Case
Threat’s high---nothing checks
Bunn 13 (Matthew, Valentin Kuznetsov, Martin B. Malin, Yuri Morozov, Simon Saradzhyan, William H. Tobey, Viktor I. Yesin, and Pavel S. Zolotarev. "Steps to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism." Paper, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, October 2, 2013, Matthew Bunn. Professor of the Practice of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School andCo-Principal Investigator of Project on Managing the Atom at
Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. • Vice Admiral Valentin Kuznetsov (retired Russian Navy). Senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, Senior Military Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense to NATO from 2002 to 2008. • Martin Malin. Executive Director of the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. • Colonel Yuri Morozov (retired Russian Armed Forces). Professor of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and senior research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
chief of department at the Center for Military-Strategic Studies at the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces from 1995 to 2000. • Simon Saradzhyan. Fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, Moscow-based defense and security expert and writer from 1993 to 2008. • William Tobey. Senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and director of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to
Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, deputy administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration from 2006 to 2009. • Colonel General Viktor Yesin (retired Russian Armed Forces).
Leading research fellow at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and advisor to commander of the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia, chief of staff of the Strategic Missile Forces from 1994
to 1996. • Major General Pavel Zolotarev (retired Russian Armed Forces). Deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the Information and Analysis Center of the
Russian Ministry of Defense from1993 to 1997, section head - deputy chief of staff of the Defense Council of Russia from 1997 to 1998., 10/2/2013, “Steps to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism: Recommendations Based on the U.S.-Russia
Joint Threat Assessment”, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23430/steps_to_prevent_nuclear_terrorism.html)
I. Introduction In 2011, Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Russian Academy of
Sciences’ Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies published “The U.S. – Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear
Terrorism.” The assessment analyzed the means, motives, and access of would-be nuclear terrorists, and
concluded that the threat of nuclear terrorism is urgent and real. The Washington and Seoul Nuclear
Security Summits in 2010 and 2012 established and demonstrated a consensus among political leaders from
around the world that nuclear terrorism poses a serious threat to the peace, security, and prosperity of our planet.
For any country, a terrorist attack with a nuclear device would be an immediate and catastrophic disaster ,
and the negative effects would reverberate around the world far beyond the location and moment of the
detonation. Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack requires international cooperation to secure nuclear materials, especially
among those states producing nuclear materials and weapons. As the world’s two greatest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia have the
greatest experience and capabilities in securing nuclear materials and plants and, therefore, share a special responsibility to lead international
efforts to prevent terrorists from seizing such materials and plants. The depth of convergence between U.S. and Russian vital national interests on
the issue of nuclear security is best illustrated by the fact that bilateral cooperation on this issue has continued uninterrupted for more than two
decades, even when relations between the two countries occasionally became frosty, as in the aftermath of the August 2008 war in Georgia.
Russia and the United States have strong incentives to forge a close and trusting partnership to prevent nuclear terrorism and have made
enormous progress in securing fissile material both at home and in partnership with other countries. However, to meet the evolving threat posed
by those individuals intent upon using nuclear weapons for terrorist purposes, the United States and Russia need to deepen and broaden their
cooperation. The 2011 “U.S. - Russia Joint Threat Assessment” offered both specific conclusions about the nature of the threat and general
observations about how it might be addressed. This report builds on that foundation and analyzes the existing framework for action, cites gaps
and deficiencies, and makes specific recommendations for improvement. “The U.S. – Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism”
(The 2011 report executive summary): • Nuclear terrorism is a real and urgent threat. Urgent actions are required to reduce the
risk. The risk is driven by the rise of terrorists who seek to inflict unlimited damage, many of whom have
sought justification for their plans in radical interpretations of Islam; by the spread of information about the
decades-old technology of nuclear weapons; by the increased availability of weapons-usable nuclear
materials; and by globalization, which makes it easier to move people, technologies, and materials across the
world. • Making a crude nuclear bomb would not be easy, but is potentially within the capabilities of a technically
sophisticated terrorist group, as numerous government studies have confirmed. Detonating a stolen nuclear weapon
would likely be difficult for terrorists to accomplish, if the weapon was equipped with modern technical safeguards (such as the electronic locks
known as Permissive Action Links, or PALs). Terrorists could, however, cut open a stolen nuclear weapon and make use of
its nuclear material for a bomb of their own. • The nuclear material for a bomb is small and difficult to detect,
making it a major challenge to stop nuclear smuggling or to recover nuclear material after it has been stolen .
Hence, a primary focus in reducing the risk must be to keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being stolen by continually improving
their security, as agreed at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010. • Al-Qaeda has sought nuclear weapons for
almost two decades. The group has repeatedly attempted to purchase stolen nuclear material or nuclear
weapons, and has repeatedly attempted to recruit nuclear expertise . Al-Qaeda reportedly conducted tests of
conventional explosives for its nuclear program in the desert in Afghanistan. The group’s nuclear ambitions continued
after its dispersal following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Recent writings from top al-Qaeda leadership are
focused on justifying the mass slaughter of civilians, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, and
are in all likelihood intended to provide a formal religious justification for nuclear use. While there are significant
gaps in coverage of the group’s activities, al-Qaeda appears to have been frustrated thus far in acquiring a nuclear capability; it is unclear whether
the the group has acquired weapons-usable nuclear material or the expertise needed to make such material into a bomb. Furthermore, pressure
from a broad range of counter-terrorist actions probably has reduced the group’s ability to manage large, complex projects, but has not eliminated
the danger. However, there is no sign the group has abandoned its nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, leadership
statements as recently as 2008 indicate that the intention to acquire and use nuclear weapons is as strong as
ever.
2AC – Reg Spec
1. Not an argument and not an impact – you don’t get any negative offense based off
the regulation that we remove but the effect of the removal which would have the
same implication for negative ground
2. All of our uniqueness evidence is about the detrimental effect the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Enforcement Act and Interstate Horseracing Act has had on our global
trade obligations because we’ve created an artiical distinction for horse racing
which is why the WTO ruled against us, the plan would overturn that regulation
which is implicit in our solvency evidence
2AC – CP
CP doesn’t solve -Black market -- absent a legal market that can verify payment processing, sketchy
gambling sites will continue to exist and provide the means for terrorist organizations and
organized crime to launder funds -- means further international regulation can't address
proxy sites.
WTO -- the CP basically has the US go to the WTO and try to further restrict gambling -our whole advantage is about how the rest of the world disagree with us and wants to
maintain online gambling -- they have specifically said this as a result of multiple official
disputes -- the cp sets an even worse precedent than the squo because it looks like the US is
not only avoiding their obligations, but trying to get everyone else on their side and ignore
Antigua.
Perm do both
Enforcement is impossible -- there will always be sites and people will always want to use
them -- that's Liparelli.
Not feasible and won’t create enforcement – your author
Trimble 12 – Marketa, Associate Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (“PROPOSAL FOR
AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON ONLINE GAMBLING,” UNLV Business School, June 2012,
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1715&context=facpub&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3Dfederal%2Blegalization%2Ba
nd%2Bregulation%2Bonline%2Bgambling%2B%252B%2Binternational%2Bstandards%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D1%2C23%26as_ylo%3D20
11%26as_yhi%3D2014#search=%22federal%20legalization%20regulation%20online%20gambling%20%2B%20international%20standards%22
)
The problem with existing proposals for international cooperation in the matters of online gambling is that the
proposals have focused on achieving uniformity in the national approaches to online gambling; be they partial or full
legalization and regulation, or complete prohibition, all the existing proposals would require countries to agree on a single
approach. However, the regulation of online gambling is unlikely to emerge as a uniform international law , at least
not in the near future, because countries’ views about online gambling vary greatly, and in federal countries such as the
United States and Germany, even the individual states have very different opinions about online gambling. 3 Past proposals have
lacked sufficient support precisely because they have required countries to accept a uniform international standard. Although the adoption of a
uniform international standard would be helpful from some perspectives, 4 it appears unachievable now and anytime
soon . Because countries lack consensus about a proper approach to online gambling, online gambling regulation is and will
continue to be based on territorially defined gambling laws, which, like most other national or state laws, are intended to apply
only within the borders of a particular jurisdiction and extend beyond national borders only to the extent that they target conduct that has effects
within a jurisdiction. Enforcing territorially limited laws on the Internet has been challenging, and
online gambling laws suffer from
the same enforcement problems that other territorially limited laws do.
Same card – some countries will say no – that means an illicit market for US bettors is
inevitable
Trimble, 12 – Marketa, Associate Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (“PROPOSAL FOR
AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON ONLINE GAMBLING,” UNLV Business School, June 2012,
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1715&context=facpub&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D20%26q%3Dfederal%2Blegalization%2Ba
nd%2Bregulation%2Bonline%2Bgambling%2B%252B%2Binternational%2Bstandards%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D1%2C23%26as_ylo%3D20
11%26as_yhi%3D2014#search=%22federal%20legalization%20regulation%20online%20gambling%20%2B%20international%20standards%22
The proposed Convention is not a cure - all . Certainly, there will be countries that wil l opt not to negotiate and
not to sign the Convention . Some countries may not participate because they intend to become safe havens
for those online gambling operators who plan to offer online gambling to users accessing the Internet from
anywhere , including from countries that prohibit online gambling or from countries that have different requirements for online
gambling. Undoubtedly, the functioning of the C nvention will improve as the number of countries — parties to the C onvention increase s . As with other
international treaties, it will be up to the countries with strong diplomatic and economic position s to persuade other countries to join and abide by the C onvention.
The status of the C onvention would be enhanced if it were concluded within the WTO framework, which would not only facilitate its wide adoption by WTO
member states but also strengthen its functioning by providing an established dispute resolution mechanism with sanctions that could be used to force countries to
comply with the C onve ntion, if necessary
Only resolving the dispute with Antigua doesn’t stop the precedent the US has set or other
suits which are coming
Bamman 10 [Nicholas Bamman - J.D. Candidate, Brooklyn Law School, 2011. “IS THE DECK STACKED
AGAINST INTERNET GAMBLING? A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATION”, Journal
of Law & Policy. 2010, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p231-269. 39]
Intemationally, Internet gambling has become a recognized service industry."" Over 80 countries have
legalized and regulated the business.'**^ In 2003, the small island nation of Antigua, home to the most Internet
gambling companies in the world, filed a complaint against the United States with the World Trade Organization
("WTO") for instituting policies that constitute illegal trade restrictions in violation of the 1994 General Agreement
on Trade in Services ("GATS") treaty.'°^ In 2005, the WTO ruled against the United States,'"" and later
affirmed the decision on appeal in 2007.'"^ Although the GATS provides an exception to free trade policies in
order to protect public morals, the WTO found that the United States' laws treated traditional and online gambling
differently, which presented a free trade violation.'**^ The WTO rejected the United States' argument that there is a
moral distinction between online and traditional gambling.'"^ In particular, the WTO noted that the IHA regulated
and legalized Internet gambling for domestic horseracing, but excluded foreign competition.'°^ In response, the
United States took the unprecedented step of unilaterally rescinding its GATS obligations with respect to
Internet gambling.'*'^ This is especially alarming because of the precedent it establishes . For example, China
now has precedent to unilaterally rescind its WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
("TRIPS") obligations after recently losing a WTO suit initiated by the United States. China's infringement cost
the American entertainment industry an estimated $3.7 billion in lost sales."" The economic costs of the
UIGEA will not be quarantined to Internet gambling. The WTO fiasco has been a financial boondoggle of
epic proportions . Although the United States must pay Antigua only $21 million annually under the WTO's
order,'" the United States has subsequently settled with other nations, some of whom are powerful allies."^ For
example, the European Union dropped its WTO claim against the United States in exchange for undisclosed
benefits in other trade sectors."^ Commentators estimate that total settlements, including cash and trade
concessions, could total $100 billion.'"* This number fails to capture losses to good will and American
political capital.
