony charges much as is the case in Washington State already.
Furious poker players and others led a march this week in protest of the planned legislation.
A card-playing Harvard Law professor and his poker-crazy students were among those who voiced their outrage.
“I don’t think filling our expensive jail cells with poker players is what Massachusetts voters had in mind when they elected Deval Patrick,” Nesson said in a statement.
Gambling911.com had also warned in the past that fans of some of the nation's most bet on sports teams could ultimately be held criminally liable. There would be no more betting on the Patriots, Red Sox and Celtics - at least not by those living in the state.
The provision to outlaw Internet gambling was buried deep in Patrick's bill in an effort to allow three casinos entry to the state. It also put the governor at odds with a fellow Democrat: US Representative Barney Frank, the sponsor of federal legislation to license and regulate online gambling nationally. Frank strongly criticized the governor's plan to punish online gamers while inviting casino operators to set up shop.
"Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?" Frank said. "He's making a big mistake. He's giving opponents an argument against him."
And that he did.
Nearly 6 hours of debate resulted in Deval Patrick losing his bid in a Democratic led House. Representatives voted 106-48 to send the bill to a study committee, effectively defeating the measure and ensuring it won't come back up for debate until next year.
House Speaker Sal DiMasi engineered a pivotal committee vote against the bill. After the vote, he said "big money special interests lost," while the people of Massachusetts won.
Nelson Benton of the Salem News wondered if Patrick was losing his appeal among Democrats in Massachusetts.
Who said a Democratic governor would have more clout with the Legislature?
That was one of the arguments for electing Deval Patrick after 16 years of Republican occupancy of the corner office. Yet it now appears Patrick has no more influence with Speaker Sal DiMasi and the House rank-and-file than did his predecessor, Mitt Romney.
Indeed, had it not been for the two North Shore Republicans — Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester and Rep. Brad Hill of Ipswich — on the committee that heard testimony on the governor's casino bill this week, the vote to kill it wouldn't even have been close.
Sir Ronald Sanders last year pointed out it is this very protectionist position that caused successive governments of the small Caribbean Island, Antigua and Barbuda, to bring a case against the US to the World Trade Organization (WTO), complaining that in its commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the US bound itself to provide market access and national treatment to the cross-border supply of foreign services that come within the category of ‘other recreational services’ which includes gambling and betting services.
The World Trade Organization rewarded Antigua, claiming that the US Government had engaged in "protectionism" by exempting horse racing and - perhaps to a lesser degree - state lotteries from recently passed legislation banning all other forms of online gambling.
Deval Patrick's attempts would have provided yet another slap in the face for the WTO. Thus far, the US Government has not exactly cooperated with the decision leveled against it.
----
http://www.gambling911.com/Deval-Patrick-Online-Gambling-Massachusetts-032108.html
