Bachus Confuses Internet Cafes With Online Gambling

The leading voice against regulated online gambling cited strange cases as reason to oppose Barney Frank’s bill.

Play at Slots Plus Casino Now!
During the markup on House Resolution 2267, the law regulating online gambling, opponent Spencer Bachus repeatedly referred to an article in the Orlando Sentinel that announced the dangers of internet gaming. Bachus said the newspaper complained of the tempting Internet cafes for children, arguing that this means that accepting online casinos means putting children at risk.

Bachus repeated the quote several times during the House Financial Services Committee discussion as if he had discovered a hard core of facts that gaming advocates could neither refute nor digest. But the Alabama Republican had either accidentally or intentionally tarnished the water with misleading information.

Bachus said that some areas of Florida have legalized online gambling, which is allowed in these cafes. The fact is that the cafes do not have a license to operate gambling, but that they exist in a gray area of ​​the law under the definition of “competition”.

While the games played in the cafes take place on computers, the money in the context of the design to squeeze into the gray area is processed both in the shop and outside the shop. Therefore, the failure to protect gambling from children would fall into a land-based and an unregulated form of gambling. If anything, Bachus’ quote speaks for H.R. 2267 and the need for regulation of the Internet casino.

The fact that Bachus is a driving force behind the UIGEA ban on online gambling and yet does not know that Florida has neither adopted its own rules for Internet gambling nor that Internet cafes are identical to online gambling is calling for an end to the unbelief. This indicates that the senior member of the committee was deliberately insincere because there was no valid argument.

Obviously, the other committee members did not consider Bachus’ reasoning to be convincing, since the measure was passed with 41 to 22 votes and advanced to the entire House of Representatives.

Published on July 31, 2010 by EdBradley

Content Protection by