No solvency advocate for globally prohibiting gaming, justbecause the US “pursue
international treaties that prohibit gaming activity” doesn’t mean it’ll happen
Links to midterms –
-
pay annual compensation to the nation of Antigua and Barbuda in an amount specified by the World
Trade Organization
pursue international treaties that prohibit gaming activity
Federal regulation solves best – it’s self-sufficient and saves US financial institutions and
the dollar which destroys the global econ
Leonard 9 -- JD Candidate @ Drake Univ Law (Brant, 2009, "NOTE: HIGHLIGHTING THE DRAWBACKS OF
THE UIGEA: PROPOSED RULES REVEAL HEAVY BURDENS," 57 Drake L. Rev. 515, L/N)
In order to understand the proposed rules recently published for the implementation of the UIGEA, it is important to understand what they were
meant to do. The enactment of the UIGEA put U.S. financial institutions on notice of a coming burden, but left the
particulars to the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department, which would jointly publish rules and
regulations for the implementation of the UIGEA. n154 Commentators agree that due to the shift in regulatory responsibility from traditional
the economic impact on U.S. financial institutions will be extremely
burdensome . n155 However, after the enactment of the UIGEA, but before the proposed regulations were published, U.S. financial
institutions were left with many unanswered questions about the specifics of that burden - questions that the proposed
rules would ideally answer. n156 As it turned out, the proposed rules answered some questions while leaving some important
ones unanswered. n157 Through an analysis of these questions and attempted answers, one can more clearly see that the difficulty in
drafting rules for implementation reflects more fundamental problems with the UIGEA itself. The concerns of U.S. financial
institutions were, and still are, widespread. As an initial matter, financial institutions were concerned with the problems of enforcement
law enforcement to U.S. financial institutions,
already articulated in this Note. The majority [*537] of Internet gamblers do not use direct transacting practices from their own U.S. bank
accounts to online casinos, but rather take advantage of offshore third-party payment processors like PayPal or Neteller, commonly referred to as
"e-wallets." n158 The existence of e-wallets left several unanswered questions following the initial enactment of the UIGEA. The most
fundamental of these questions simply inquired as to whether e-wallets were included in the term "designated payment system" under the
UIGEA, and would thus potentially subject U.S. financial institutions to liability if they forwarded funds to these accounts, and the accounts
were, in turn, used in conjunction with online gaming. The main concern is clear - if e-wallets are included, the burden of policing is much more
extensive. In short, if these types of third-party accounts are included as "designated payment systems," financial institutions must concern
themselves with what the money is used for once they have transmitted it to an e-wallet account operated by a third-party entity. For the rule
makers, this issue, like many other concerns, points toward the central difficulty in drafting rules for implementation of the UIGEA. The
broader the rules are made, the greater the burden (and uncertainty) that is placed on U.S. financial
institutions. On the other hand, the narrower the rules, the less impact the UIGEA is likely to have on prohibiting
online gaming. This, like several drafting difficulties, points toward the fundamental problem with the enforcement
mechanism of the UIGEA itself. Because the UIGEA relies on financial institutions to police Internet casinos, the decision on each rule
posits a choice between creating a larger burden on U.S. financial institutions or making the prohibition less effective in practice. On this front,
however, the proposed rules do answer the question of whether e-wallets are included, and the answer is yes. n159 In fact, the rules make mention
of PayPal as an example of a "money transmitting business." n160 While there is an answer, it is troubling for U.S. financial institutions because
of the difficulty in monitoring e-wallets. E-wallets are typically offshore businesses that nearly always make use of foreign banks. n161 As a
result, the burden on U.S. financial institutions extends [*538] beyond policing their own transactions with e-wallets and now forces them to deal
with the uncertainty of whether they must police transactions between other institutions and e-wallets, which may ultimately lead to online
gaming transactions. On this front, the proposed rules provide some guidance, but leave U.S. financial institutions largely uncertain about their
duties under the UIGEA. The proposed rules make clear that for two types of payment systems that have the benefit of merchant coding - card
systems and money transmitting systems - U.S. financial institutions will carry the burden of monitoring extended
transactions. n162 With respect to check collection and wire transfer systems, some of these types of extended transactions will be exempt
from the UIGEA's imposition of duty. n163 In the case of outgoing transactions to foreign banks, the exemption applies. However, with respect
to incoming requests from foreign institutions, the first U.S. institution to participate in the transaction does have the burden of investigating and
putting procedures in place to discover and block any transaction related to online gaming. n164 Again, the answer is not good news for
U.S. financial institutions, as their burden of policing the online gaming industry extends further than initially
expected with respect to extended transactions. As will be discussed later, even with respect to those exempted transactions, the difficult
question of determining which non-exempted transactions are illegal remains. Further, the answer again points toward the
fundamental problem posed by the enforcement mechanism of the UIGEA itself. With respect to outgoing transactions,
the burden is presumably too great, and therefore an exemption applies. As a result, this would seem to provide a funding avenue for bettors to
continue to gamble online. With respect to incoming requests, policing is required to some extent. This effectively enforces the aim of the
UIGEA, but in turn places a larger burden on U.S. financial institutions that are already charged with the task of monitoring payments related to
Internet pornography and terrorism. n165 A second problem posed by e-wallets has a lesser impact on the costs of monitoring but a greater
impact on the costs incurred by over- [*539] deterrence. E-wallets, like PayPal, are often used to mix legal and illegal transactions. n166
Therefore, a U.S. financial institution concerned with blocking payments through e-wallets may intend to block an Internet bet while actually
blocking a legitimate Internet purchase. Thus, the burden of deciphering what type of transaction is being made with an e-wallet creates a
significant increase in the monitoring burden of U.S. financial institutions. n167 The proposed rules seem to establish this heightened burden with
its (at least partial) inclusion of e-wallets in the definition of designated payment systems. n168 A second concern of U.S. financial institutions,
particularly banks, was whether they would be saddled with the burden of monitoring personal checks. One source notes that this would amount
to the manual inspection of approximately forty billion checks per year. n169 Fortunately, the proposed rules give good news to U.S. financial
institutions by creating an exemption for personal paper checks. n170 While this is good news for U.S. financial institutions, it again points
toward the internal tension in the UIGEA. The inclusion of personal checks would create an overwhelming burden on U.S. banks, and therefore,
personal checks are exempted. On the other hand, the exclusion allows online gaming to continue through certain channels. A more central
concern to the U.S. financial institutions is what is meant by "unlawful Internet gambling." As written, the UIGEA gives no specific definition,
but rather relies on state and federal law to determine what is "unlawful." n171 Following the enactment of the UIGEA, the primary concern of
U.S. financial institutions was whether a specific definition would be given by the proposed rules, or whether the burden [*540] would be on the
institutions to determine if a given transaction is legal or illegal under the laws of many differing jurisdictions. This seems a fair question
considering that the Fifth Circuit and the DOJ disagreed over what gaming activities are unlawful under the Wire Act. n172 Unfortunately for
U.S. financial institutions, the proposed rules fail to give a more specific definition of unlawful Internet gaming. The rules instead defer to the
language of the UIGEA itself stating, "The proposed rule does not specify which gambling activities or transactions are legal or illegal because
the Act itself defers to underlying State and Federal gambling laws in that regard ... ." n173 In addition to the problems associated with
interpreting the law of many different jurisdictions, determining what is unlawful is further intensified by the UIGEA's express exemptions for
intrastate, intratribal, and interstate horseracing transactions. n174 It is arguable that by burdening U.S. financial institutions
with the responsibility of determining what is legal and illegal among numerous state and federal gaming
laws, as well as the responsibility to identify and block restricted transactions, the UIGEA rules , as proposed,
result in an appropriation of private resources for government purposes. After all, the proposed rules give no clear definition, leaving financial
institutions to study and interpret the laws of numerous jurisdictions. Again, the rule makers were forced to choose between heightening the
burden on the financial institutions and negatively affecting the impact the UIGEA will have on Internet gaming - a result that is caused by the
fundamental nature of the UIGEA's enforcement mechanism. Given the uncertainty inherent in the UIGEA's rules, it is no surprise that U.S.
financial institutions are speaking out in the wake of the proposed rules. n175 The Financial Services Roundtable, representing many U.S.
financial institutions, states that the UIGEA, under the proposed rules, forces financial services entities to perform police functions more [*541]
appropriate for law enforcement agencies. n176 Bank of America has stated that it will be forced to block legitimate transactions in an attempt to
enforce an ambiguous law. n177 Further, counsel for the American Bankers Association has characterized the UIGEA's provision under the
proposed rules as a "compliance trap." n178 The concern of U.S. financial institutions saddled with this additional burden in light of the proposed
rules has not gone unnoticed by Congress. In a December 2006 letter to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, sixteen Representatives
criticized the proposed rules as overbroad and ambiguous. n179 Because the proposed rules provide no clearer definition of what an illegal
transaction is, U.S. financial institutions are saddled with an incredible burden. It is up to the institutions, not law
enforcement personnel, to put an end to online gaming. The amount of resources necessary to investigate each
transaction in order to determine if it violates the laws of one or more of over fifty jurisdictions is sure to weigh heavily on U.S.
financial institutions. Aside from the resources that must be expended by financial institutions, slowing down the payment processing
function of the U.S. economy could have devastating implications. For example, Internet stock market trading is
a time-sensitive industry that relies heavily on the speed and ease with which transactions can be processed.
Under the proposed rules, it is likely that the serious burden of policing transactions will slow the payment processing
systems of U.S. financial institutions, thus impacting other Internet industries. Further, as one commentor suggested,
slowing down the payment processing systems of U.S. financial institutions could have disastrous
implications for the continuation of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency . n180 The final major question left
to U.S. financial institutions regards the cost of implementation and maintenance of the required policing structures. The question remained after
initial enactment of the UIGEA whether any appropriations for implementing the compelled regulatory systems would be made. Under the
proposed rule, it appears that any cost [*542] of implementing and maintaining the policing functions will rest solely
with the financial institutions
2AC – Econ DA
This disad makes zero sense – Kindt doesn’t provide any factual justification for his claims
Stradbrooke 10 [Steven Stradbrooke, staff writer for gambling news site Calvin Ayre, December 11, 2010, “DO
WE NEED AN ONLINE GAMBLING MEDIA GUIDE TO COMBAT DISINFORMATION?”,
http://calvinayre.com/2010/12/11/business/online-gambling-media-guide-to-combat-disinformation/]
When an unfamiliar subject comes over the news wire, media sources immediately start looking for ‘experts’
to help them explain the news to their audiences. But modern journalists/teleprompter-readers operating under
the 24-hour news cycle’s ever-ticking timetable often choose to go with whatever ‘expert’ source they used last
time, or the one their competitor used, rather than taking the time to track down and consult with an actual
expert. Which leads us to professor John W. Kindt… We’ve mentioned Kindt before on this site, as he ’s the
go-to guy for anti-gambling hysteria , a mantle the Focus On The Family hatchet man is only too happy to wear.
