It's official: Due to legislation signed today, online gambling is now banned in the U.S. This means, of course, that the weekly internet poker game among IELP blog members is cancelled. (For the Americans among us, anyway -- the non-Americans can carry on as usual. We Americans will have to satisfy our gambling urges with betting on horse-racing, since there's an exception for that in the law.)
I was thinking that prohibition lasted about 13 years. Anyone want to take bets on how long the gambling ban will last? Well, not bets obviously, just guessing for fun. Antigua will likely amend its existing WTO complaint to challenge the new law, and the EC may not be far behind in bringing its own case, so there will be some foreign pressure to repeal (or at least modify) it. And this Economist article (subscriber only) suggests that some American companies would prefer to legalize online gambling, so there may be domestic pressure as well. Based on those factors, I'm going with 2 years and 5 months until it is amended or repealed (that would be March of 2010). Make your guess in the comment section.
There's not much analysis of the new law out there yet, but here are two short items that may be of interest. First, an article by a U of Wash. Law prof, entitled "The New Federal Law Banning Payments for Online Gambling: Why It's the Wrong Choice." http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20061010.html
In it, she notes:
"Even if the U.S. continues to ignore the Caribbean nations and the WTO on this matter, it may not be able to ignore the European Union -- which is liberalizing its own markets for Internet gambling, and may seek to hold the U.S. to GATS. "
She also argues that:
"There's no question that Internet gambling raises serious issues. But they are far better addressed through regulation, than though an unfair and ineffective partial ban like the one UIGA imposes."
According to another article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2394785,00.html )
... there continue to be ways, legally, for UK companies to continue to do business with their American customers.
“It’s a case of unjustified panic,” Julian Harris, of Harris Hagan, says. “For example, the Bill does not affect payments by cheque and customers will still be able to use overseas payment systems. So if you want to gamble you can use an intermediary as your method of payment. Now, of course, it may take some time for customers to adjust but it does mean that the operators will be able to regroup and find ways of dealing with the new position.”
Also, here's a blog post with some analysis of how the law came into being, in terms of the key interest groups. The author quotes a reader who implies it wasn't about protectionism, but rather Bill Frist courting votes in his presumed bid for the Presidency.