Kindt — the original source of the ‘online gambling = crack cocaine” meme – resurfaced this week to condemn
Sen. Reid’s poker bill. Kindt claims that Reid’s bill would create “a huge social problem where none existed
before” and “further destabilize our financial system” because banks would lose liquidity as gamblers withdrew
money to send to online gambling sites. In Kindt’s eyes, this money simply evaporates , with no economic
benefit to anyone except the evil gambling operators, which conveniently ignores the fact that gambling
operators need to hire large numbers of staff to process these transactions. By Kindt’s definition, paying
your rent would also contribute to this economic destabilization, as the money benefits no one but those evil
landlords. Kindt is especially worried by the concept of mobile betting, saying it would be “a recipe for
economic disaster” in which “personal bankruptcies and people addicted to gambling would just absolutely soar.”
As usual, Kindt does not provide – nor is asked by his media enablers to provide – any factual justification for
these claims. *sigh* The classic media dictum is that “dog bites man” is not a story, whereas “man bites dog” is
front page news. So if some morbidly obese Kentuckian gets so wrapped up in her slot machine that she chooses to
relieve herself in her pants rather than walk the 20 feet to the ladies’ room, the story will always find a home on
media websites. But a hyperlink entitled ‘Grandmother plays slots for an hour, then joins friends for dinner and a
Céline Dion performance’ isn’t going to convince anyone to click through. Now, that gambling granny by far
represents the overwhelming majority of gamblers’ experiences, but, as the cliché says, if it bleeds (or shits itself), it
leads. CalvinAyre.com has previously spotlighted studies that fly in the face of accepted media logic regarding
gambling , including the John Hopkins study that showed gambling was the least addictive ‘vice’ ( backed up
by real world data that showed underperforming gambling stocks dragging down the value of other so-called
‘vice’ funds). Or the Canadian study that showed gambling was not the dreaded scourge of the lower classes, but
rather that gambling behavior actually increased both in participation levels and expenditures the further up
an individual was on the socio-economic ladder.
Kindt is a hack
Walker 04 (Douglas M. Walker is an associate professor of economics at the College of Charleston, in Charleston,
SC. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Auburn University in 1998. Prior to coming to the College of
Charleston, he taught at Auburn, Louisiana State University, and Georgia College. His research focus is on the
economic and social effects of casinos and other types of legalized gambling. "Kindt's Paper Epitomizes the
Problems in Gambling Research," Managerial and Decision Economics 25: 197-200 (2004), published online in
Wiley Interscience)
RESEARCH BIASES AND ‘BULVERISM’ The
gambling literature is replete with accusations of bias. Research that has been funded
are two
obvious problems with the argument that funded research is dishonest . First, if funding nullifies research
findings, then all government- supported research, for example, must be invalid.3 In the extreme case, only unpaid volunteer
researchers should be trusted. Second, and more importantly, scientific findings are not simply opinions . Questionable findings
by the gambling industry, or an organization that at some point has been associated with the gambling industry, is often dismissed as biased. There
can be either supported or refuted by other researchers who repeat experiments, empirical tests, and analyses.
Kindt does not bother to refute researchers with whom he disagrees; he simply lobs personal attacks and
conflict-of-interest allegations. Con- sider Kindt’s attack on Professor Shaffer (Kindt, 2001, p. 27). Even if Kindt demonstrates that
Shaffer’s research was partially or entirely funded by the gambling industry , it says nothing about the validity of Shaffer’s
analysis . For Kindt to show Shaffer’s work was fraudulent, deceptive, or just plain wrong, he must provide specific evidence . He cannot
simply allude to apparent conflicts of interest, or second-hand rumors}as he does through repeated references to a 1998 newspaper article (Ferrell and Gold, 1998).
Next, consider the attack on Professor Eading- ton. Kindt claims that Eadington is a ‘well-known apologist for the gambling industry’ (Kindt, 2001, p. 31). The reason
for his attack appears to be either (1) Eadington has not estimated the dollar value of social costs from gambling, or (2) Eadington became co-editor of the Journal of
Gambling Studies. In any case, ad hominem attacks are not appropriate in academic journals . If Kindt cannot demonstrate errors in
Eadington’s or Shaffer’s research, then his attacks should not have been acceptable for publication in a respect- 4 able, peer reviewed journal. Kindt’s attacks are
examples of what Lewis called ‘Bulverism’ (Lewis, 1970, pp. 271–277).5 Bulverism occurs when one forgets that ‘you must show that a man is wrong before you
start explaining why he is wrong.’ Lewis (p. 273) describes its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver: ...he heard his mother say to his father}who had been maintaining
that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third}‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ At that moment, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across
my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.’ Lewis explains, I see Bulverism at work in every political argument. The capitalists
must be bad econo- mists because we know why they want capital- ism, and equally the Communists must be bad economists because we know why they want
Communism. Thus, the Bulverists on both sides. In reality, of course, either the doctrines of the capitalists are false, or the doctrines of the Communists, or both; but
you can only find out the rights and wrongs by reasoning}never by being rude about your opponent’s psychol- ogy (Lewis, 1970, p. 274). Following Lewis’
suggestion, if
Kindt believes research has been corrupted, he should answer two questions: ‘The first is, Are all thoughts thus
tainted at the source, or only some? The second is, Does the taint invalidate the tainted thought}in the sense of making it
untrue}or not?’ (Lewis, 1970, p. 272). SOCIAL COST ESTIMATES Kindt’s work perpetuates what is perhaps the most fundamental misunderstanding in the
economics of gambling literature}the nature of social costs. Kindt suggests that the social costs of gambling have been estimated at between $13200 and $52 000 per
pathological gambler, per year (Kindt, 2001, p. 31).6 This wide range of cost estimates results primarily from methodological flaws in- herent in all social cost studies.
Consider two examples of highly regarded research in the area. Thompson et al. (1997) are very clear in how they arrive at their social cost estimate of $9465. But
their estimate is suspect because they confuse technological with pecuniary externalities (i.e., social costs with transfers), count private costs as social costs, and make
several other fundamental errors, as described by Walker and Barnett (1999). Politzer et al. (1985, p. 133) coin the term ‘abused dollars’: [the] amount [of money]
obtained legally and/or illegally by the pathological gambler which otherwise would have been used by the patho- logical gambler, his family, or his victims for other
essential purposes. These abused dollars include earned income put at risk in gambling, borrowed and/or illegally obtained dollars spent on basic needs and/or
provided to the family which otherwise would have been ‘covered’ by that fraction of earned income which was used for gambling, and borrowed and/or illegally
obtained dollars for the partial payment of gambling related debts. To an economist, this concept of ‘abused dollars’ should raise questions. For example, measuring
the amount of dollars spent gambling that ‘could have been used for other essential purposes’ begs the question: What is an ‘essential purpose’? Furthermore, a
generous interpretation of this concept would imply that the sum of all money bet represents abused dollars. This is likely to be significantly higher than the actual
amount lost by a gambler.7 The concept also treats borrowed money as abused dollars. The fundamental problem is that none of these authors has defined social
cost}none of them attempts to measure the same thing. A complete discussion of the issue is beyond the scope of this comment, but does exist elsewhere. Walker and
Barnett (1999) analyze the social cost studies that permeate the literature. They discuss the compo- nents usually included in social cost estimates, and explain the
appropriate distinction between the economic concept of ‘social cost’ and other negative effects of pathological gambling. Unfortu- nately, Kindt and others have
ignored this work.8 CITING SAMUELSON’S PRINCIPLES TEXT In
his section on ‘economic misinterpretations’ (Kindt, 2001, p. 19),
Kindt exhibits a common strategy of the anti-gambling activists when he selectively quotes from a 25-year-old
edition of Samuelson’s Economics principles textbook . The specific passage describes an economic case against
gambling: it ‘creates no new money or goods,’ and ‘when pursued beyond the limits of recrea- tion...gambling subtracts from the national income’ (Samuelson, 1976, p. 425). Others who have cited the same passage as a means of opposing casino legalization include Grinols (1994, p. 8; 1995, p. 8), Grinols
and Mustard (2000, p. 224), Grinols and Omorov (1996, p. 50), and Kindt (1995, p. 567). Kindt seems to prefer the 10th edition (1976), while Grinols usually cites the
8th edition (1970).9 Unfortunately,
researchers who quote this passage do not report other relevant material . For
the paragraph immediately pre- ceding that quoted by Kindt, Grinols, etc., Samuelson writes: ‘Why is
gambling considered such a bad thing? Part of the reason, perhaps the most important part, lies in the field of morals,
ethics, and religion; upon these the economist as such is not qualified to pass final judgment’ (1976, p. 425, emphasis added). On the very next
page, as a footnote to his discussion, Samuelson explains: The astute reader will note. . .the case for prohibiting gambling
must rest on extraneous ethical or religious grounds; or must be with- drawn; or must be based on the notion that society knows better than
example, in
individuals what is truly good for them; or must be based on the notion that we are all imperfect beings who wish in the long run that we were not free to yield to
short-run temptations. Some political economists feel that moderate gambling might be converted into socially useful channels (1976, p. 426, note 7). After
reading the context of the popular quotation, one wonders why researchers resort to making a selective
reference to an old principles text10 in an attempt to convince readers that gambling is ‘bad.’ Perhaps it is an appeal to authority, since Samuelson is
a Nobel Laureate. But Samuelson is not the only famous economist to have written about gambling.11 In any case, serious researchers do not
typically rest their entire arguments on principles text excerpts and news- paper articles. CONCLUSION There
are other problems with Kindt’s work, but I hope the three issues addressed here are adequate to illustrate that
Kindt’s work should not be considered a serious academic research paper. Most of the support for his
arguments comes from non-academic sources. 12 While this type of work might be suitable for publication in a law review, it is
inappropriate for a peer reviewed economics journal. ‘Junk science’ exists on both sides of the gambling debate, and newcomers to this area may best be
advised to read more of the literature and decide for themselves who the ‘policy entrepreneurs’13 are, and what work has scientific validity.
Online gambling is a game-changer for money laundering – fuels organized crime and
terror – failure to legalize drives a shift to untraceable forms of payment but regulation
solves
Sparrow 9 [Malcolm K. Sparrow (Professor of the Practice of Public Management—Harvard's John F. Kennedy
School of Government); “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated? Managing the Risks”; December 2,
2009; http://financialservices.house.gov/media/file/hearings/111/sparrow.pdf]
E.
Money Laundering by Players
A major concern of law-enforcement authorities is money laundering facilitated by online gambling .
However,
many financial analysts believe that the risks of money laundering in online gambling is low because electronic transactions are closely monitored and recorded. A
combination of anti-money-laundering regulations, currently in place for bricks-and-mortar casinos as well as other financial institutions, and the use of
technology would
provide the online gambling environment with better opportunities for detecting money
laundering by players than those available in land- and river-based casinos. 1. The Issue of Money Laundering by Players
Money laundering is a process through which proceeds derived from illegal activity are legitimized. Money
laundering is typically accomplished in three stages: (1) the placement stage, (2) the layering stage, and (3) the integration
stage. The placement stage is defined as the first entry of illegal money into financial institutions or the retail economy. The
layering stage consists of activities meant to hide the trail of money , generally involving the transfer of money among multiple entities.
The final stage, the integration stage, is when the illegal funds are reintroduced into the economy to appear as though they
were legitimate. It is difficult for law enforcement to detect this reintroduction of illicit funds into the economy
without an audit trail established during the first two stages of the laundering process. The following (hypothetical) example
demonstrates how online gambling websites can be used to launder money: A customer could establish an Internet gambling account under a false name and
use illicit funds to conduct a minimal amount of betting. After a few losses, the customer could request
repayment from the Internet gambling site and claim them as winnings, thereby creating a legitimate source for the
remaining funds. The U.S. Department of Justice is concerned that online gambling offers criminals an easy vehicle for money
laundering because of its anonymous nature, use of encryption, volume, speed, international reach, and
offshore locations.142 In his testimony before Congress in 2003, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G. Malcolm noted that e-casinos are an
excellent vehicle for money laundering because in addition to using the gambling services offered to hide or
transfer money, online gambling websites offer a wide variety of financial services to their customers,
including credit accounts, fund transmittal services, check cashing services, and currency exchange
services.143 There is little documentation by which to gauge the extent of actual money laundering in online gambling. In 2002, the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) examined the vulnerability of online gambling to money laundering and concluded that the "views on the vulnerability of Internet gambling to money
laundering are mixed."144 Its report provides only hypothetical examples of how online gambling sites could be used to launder money and does not describe any
actual cases. A 2005 report prepared for the Interactive Gaming Council in Canada calls evidence of the existence of money laundering in online gambling "scant" and
claims that the Internet Crime Complaint Center had never logged a complaint of money laundering through gambling sites.145 It goes on to claim that "Internet
gaming does not, in and of itself, contribute to money laundering. Rather, it is the financial transactions that are used to move money on the Internet that may be
susceptible to money laundering."146 One
can understand money laundering patterns that might occur in online gambling
by extrapolating from the patterns of money laundering seen in bricks-and-mortar casinos. Various betting patterns
associated with money laundering in bricks-and-mortar casinos have been identified, including the use of hedged bets by colluding players, light betting or minimal
play (i.e., using bets that are small relative to the size of deposits and withdrawals), splitting transactions up into units smaller than reporting thresholds, splitting
transactions across reporting "days," and pressuring staff to not comply with their reporting obligations.147 A
problem related to money
laundering is that of terrorist financing , in which funds that are intended for terrorist groups are moved
through the financial system in an apparently legitimate way. Effective anti-money-laundering provisions must specifically address the
risks of terrorist financing, although many techniques to combat money laundering are also effective against terrorist financing.148 The only known case of money
laundering through gambling sites was related to terrorist financing: in
2007, a suspected terrorist named Al-Daour used stolen credit
cards to deposit funds at 43 different gambling sites and then withdrew the winnings to various online bank
accounts.149 2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions Congress has enacted legislation to detect money laundering. Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of
1970, all U.S. financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, securities firms, and casinos, are required to report large currency transactions and suspicious
activities.150 The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) administers these regulations. The casino gambling industry has been covered by the BSA since
1985, and FinCEN has specific regulations that pertain to casino gaming. The BSA requires the reporting of any currency transactions exceeding $10,000 in a single
gaming day on a Currency Transaction Report (CTR). 151 Because money launderers can structure transactions such that they never result in a CTR being filed, all
land- and river-based casinos are also required to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). Casinos have to file SARs if they know, suspect, or have reason to suspect
that a transaction involving $5,000 or more meets certain criteria, including involvement of illicit funds, intention to avoid or prevent proper reporting, exhibiting of
abnormal behavior, or use of the casino to facilitate criminal activity.152 The
leading online gambling jurisdictions have created
regulatory structures that resemble traditional regulation for land- and river-based casinos in the United States. These jurisdictions require
some form of anti-money-laundering monitoring, ranging from restricting customers to a single account to identifying and
reporting suspicious transactions or players' abnormal betting patterns.153 In addition to regulation that combats money
laundering in its financial services sector, the Isle of Man has put in place the Anti-Money Laundering Code to prevent money laundering through
gambling websites.154 Operators are required to comply with strict anti-money-laundering procedures, which
include identification of prospective customers, evidence of identity, changes to patterns of transactions,
record keeping, records of transactions, retention of records, reporting suspicious transactions, and training.
In addition, site operators are legally required to report any suspicious transactions to the Financial Crime
Unit (FCU). Specialized software can flag these transactions. Similarly, to combat money laundering, Alderney requires operators of online
gambling websites to implement business risk assessments, customer due diligence procedures, monitoring of transactions and other activity, suspicious activity
reporting procedures, employee screening and training procedures, and record-keeping procedures. 3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation An
antimoney-laundering regulatory regime for online gambling may be modeled on the current regulatory
structure for traditional bricks-and-mortar casinos. A regulatory framework for online gambling may
leverage the technological environment for online gambling and require (1) preservation of an audit trail of
transactions for analysis by federal authorities; (2) implementation of customer identification standards; (3) controls to prevent
anonymous, structured transactions; (4) establishment of an anti-money-laundering compliance program; (5) training for
all appropriate personnel; and (6) compliance with all relevant BSA requirements. The IGC notes that "online
gambling, with a combination of regulatory oversight and use of technology—while facing the same threats as
real-world gambling facilities—is in a better position to address these risks." For example, all electronic fund
transfers can be electronically recorded, thus providing a detailed and automatic transaction trail not currently available
in land- and river-based casinos. The IGC further notes that a basic requirement to combat money laundering is to "know your
customer." Stringent player registrations and ongoing verification processes combined with appropriate
regulatory oversight and banking regulations help fulfill this requirement. Italy's regulatory regime, for example, requires a
potential customer to submit a signed contract along with a copy of his or her identification. Tasmania requires strong identity verificationprocedures to be in place on
player accounts. Moreover, technology
can equip site operators with tools to scrutinize inconsistent player behavior , and
then capture and report the transaction. Another essential anti-money-laundering measure noted by the IGC is to
require that gamblers be paid any winnings in the same way in which the money was originally deposited.
This system allows an audit to track transfers of funds much more easily and removes the ability of launderers to
use an account as a pass-through for funds. Also, care must be taken when allowing transfers of funds between players,
which could potentially be a conduit for money laundering . Alderney's money laundering guidance suggests that transferred funds be
allowed only for gambling and not for withdrawal or that site operators undertake further due diligence on players involved in transfers. In
addition to a system modeled on requirements for bricks-and-mortar gambling, a regulator can require the
same procedures that are required of online merchants, banks, and payment providers . In Europe, online gambling
operators have been bound by these requirements since 2003 under the Third European Money Laundering Directive. U.S. licensed operators would
also be bound by relevant anti-money-laundering requirements. Most nations are also subject to the
recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force , an international body formed to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
Each nation may also have its own money laundering regulations, such as the United Kingdom's Money Laundering Regulations, which cover both financial and
nonfinancial businesses. Although financial businesses are still subject to the most stringent regulation, all
of these regulations use a risk-based
approach , in which the level of scrutiny of transactions is commensurate with the risk of money laundering
in those transactions. The most important aspects of financial companies' risk mitigation involve three broad activities: (1)
"know your customer" procedures, (2) monitoring for suspicious activity, and (3) procedures for reporting
suspicious activity. Identity verification can involve both paper and electronic identification, and the level of
additional identification required rises with the risk in the particular industry and transaction. Suspicious activity monitoring
involves standard procedures that are designed to reveal signs of monitoring while retaining privacy
protection. All suspicious activity must be reported to law enforcement, which takes over the investigation
immediately. Suspicious activity reporting, as part of the regulations, is the responsibility of all company staff members, who must be trained in the signs of
money laundering and be able to report their suspicions expeditiously. In the United Kingdom, not reporting suspected money laundering is a criminal offense with a
maximum sentence of two years in prison.171 4. Conclusion Players
or groups of players acting in concert may attempt to use
legitimate gambling operations for money laundering. To curb such activities, regulators could subject online
gambling operators to anti-money-laundering regulations that are currently in place for bricks-and-mortar casinos
and for online merchants, banks, and payment providers. The online environment provides better
opportunities for detecting money laundering by players or player groups than do bricks-and-mortar casinos.
In an effective anti-money-laundering regime, site operators would be required to retain comprehensive data
on all deposits, withdrawals, and betting transactions and to make these available to regulators for examination and analysis. Given
complete data, most patterns related to money laundering (such as light betting or matched bets placed by collaborators) would be
easier to detect than they are in a physical environment (where complete transaction histories are available only in the form of video
recordings).172 Software for detecting anomalies and suspicious behavior may be operated easily and routinely on
digital databases by operators, regulators, or both. The site operators' obligations with respect to their own
detection of money laundering would form a part of their ordinary compliance obligations under such a
licensing regime. Because of the absence of cash in online gambling transactions, the auditable record that is
created, and the regulator-imposed reporting requirements for most transactions, it is likely that site operators
can prevent money laundering by players and terrorist financing at least as effectively as can bricks-and-mortar casinos.173 In
contrast, the current prohibitions related to online gambling force s players to use unconventional forms of
payment that leave harder-to-follow audit trails, and may therefore increase the risk of money laundering .
Strong GATS key to internet freedom
Chander 09
Anupam Chander, Visiting Professor, Yale Law School; Professor, University of California, Davis, School of Law,
102 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 37, 2009, “International Trade and Internet Freedom”
Proponents of human rights have often found themselves at odds with free traders. The desire to liberalize the flow
of goods across borders in service of efficient production has at times been insufficiently attentive to the rights of
workers and the health of the environment. Cyberspace, however, may offer a context in which the desire for
free trade and the wish to promote political freedom go hand-in-hand. By liberalizing trade in cyberspace,
international trade law can bolster the circulation of information that authoritarian regimes would repress .
In this essay, I want to sketch a hopeful possibility: how the Internet under the governance of international trade
law might bolster political freedom around the world. Unexpectedly, the G eneral A greement on T rade in
S ervices 1 might emerge as a human rights document.
The new bugaboos of repressive governments are search engines, electronic bulletin boards, blogs and YouTube.
These are technologies that allow ordinary individuals to communicate outside the mainstream media channels
that often prove subservient to governments. 2 This feature, of course, also represents the original nature of the
World Wide Web itself, as it eschewed any central intermediating authority in information circulation. If
international trade law can help protect the free circulation of information in cyberspace, it can serve the
cause of political freedom around the world.
The Intersection of International Trade and Human Rights
Human rights law has typically sought to regulate the production of goods in order to avoid the exploitation of labor
(or relatedly, the environment). But with respect to trade in services delivered over the Internet, the nature of the
work and the presence of an often highly-educated workforce significantly reduce fears of worker exploitation. This
does not mean that labor rights are no longer of concern with respect to trade in services, 3 but those concerns are
less with sweatshops, below living wage, child labor or perilous working conditions than with the right to organize
and the right to privacy. In trade mediated via cyberspace, human rights law comes to bear in a largely novel
fashion: to help further the right of individuals to share and receive information. Trade in services shifts the locus
of human rights attention from the production process to its delivery and consumption. Thus, cyberspace
offers new and fertile opportunity for human rights law.
Human rights law requires that nations not only provide their citizens with free speech rights within their nation, but
also the right to impart information ‘‘regardless of frontiers.’’ This formulation is repeated in both the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well. 4 The
Declaration describes the right to ‘‘impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers,’’ and the
Covenant subsequently reiterated the ‘‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers.’’ While the legal status of the Universal Declaration is open to question, it nonetheless offers
‘‘the primary source of global human rights standards.’’ 5 Because of its nature as an international treaty, the
Covenant carries more binding force than the Declaration. 6
The Covenant makes clear that one country’s inhabitants have the right both to send and to receive information from
another country, and thus imposes obligations on both countries to allow the information exchange. Of course,
information regulation is a central business of governments, and governments and courts are unlikely to interpret the
human rights principles as putting them out of this business when it comes to domestic or foreign information. Like
the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the international free speech norm tolerates regulation within
appropriate bounds. Indeed, it contemplates it, permitting limitations set forth by law and necessary to support
public order. 7
As history’s best medium for transmitting information worldwide, the Internet will test the limits of such regulation
of crossborder information flows.
International trade law puts pressure on state repression of information through two principal mechanisms.
First, the transparency obligations of GATS require what is often absent in authoritarian states—a set of public
rules that governs both citizens and governmental authorities. WTO member states must publish regulations
governing services and establish inquiry points where foreign service providers can obtain information about such
regulations. 8 A publication requirement written for the benefit of foreigners may prove useful for local citizens,
who will be given the opportunity to understand the rules that bind them—and the opportunity therefore to challenge
those rules or their interpretation.
Second, the market access and national treatment commitments 9 provide opportunities for foreign
information service providers to disseminate information that local information service providers might eschew.
Censorship by itself may not necessarily constitute either a market access or a national treatment violation. But
consider three scenarios: what if a country (1) declared foreign blogging sites off-limits, or (2) required foreign
information service providers to route their offerings through special traffic cops, or (3) required local Internet
service providers to deny access to certain foreign services in toto?10 In cases like these, the censorship measures
would likely run afoul of a country’s market access and national treatment obligations. 11
But that does not end the inquiry. GATS permits derogation for measures ‘‘necessary to protect public morals or to
maintain public order.’’12 A tricky question for trade law over the coming years will be whether states will be able
to derogate from the above responsibilities in ways that sustain the repression of political information. In order to
avoid the exception swallowing the trade liberalization obligation, GATS limits permissible derogations through two
general requirements: (1) they must be ‘‘necessary’’ for the public morals or public order goal; and (2) there must be
no ‘‘reasonably available alternative’’ to the trade restrictive measure. The necessity requirement is stated directly in
GATS article XIV. The second requirement rests in the Appellate Body’s review of its first Internet dispute. In that
dispute, the United States defended its right to derogate from its free trade agreements with respect to online
gambling, asserting the following public order and public morality grounds: ‘‘(1) organized crime; (2) money
laundering; (3) fraud; (4) risks to youth, including underage gambling; and (5) public health.’’13 The Appellate
Body largely upheld the U.S. derogation, but only after concluding that no reasonably available alternatives had
been presented to the challenged trade-restrictive measure. The Appellate Body elaborated that a ‘‘reasonably
available alternative’’ is one that ‘‘preserve[s] for the responding Member its right to achieve its desired level of
protection with respect to’’ its public order or public morality objectives.14
If one considers the array of recent efforts to censor material mediated by the Internet, it seems clear that
many of them would fall afoul of the ‘‘reasonably available alternative’’ requirement. That is, many of the
stated public order or public morality goals could have been achieved at the desired level of protection by less
trade-restrictive means. Consider, for example, the shuttering of Blogger because of one or two offending blogs, or
the disabling of YouTube because of one objectionable video, or shutting off of access to Wikipedia presumably
because of a few politically charged entries.15
Extinction
Genachowski 13
Julius Genachowski is chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, First Amendment scholar Lee C.
Bollinger is president of Columbia University. Bollinger serves on the board of the Washington Post Company,
Foreign Policy, April 16, 2013, "The Plot to Block Internet Freedom",
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/16/plot_block_internet_freedom?page=full
The Internet has created an extraordinary new democratic forum for people around the world to express their
opinions. It is revolutionizing global access to information : Today, more than 1 billion people worldwide have
access to the Internet, and at current growth rates, 5 billion people -- about 70 percent of the world's population -will be connected in five years.
But this growth trajectory is not inevitable, and threats are mounting to the global spread of an open and
truly "worldwide" web . The expansion of the open Internet must be allowed to continue : The mobile and social
media revolutions are critical not only for democratic institutions' ability to solve the collective problems of a
shrinking world , but also to a dynamic and innovative global economy that depends on financial
transparency and the free flow of information.
The threats to the open Internet were on stark display at last December's World Conference on International
Telecommunications in Dubai, where the U nited S tates fought attempts by a number of countries -- including
Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia -- to give a U.N. organization, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
new regulatory authority over the Internet. Ultimately, over the objection of the United States and many others, 89
countries voted to approve a treaty that could strengthen the power of governments to control online content and
deter broadband deployment.
In Dubai, two deeply worrisome trends came to a head .
First , we see that the Arab Spring and similar events have awakened nondemocratic governments to the danger that
the Internet poses to their regimes. In Dubai, they pushed for a treaty that would give the ITU's imprimatur to
governments' blocking or favoring of online content under the guise of preventing spam and increasing network
security. Authoritarian countries' real goal is to legitimize content regulation, opening the door for governments to
block any content they do not like, such as political speech.
Second , the basic commercial model underlying the open Internet is also under threat. In particular, some
proposals, like the one made last year by major European network operators, would change the ground rules for
payments for transferring Internet content. One species of these proposals is called "sender pays" or "sending party
pays." Since the beginning of the Internet, content creators -- individuals, news outlets, search engines, social media
sites -- have been able to make their content available to Internet users without paying a fee to Internet service
providers. A sender-pays rule would change that, empowering governments to require Internet content creators to
pay a fee to connect with an end user in that country.
Sender pays may look merely like a commercial issue, a different way to divide the pie. And proponents of sender
pays and similar changes claim they would benefit Internet deployment and Internet users. But the opposite is true:
If a country imposed a payment requirement, content creators would be less likely to serve that country. The loss of
content would make the Internet less attractive and would lessen demand for the deployment of Internet
infrastructure in that country.
Repeat the process in a few more countries, and the growth of global connectivity -- as well as its attendant
benefits for democracy -- would slow dramatically. So too would the benefits accruing to the global economy .
Without continuing improvements in transparency and information sharing, the innovation that springs from new
commercial ideas and creative breakthroughs is sure to be severely inhibited.
To their credit, American Internet service providers have joined with the broader U.S. technology industry, civil
society, and others in opposing these changes. Together, we were able to win the battle in Dubai over sender pays,
but we have not yet won the war . Issues affecting global Internet openness, broadband deployment, and free
speech will return in upcoming international forums , including an important meeting in Geneva in May, the
World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum.
The massive investment in wired and wireless broadband infrastructure in the United States demonstrates that
preserving an open Internet is completely compatible with broadband deployment. According to a recent UBS
report, annual wireless capital investment in the United States increased 40 percent from 2009 to 2012, while
investment in the rest of the world has barely inched upward. And according to the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, more fiber-optic cable was laid in the United States in 2011 and 2012 than in any year since
2000, and 15 percent more than in Europe.
All Internet users lose something when some countries are cut off from the World Wide Web . Each person
who is unable to connect to the Internet diminishes our own access to information. We become less able to
understand the world and formulate policies to respond to our shrinking planet. Conversely, we gain a richer
understanding of global events as more people connect around the world, and those societies nurturing nascent
democracy movements become more familiar with America's traditions of free speech and pluralism.
That's why we believe that the Internet should remain free of gatekeepers and that no entity -- public or private -should be able to pick and choose the information web users can receive. That is a principle the United States
adopted in the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order. And it's why we are deeply
concerned about arguments by some in the United States that broadband providers should be able to block, edit, or
favor Internet traffic that travels over their networks, or adopt economic models similar to international sender pays.
We must preserve the Internet as the most open and robust platform for the free exchange of information
ever devised. Keeping the Internet open is perhaps the most important free speech issue of our time.
2AC – Midterms (GOP Bad)
GOP will retake the Senate
Kristol 9/18/14 (William, Founder and Editor @ Weekly Standard + Political/Foreign Policy Commentator, "All
Together Now," http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/all-together-now_805307.html)
November 4 is likely to lead to a GOP takeover of the Senate after eight long years of Democratic control, and to perhaps the
largest GOP majority in the House in modern times. It’s an election that could—that should—set the stage for victory in 2016, as the Democrats’
triumph in 2006 set the stage for victory in 2008. So even though it’s contrary to interest for an opinion magazine to suggest a time out from
groaning and sniping and grumbling—and even though we reserve the right to groan and snipe and grumble at our discretion—maybe it’s a good
moment for everyone out there who thinks the country is endangered by Barack Obama, that it is being damaged by Harry Reid, and that it would
be ruined by another Democratic presidential victory in 2016 to take a deep breath, let bygones be bygones, leave future concerns to the future,
and work to win in November. Fear of the Democrats should be a sufficient motive. But is there anything else to be said to inspire voters to vote,
donors to donate, and activists to activate? Yes. The Republican class of 2014 candidates are very impressive. A glance at
their biographies would show an unusual number of high-quality men and women, many of whom have real achievements outside politics, few of
whom are career politicians or children of politicians. From Tom Cotton in Arkansas to Joni Ernst in Iowa; from Ben Sasse in
Nebraska to Dan Sullivan in Alaska; from Elise Stefanik in upstate New York to Lee Zeldin on Long Island; from Marilinda Garcia in
western New Hampshire to Martha McSally in southeastern Arizona—a new generation of Republicans has stepped forward
worthy of support. And a glance at their birth dates would show that the Grand Old Party is this year the party of youth. For example:
There are seven marquee Senate races in which the Republican candidate has a good chance to take a
Democratic seat (on top of virtually certain pickups in West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota ). It is on these
races that control of the Senate will hinge. In all of these contests—Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, and
New Hampshire—the Republican challenger is younger than his or her Democratic opponent. Looking at the GOP field in 2014, it’s
perhaps an exaggeration to invoke John F. Kennedy’s words: “The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans . . . tempered by war,
disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights
to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.” But looking at these
candidates, Republicans would be justified in thinking—as Democrats thought in 1958, two years before Kennedy’s inauguration—that theirs is
the party of youth and energy, of new ideas and bold imagination. In the 1958 off-year elections, Democrats increased their
majority in the House by 48 and won 13 Republican Senate seats, defeating 10 Republican incumbents. The GOP won’t achieve a
victory of that magnitude in 2014. But they can aspire to big gains , especially when polls show disapproval of
Obama high, Republicans leading in the generic congressional ballot, and
a slew of Democratic incumbents below 50 percent.
GOP will retake the Senate but NEW issues can impact the election
Cook 9/16/14 (Charlie, Founder @ Cook Political Report + Columnist @ National Journal, "What Could Go Wrong
For GOP?" http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/what-could-go-wrong-for-gop-20140915)
At this point, most independent political analysts are giving the edge to Republicans in this year's fight for
majority status in the U.S. Senate. Personally, I give the GOP a 60 percent chance of taking the majority ,
while others put it a little higher or lower. At least a half dozen very close races will be determined by just a
point or two, and those can turn on events that may have yet to occur, making the battle for the majority very
volatile. So far, the political season has been wild enough. Who knew that hog castration, trespassing chickens, and
inappropriately billed charter flights costing less than $2,000 would take on such outsize importance?
Prefer Cook – he’s the PREMIER election analyst
Milbank 6 (Dana, Wash Post, 10/25, "When It Comes to Politics, Charlie Cook Has the Prophecy Market
Cornered," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401248_pf.html)
The pharaoh had Joseph. The Greeks had the Oracle at Delphi. Washington has Charlie Cook .¶ Please tell us, Seer
of Future Congresses, how many seats the Democrats will pick up in the House on Election Day.¶ "Twenty to 35," Cook answers.¶ And how
about in the Senate, OProphet on the Potomac?¶ "At least four," the man with the crystal ball says. "Most likely five or six."¶ What fate does the
seer see for Sen. George Allen (R-Va.)?¶ "He wins ugly, but he wins," Cook divines.¶ And, pray tell, how are the planets aligning for Rep. Curt
Weldon (R-Pa.)?¶ "Gone," he decrees.¶ The midterm elections are two weeks away, but the powerful cannot wait that long to learn of the
outcome. And so they call in Cook, who, for a fee of $5,000 to $20,000, gives his audiences the (very) early returns. ¶ Last week he spoke to
pharmaceutical and insurance groups. On Monday, he flew to Las Vegas and back to talk to the American Beverage Association. Later this week
it's American Express and a hedge fund in New York and the paper industry in Georgia. Yesterday found Cook at a breakfast with the DLA Piper
law firm, lunch with automobile manufacturers and dinner in Boston with a corporate housing group. ¶ All are looking for the same thing: next
month's election returns. And Cook has them. "Senators Santorum in Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine in Ohio are pretty much done," he told the
Piper audience at the Willard hotel. And the lifelines of Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) aren't looking any longer. "I'd
be surprised if any of those four can survive," Cook informed the crowd of lobbyists, diplomats and journalists.¶ The firm's representatives treated
their visiting sage with great deference. James Blanchard,
a former Michigan governor, introduced him as "a renowned
expert. " Former defense secretary Bill Cohen read Cook's credentials to the audience: "one of the best political
handicappers . . . the Picasso of election analysis ."¶ "He's hot," observed Rosemary Freeman, one of the event coordinators.¶
That's not the first description that comes to mind for Cook, who entered the ballroom lugging an overstuffed canvas bag, a torn, padded envelope
and an overflowing blue file folder. Chubby and partial to big eyeglasses, he had the tail of his tie tucked into his shirt. He planted his Starbucks
venti caffe latte on the head table, where he was joined by the Canadian ambassador and a former NATO secretary general. ¶ Cook's wellrehearsed speech includes a reference to his posterior, an allusion to the movie "Young Frankenstein," and a tortured metaphor involving storms
and levees to compare the 2006 election to the one in 1994. "The wave is bigger, but there are fewer structures on the beach," he forecast. ¶ Cook
is not the boldest of election prognosticators (that honor goes to Stuart Rothenberg), nor the most telegenic
(washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza gets the nod there), but he is surely the most prominent . On contract with NBC, he was on
"Meet the Press" on Sunday and taped segments for the "Today Show" and "NBC Nightly News." He commissions his own poll, and his column
appears once a week in the National Journal. A Nexis search finds 873 mentions in the past 60 days for him and his company, the Cook Political
Report.¶ And while he's not always on the mark (he admits to having "tread marks on my forehead" after understating the Republican gains in
'94) he's close enough that nobody challenges his forecasts . "I'm not as much of an expert as he is, so I have to defer to him," said Dick
Gephardt, a former House Democratic leader, after Cook's talk to the Piper firm.
Their link evidence does NOT say that Adelson will fund GOP candidates running now to
ban online gambling, just that he funded members of Congress to support a ban when it
came up in session – no evidence that any of the candidates in the races would support
banning gambling
Strong public support for online gambling legalization – prevents GOP wanting to ban it
Renfro 14 (Ashleigh, JD Candidate @ Texas A&M Law School, "ALL IN WITH JACK HIGH: DICRISTINA AS
THE FINAL SURGE TO FEDERALLY LEGALIZE ONLINE TEXAS HOLD 'EM POKER," 1 Tex. A&M L. Rev.
751, lexis)
Each wave of gambling had at least one activity with the ability to draw the masses. n81 Today, T.H.E. is that activity. Millions of Americans play T.H.E. poker
in every community of every state in the union. n82 Like the steamboats that eventually created the riverboat gambler, T.H.E. created the online poker player. And like
the first two waves, the fast rising money-making ability of online T.H.E. poker gave rise to scandal. In true wave form, the grim state of the economy, coupled
with the revenue raising power of online T.H.E. poker, has Congress taking a second look at one of the most
publicly demanded gambling activities of this era . To understand what is at stake if Congress decides to legalize and regulate T.H.E. poker, or maintain its
illegality, it is important to know how this potential online wave evolved. 1. Texas Hold 'Em - Not Your Grandfather's Card Game a. Basic Game Play T.H.E. poker has been described as a mix
between reason, intuition, and bravado. n83 In a clockwise rotation, two players begin the hand by [*762] posting their "blinds." n84 Next, each player gets two cards face down, and based on his
perceived value of these two cards, places a bet or folds. n85 After every player has either folded, called the minimum bet, or raised, the dealer lays three cards face up where the players then use
those three cards to create a combination of the best five cards. n86 Now, players may bet, raise, or fold to bets before them, but must keep in mind that two more cards will be dealt, each
followed by a round of bets. The rounds of bets serve as a way for the strong hands to put their money behind their cards, or for bluffers to persuade other players to fold. b. Rise in Popularity It
T.H.E. poker, n87 as the card game is a favorite Friday
night activity for millions of Americans. In fact, one is hard-pressed not to be able to find either a nearby casino featuring the game as its main poker room
is apparent why the Texas State Legislature officially recognized Robstown, Texas, as the "birthplace" of
attraction, a home game, or a local pub sponsoring a charity T.H.E. game. With the advent of the World Series of Poker in 1970 and increased television coverage emerging soon after, n88
T.H.E. became mainstream. n89 Its popularity was just beginning as today, nearly every major casino in Las Vegas features an exclusive T.H.E. poker room. n90 In 2012, the Rio All-Suite Hotel
and Casino hosted the forty-third annual World Series of Poker Main Event with more than 6,500 players buying in at $ 10,000 a seat. n91 In the end, the winner took home more than eight
million dollars. n92 2. The Internet Boom and Collapse Most recently, the advent of the internet surged forward the popularity of online gambling and gave Americans the opportunity to place a
Many credit Chris Moneymaker's "rags-to-riches" story for sparking the
popularity of online T.H.E. poker . n93 Before 2011, millions of American's obtained accounts on major poker sites such as Poker Stars, Full
bet or play a hand of cards, all in the click of a button.
overnight
[*763]
Tilt, or Absolute Poker. Anytime day or night, one could use a debit card, load funds, and play online T.H.E. poker against other players from around the world. The economic impact was
enormous, and at the peak of online poker play, revenues amounted to roughly sixty billion dollars worldwide, with tax revenues of American's accounting for over three billion dollars. n94 Like
other gambling booms, however, scandal interrupted online T.H.E. poker's growth. On April 15, 2011, or as known in the gambling world, Black Friday, the Department of Justice kicked in the
doors of the virtual casinos. n95 The founders of the three largest online poker sites - Poker Stars, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker - were indicted under the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The government alleged that the companies used fraudulent methods to circumvent federal laws and trick banks into processing online gambling payments. n96 From
that fateful day in 2011, the interstate online T.H.E. industry has remained crippled, even amidst outspoken support for regulation by key members of Congress, including Senate Majority
Leader, Harry Reid. n97 More recently, while Congress has attempted to legalize online poker while keeping most other games illegal, it remains at an impasse. n98 C. Basic Gambling
Regulation: Federal and State Schematic Interplay The federal government leaves gambling regulation primarily to the states. n99 As such, some states choose to prohibit most types of gambling,
while others allow some forms of legal gambling including lotteries, charitable bingo, and pari-mutuel horseracing. n100 Conversely, [*764] two states, Utah and Hawaii, have completely
prohibited all types of gambling n101 while states like Nevada and New Jersey take a more liberal approach - setting up licensing schemes for hotels and casinos. n102 Along those same lines,
states have chosen different types of regulatory schemes to govern the activities. Many states choose to regulate with a common scheme that prohibits games of chance, i.e., games determined
entirely or partly by luck, whereby skill does not help one's chances of winning. n103 Common games of chance include craps, raffles, and roulette. n104 Conversely, some states allow games of
skill, i.e., games in which success depends primarily on superior knowledge, experience, attention, and an ability to overcome luck. n105 Some examples include chess, darts, pool, n106 and
fantasy sports leagues. n107 Congress may only regulate gambling so long as the activity falls within the confines of the Commerce Clause. n108 For example, one of the first pieces of federal
legislation was the 1895 Federal Lottery Act that prevented citizens from transporting foreign lottery tickets across state lines. n109 Today, the major pieces of federal legislation include the Wire
Act, the Travel Act, the Illegal Gambling Business Act, n110 and the UIGEA. n111 The FBI notes on its website that online gambling is illegal, n112 but currently, no federal law explicitly
makes online T.H.E. poker illegal. Instead, online gambling faces indirect obstacles. While Delaware, New Jersey, and Nevada have introduced legislation regulating internet gambling within
their borders, n113 indirect federal laws remain that prohibit interstate online gambling. n114 For example, the Wire Act, enacted in 1961, makes it a crime to knowingly, through wire
communications, transmit bets or help others [*765] transmit bets in interstate commerce. n115 Basically, it prohibits online wagering though wire communications in order to transmit, or assist
in the transmission of bets or related information for placing bets. n116 Though not entirely clear what types of gambling fall under the Act's purview, a recent Obama Administration initiative -
solidifying a 2002 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision - directs that the Wire Act applies only to internet sports betting. n117 The UIGEA also indirectly prohibits online gambling. The
UIGEA prohibits third-party organizations from providing monetary transfer services for online gambling companies. n118 In other words, the Act makes the receipt of payment with respect to
international or interstate online gambling illegal. n119 This indirectly applies to financial intermediaries by creating liability in aiding and abetting situations. n120 III. Prior Law and attempts at
Winning the Skill-Versus-Chance Argument The skill-versus-chance argument surrounding T.H.E. poker allows proponents to distinguish the game from other forms of online gambling. n121
To cast an activity into the illegal or regulated sphere of gambling, there typically must be a prize, chance, and consideration. n122 Proponents of online poker legalization urge that T.H.E. poker
is not a chance-based game. n123 Until DiCristina, whether poker was considered a skill-based game was a "matter of public and judicial debate." n124 Some state lawmakers, however, have
taken the debate away from the courts, and have explicitly or implicitly codified poker as illegal gambling or included it in [*766] their definitions of illegal games of chance. n125 Where
statutes do not address the issue, state courts have typically come down on the side of poker being a game of chance. n126 For example, in Joker Club v. Hardin, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals held that although poker involves a great amount of skill, it is predominated by chance. n127 The court reasoned that while in the end, the most skilled player would accumulate the
majority of chips, single hands are predominated by chance. n128 Further, the court explained that the test involved a question of whether skill or chance predominated, not whether there was
skill or chance involved. n129 Based on this reasoning, the court stated that timely bluffing and odds analysis capabilities make it more likely for skilled players to win, but "no amount of skill
can change a deuce into an ace." n130 Similarly, in Pennsylvania v. Dent, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court looked closer at the skill-versus-chance issue. n131 The trial and appellate court found
it apparent that skill predominated chance in T.H.E. poker. n132 Each stated that players have a distinct possibility of exercising skill and each has sufficient data available to make an informed
judgment. n133 The Supreme Court, however, reversed, stating that while the outcome of a game of poker is dependent on some degree of skill, it is predominantly a game of chance. n134
Likewise, in Colorado v. Raley, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants who operated a weekly T.H.E. poker game at a local bar. n135 The court heard expert testimony from University of
Denver statistics and mathematics professor, Robert Hannum, who stated that [*767] the skilled player wins ninety-seven percent of the time. n136 The jury found the defendants not guilty, but
on appeal, the district court found that it was error to admit Hannum's testimony as the skill-versus-chance argument was a question of law. n137 Federally, many circuits have held poker to be a
game of chance. n138 Pertinent to this Comment, the Second Circuit has ruled that poker is a game of chance, but only on a narrow scope. n139 For example, in United States v. Gotti, the
defendant operated a poker business featuring a variant of poker called Joker Poker. This variant of poker, however, involved significantly less skill than T.H.E. poker. n140 IV. Going All In
with Jack High: United States v. DiCristina The time was ripe for a close look at the complexities of T.H.E. poker, and it began when Lawrence DiCristina went all in on the theory that it is a
game of skill - a category free from the IGBA's purview. In what some consider a "landmark opinion," n141 the Eastern District definitively agreed with DiCristina and declared T.H.E. poker a
skill-based game. n142 In doing so, the court arguably turned federal poker law on its head. n143 To reach its conclusion, the Eastern District took a thorough approach and looked at the inner
workings of the statute itself and the intricacies of the game. A. Background Lawrence DiCristina was the owner of an electronic bicycle business n144 in Staten Island, New York, as well as a
T.H.E. enthusiast. Every Monday and Thursday night, DiCristina housed and hosted a T.H.E. poker room under the lights of the business's warehouse. n145 Players typically arrived at 10:00
p.m. and bought in for $ 100-$ 300 a [*768] seat. n146 Play sometimes lasted until 7:00 a.m. the next morning n147 and allowed DiCristina to collect a five percent rake n148 - that is until
federal agents learned of the two-night-a-week operation. n149 In June 2011, special agents arrested DiCristina and others for operating an illegal gambling business. n150 With the sound of
shuffling cards and falling chips only a memory, DiCristina faced charges of violating the IGBA. n151 In December 2011, a grand jury charged DiCristina with violating the IGBA by operating
an illegal gambling business involving poker and conspiring with others to do so. n152 Before trial, DiCristina moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that poker is not illegal under the IGBA.
n153 Specifically, DiCristina claimed that the IGBA's text and legislative history clearly indicate that the IGBA does not include T.H.E. poker. n154 Moreover, he claimed that poker was a skill,
not chance-based game and could not fall under IGBA's definition of illegal gambling. n155 During trial, Dr. Randall Heeb - economist, statistician, and poker player himself - gave expert
testimony pertaining to the defense's skill theory. n156 The court, however, ruled that the issue was a question of law and excluded the testimony, but reserved decision on the motion to dismiss.
n157 The jury found DiCristina guilty of the offenses of operating an illegal gambling business and of conspiring to do so. n158 After its verdict, however, DiCristina renewed his motion to
dismiss n159 and looked to the Eastern District to decide the skill-versus-chance argument. B. The Decision From the start, Judge Weinstein conceded that poker is an illegal game of chance
under New York state law. n160 Equally important, however, was his clarification that the issue before the Eastern District was "whether a business involving illegal poker games violated the
[*769] federal IGBA." n161 In deciding the issue, the Eastern District looked at the IGBA and focused on three matters: the text, the legislative history, and T.H.E. poker's characterization as
either a game of skill or a game of chance. To begin, the court focused its attention on the statute's text. The IGBA makes it a crime for anyone to conduct or manage an illegal gambling business.
n162 "Gambling," as defined by the statute, "includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy,
bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein." n163 Thus, to convict DiCristina under the IGBA, the government had to show a violation of New York state law, and show that the activit y
was included in the IGBA's definitions of illegal gambling. The Eastern District looked to the list of "gambling" activities and concluded that poker did not fall within the category of those listed
games. n164 In its interpretation, the court stated that poker must be "sufficiently similar" to those listed in the statute, n165 and agreed with DiCristina that the games listed were all games
predominated by chance. n166 The court also looked at dictionary and common law definitions of gambling and determined that in those, the element of chance plays a larger role. n167 The
Eastern District found that if Congress wanted to limit confusion, it could have specified that "illegal gambling" under the IGBA included all games prohibited by state law. n168 After all,
Congress had chosen to do this in other federal statutes. n169 Judge Weinstein noted DiCristina's point that Congress "does not ... hide elephants in mouseholes," n170 and stated that poker is
that elephant, perhaps even an "eight hundred pound gorilla" that Congress would not have ignored. n171 In other words, if Congress wanted to include poker in the list of illegal gambling
activities, it easily could have. Helping further interpret the IGBA's ambiguities, the Eastern District looked at the statute's legislative history and asked whether Congress [*770] intended to
include T.H.E. poker as illegal gambling. n172 Judge Weinstein pointed out that the purpose of the statute was to answer concerns about organized crime. n173 In particular, the IGBA was meant
to give the federal government "a new substantive weapon ... to strike at organized crime's principal source of revenue: illegal gambling." n174 The court noted that Congress did not discuss what
kinds of games to regulate beyond those actually listed in the statute, n175 but stated that those listed appear to be the types perceived as most in danger of organized crime influence. n176
Solidifying the decision, the Eastern District pushed forward to give a very specific and analytical answer to the classic skill-versus-chance argument. The court conceded that many state laws
and courts classify poker as a game of chance, n177 but refused to rely on those analyses for the IGBA's classification. n178 To begin, the court noted that while some players' actions benefit
from chance, their decisions skillfully overcome that element of chance. n179 The court stated that the majority of poker hands end when one player induces another to fold, and because a player
never reveals his cards, his decisions alone can determine the outcome, even with a weak hand. n180 This, the court stated, distinguished poker from other games listed in the IGBA. n181 Next,
where the trial court dismissed Dr. Heeb's testimony as irrelevant, the Eastern District considered it and opined that Dr. Heeb's testimony was persuasive evidence proving that skill predominates.
n182 The Eastern District summarized that (1) poker involves a large number of complex decisions, which allow players of varying skill to differentiate themselves, (2) many people play poker
for a living and consistently win money over time, (3) players who obtain superior results with other starting hands tend to obtain superior results with any given hand, indicating that the players'
abilities, not the cards, are responsible for the results, and (4) the published studies are all consistent with these conclusions. n183 [*771] More specifically, the court looked at Dr. Heeb's
testimony highlighting the "skilled strategic choices" made by poker players. n184 He opined that this skill could include many things, including how much to wager, whether to play a hand at
all, or whether to bluff, raise, or fold. n185 The Eastern District agreed, stating that, "bluffing, raising, and folding require honed skills to maximize the value of the cards dealt by Lady Luck."
n186 Additionally, the court also noted that the skill used in T.H.E. poker differs from other forms of gambling. n187 Particularly, the best players can rely on their sophistication to change the
outcome of the entire game - so much so that many people make a living from playing poker as opposed to other types of gambling. n188 Perhaps solidifying T.H.E.'s legitimacy was the court's
use of Dr. Heeb's win-rate studies. n189 The first study examined whether a player's win rate on all hands was predictive of their success in a particular kind of hand. n190 Dr. Heeb concluded
that a player's skill did in fact show through and had an impact on the amount of money won or lost based on a particular hand. n191 In addition, the court considered Dr. Heeb's use of "complex
regression analysis" to show that skill predominates in poker. n192 In this analysis, Dr. Heeb created a skill index that related how skillfully one played in relation to actual win rates. n193 This
index showed whether more skilled poker players actually won more money than those of lower skill levels. n194 The court took notice of the results of the analysis and Dr. Heeb's statement that
"the lowest skill players according to the predicted skill index in fact achieve much worse results. Average players still don't do very well. Very good players are winning players." n195 Finally,
the court noted that Dr. Heeb himself looked at other studies in unpublished or published newspapers and the results remain the same - poker is predominated by skill. n196 With this in mind, the
court considered the government's expert witness, Dr. DeRosa, who did not [*772] present any contrary analysis proving that chance predominated over skill. n197 Based on the overwhelming
evidence suggesting that T.H.E. poker is predominated by skill, and the government's lack of evidence indicating otherwise, the court held that under the IGBA, T.H.E. poker is a game
predominated by skill, not chance. n198 After this conclusion combined with the conclusions on the IGBA's text and legislative history, the court dismissed the conviction, and for the time being,
allowed DiCristina's record to remain free from IGBA violations. In August 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Eastern District's decision on interpretive grounds, holding
that the plain language of the IGBA includes T.H.E. poker. n199 While the Eastern District's interpretation of the IGBA fails, its careful look at the skill-versus-chance argument remains intact
and provides lawmakers with a solid foundation moving forward as the Second Circuit did not invalidate this analysis, opining that the "question of whether skill or chance predominates in poker
is inapposite to [the] appeal." n200 V. Surging Forward After DiCristina After DiCristina, the time is as ripe as ever for legalized online T.H.E. poker. As evidenced by the prior waves, gambling
is an industry that looks at the past to help mold the future. n201 This perhaps accounts for the waves of regulation, to prohibition, and back to regulation again. Looking at the future of online
T.H.E. poker relative to waves past, Congress should deliberately push forth a bill to legalize online T.H.E. poker. Not only do recent developments surrounding online T.H.E. poker mirror
surges of the past, but DiCristina resolved one of the last great debates standing in the way of legalization. Together these surges stand as the final strongholds to make one of America's pastimes
a lawful online activity. A. Shaping the Future Relative to History: Recent Developments Mirroring Surges of Waves Past Each of the three waves of gambling regulation came in response to a
The potential
online gambling wave follows on a parallel path. Today, in legalizing online T.H.E. poker, Congress [*773] could
respond to a struggling economy, and further protect the security of an American public that all but demands legalization . And if
pressing need of the time. But before new laws formed, going from prohibition to regulation in each wave required intervening surges to push forth new regulations.
looking at our past is indicative of future reform, current developments mirroring surges of the past favor new legalizations.
***THE = Texas Hold Em
Congress isn't in session - plan happens after the midterms
Marcos 9/18/14 (Cristina, The Hill, "Lawmakers exit Washington to campaign," http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/scheduling/218296-lawmakers-leave-washington-to-campaign)
the House and Senate have adjourned until after the
midterm elections so members can hit the campaign trail. Both chambers are scheduled to return Wednesday, Nov. 12.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) office announced Thursday that, in a departure from the original schedule, the House
would not be in session Friday or the week of Sept. 29. Senators were in just as much of a hurry to leave
Washington as soon as they cleared a stopgap funding bill to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1 with an authorization to
arm Syrian rebels to fight Islamic extremists. With little other "must-do" legislation left on the agenda, both chambers of Congress
closed the brief, yet intense, September session. The recess between now and the week after the Nov. 4 elections
will last seven weeks, which is even longer than the five-week August break. Those seven weeks will be the last critical stretch of
After just eight days in session following a five-week summer recess,
campaigning for incumbent lawmakers, especially Senate Democrats trying to keep control of the upper chamber. House Republicans are not
expected to lose their majority in this year's elections, but members in a handful of competitive districts were hard-pressed to wrap up work in
Washington. House Democratic leaders called a press conference Thursday designed specifically to chide GOP leaders for leaving Washington
this week — nearly two months ahead of the Nov. 4 elections. "The American people have to ask: 'What do you do for a living?'" Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, further
piled onto House Republicans for leaving town as soon as members passed a measure to prevent another government shutdown. "House
Republicans are now abandoning any pretense of doing actual work for the American people, skipping town one day after doing the bare
minimum required to keep the government functioning but blocking any progress for the middle class," Israel said.
Economy key to the midterms – overshadows other issues
Rogers 9/16/14 (Ed, Wash Post, "The Insiders: It's still about the economy,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/09/16/the-insiders-its-still-about-the-economy/)
Anyway, national security issues are important and today, our national security demands attention. It would be
irresponsible for Republicans to ignore the growing global chaos and the real threats our country faces. But
everything in modern campaign history teaches us that the election in November will still mostly be about the
economy . So it’s little wonder that the growing number of signs pointing to Republicans regaining control of the
Senate have coincided with recent polls showing an increase in voters’ disapproval of how the Democrats are
handling economic issues. In the latest Politico poll, 57 percent of Americans said they “disapprove of his
[President Obama’s] economic leadership.” The Democrats know this, so perhaps to some of the Democratic
leadership, the international crises represent something of a mixed blessing. Ordinarily, Americans would rally to —
or at least defer to — the president during times of international strife. Obama’s problem is that he is seen as part of
the problem, not the solution to America’s waning influence and the growing threats that follow. Meanwhile,
although the president engages in happy talk on the economy, the Democrats’ disconnect on this issue infuriates
voters. For instance, the same Politico poll also showed that, “by every measure in the survey, a gloomy mood
still pervades the electorate when it comes to kitchen-table issues: Just 23 percent say their personal financial
situation has improved over the past year, versus 30 percent who say it has gotten worse.” The poll is focused
on likely voters in 2014 battleground states, so these results reveal a lot about the mood of our country. With 77
percent saying they are worse off or at least no better off than they were last year, Obama’s attempts to take credit
for an economic recovery only confirms how detached from reality he and Democrats on the ballot in November
have become. The bottom line is that voters vote with their pocketbooks. This has been and will remain true.
No matter what is happening around the world — short of a direct attack against the United States — the weak
economy, anemic job growth and high cost and economic disruption caused by Obamacare must reign at the top of
the GOP election agenda.
No strikes – and this doesn’t assume that Iran is rational
Rubin, 1/26/12 – professor at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, the Director of the Global Research
and International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, and a Senior Fellow at the International Policy Institute for
Counterterrorism (Barry, “Israel Isn’t Going to Attack Iran and Neither Will the United States.”
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/26/israel-is-not-about-to-attack-iran-and-neither-is-the-united-states-getused-to-it/)
Yet given the points made above, even the Iran-as-irrational analysis — and even assuming it to be correct, the
probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent — does not
justify an Israeli attack at this time. And, finally, Israel has other options. The alternative is this: As the Iranian
regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a
multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include: U.S. early warning stations and anti-missile
missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israeli long-range planes whose crews have
rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking
down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously; covert operations, possibly including computer
viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; help to the
Iranian opposition (though the idea of “regime change” in the near future is a fantasy); and other measures. If and
when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such
threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it
unavoidable, not in theory but in actual practice. Note that attacking a limited number of missiles and launch
facilities, that must be located closer to Israel within Iranian territory, is easy. Attacking multiple nuclear facilities
buried deep in the ground anywhere in Iran is hard. Ah, but what if Iran gives small nuclear devices to terrorists?
Well ask yourself two simple questions: 1. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that this didn’t happen? Answer:
Not at all. 2. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that Iran would definitely give nuclear devices to terrorists and
try to strike against Israel as quickly and as frequently as possible? Absolutely yes. Does an Israeli strategy of not
launching an attack assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s
ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply
be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not
inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in
doing so.
Even if it happened – wouldn’t cause extinction
Riedel 12 – Senior Fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and a professor at
Georgetown University (Bruce, 01/20, “Iran is not an existential threat,” http://thedailynewsegypt.com/globalviews/iran-is-not-an-existential-threat.html)
The danger of war is growing again over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran is rattling its sabers, the Republican presidential candidates and others are
rattling theirs. But even if Iran gets the bomb, Israel will have overwhelming military superiority over Iran, a fact that should
not be lost in all the heated rhetoric. Former head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, says Iran won't get the bomb until at least 2015. In contrast, Israel
has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and has jealously guarded its monopoly on them in the region. Israel has used force in the
past against developing nuclear threats. Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 were the targets of highly effective Israeli air strikes against
developing nuclear weapons programs. Israel has seriously considered conducting such a strike against Iran and may well do
so especially now that it has special bunker-busting bombs from the US. Estimates of the size of the Israeli arsenal by international think tanks
generally concur that Israel has about 100 nuclear weapons, possibly 200. Even under a crash program, Iran won't achieve an
arsenal that size for many years — perhaps decades. Israel also has multiple delivery systems. It has intermediate range ballistic
missiles, the Jericho, that are capable of reaching any target in Iran. Its fleet of F15 long-range strike aircraft can also deliver nuclear
payloads. Some analysts have suggested that it can also deliver nuclear weapons from its German-made Dolphin submarines using cruise
missiles. Israel will also continue to have conventional military superiority over Iran and the rest of the region. The Israel
Defense Forces has a demonstrated qualitative edge over all of its potential adversaries in the region, including Iran. The Israeli air force has the
capability to penetrate air defense systems with virtual impunity as it demonstrated in 2007 when it destroyed Syria's nascent nuclear capability.
The IDF's intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities are vastly superior to its potential rivals. The 2006 Lebanon war and the 2009 Gaza war
demonstrated that there are limits to Israel's conventional capabilities but those limits should not obscure the underlying reality of Israel's
conventional military superiority over its enemies. Iran, on the other hand, has never fully rebuilt its conventional military from the
damage suffered in the Iran-Iraq war. It still relies heavily for air and sea power on equipment purchased by the Shah 40 years ago, much of
which is antique today. Moreover, the June 2010 United Nations sanctions, UN Security Council resolution 1929, impose a very stringent arms
ban on Iran. Virtually all significant weapons systems — tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, etc — are banned from sale or
transfer to Iran. Training and technical assistance for such systems is also banned. In other words, even if Iran wants to try to improve its
conventional military capability in the next few years and has the money to do so, the UN arms ban will make that close to impossible. Iran
does not have the capability to produce state-of-the-art weapons on its own, despite its occasional claims of self-sufficiency. It
certainly cannot build a modern air force to compete with the IDF on its own. Finally, Israel will continue to enjoy the support of the world's only
superpower for the foreseeable future. Assistance from the United States includes roughly $3 billion in aid every year. That is the longest running
financial assistance program in American history, dating back to the 1973 war. It is never challenged or cut by Congress and permits Israeli
planners to do multi-year planning for defense acquisitions with great certitude about what they can afford to acquire. When Texas Governor
Rick Perry suggested cutting aid to Israel to zero in one Republican debate, his poll numbers plummeted. He backtracked fast. US assistance is
also far more than just financial aid. The Pentagon and Israel engage in constant exchanges of technical cooperation in virtually all elements of
the modern battle field. Missile defense has been at the center of this exchange for over 20 years now. The U nited S tates and Israel also
have a robust and dynamic intelligence relationship, which helps ensure Israel's qualitative edge. Every American president
from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama has been a supporter of maintaining Israel's qualitative edge over its potential foes, including US allies like
Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran, in contrast, has no major power providing it with financial help. Its arms relationships with Russia and
China have been severed by Security Council Resolution 1929. Its only military ally is Syria, not exactly a powerhouse. And Syria is now in the
midst of a civil war; its army is dissolving. If President Bashar Al-Assad falls, Iran is the biggest loser in the "Arab spring". Hezbollah will be the
second largest loser. The deputy secretary general of Hezbollah and one of its founders, Sheikh Naim Qassem, wrote in 2007 that Syria is "the
cornerstone" of Hezbollah’s survival in the region. While Syria and Hezbollah have their differences, the relationship is a "necessity" for
Hezbollah. So don't let the hot air from Tehran or the Republican debates confuse the reality on the ground. Iran is a dangerous country but it is
not an existential threat to either Israel or America.