1nc
r-spec
Requires removing prohibitions, includes regs
Dr. Jonathan P. Caulkins 12, Stever Prof of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie
Mellon, Dr. Angela Hawkin, Associate Prof of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, Dr. Beau
Kilmer, Co-Director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, and Dr. Mark Kleiman, Prof of
Public Policy at UCLA, interview with Matt Ferner, Denver editor for the Huffington Post,
"’Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs To Know’ Authors Discuss Risks And Rewards
Of Legal Weed," September 4, Huffington Post,
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/marijuana-legalization-research_n_1850470.html
Define the various kinds of legalization and what kind of legalization is Amendment 64 seeking? ¶ The term legalization
without any qualification means that the substance would be treated more or less like any
other article of commerce , with substance-specific regulations seeking only to shape
the behavior of producers and consumers, not to eliminate market activity . So, alcohol is
legal even though it can only be purchased by those over the age of 21, and automobiles are legal
even though manufacturers selling in the U.S. have to meet a range of regulatory requirements ,
including those pertaining to emissions, fuel economy, and crash safety.
The aff must specify its regulations—key to ground—allows the aff to skirt key
ground
econ/terror da
Gaming destabilizes the global economy and funds terrorism – turns the whole
case
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, AND Brynn JD, 05
(John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia. , Anne E.C.
an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s Business Services Group, where she concentrates her practice in the areas of trusts, estates,
and wills. Ms. Brynn received her J.D., cum laude, in 2002 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and her B.A., cum
laude, in 1993 from the University of Vermont. , Destructive Economic Policies in the Age of Terrorism: Government-Sanctioned
Gambling as Encouraging Transboundary Economic Raiding and Destabilizing National and International Economies ACDIS
Occasional Paper)
The Age of Terrorism highlights that government-sanctioned gambling is
economically and politically destabilizing. As exemplified by casinos, gambling provides
quick and substantial quantities of stable cash flow to the owners of the gambling
establishments, and particularly in less-secure governmental systems, the owners are often
associated with groups dedicated to destabilizing the government, such as organized crime,
terrorist, and rebel groups. One example of this phenomenon during the late 1990s was Yasser
Arafat’s and the Palestinian Authority’s largest, most profitable, and most stable asset—a
Jericho casino—built with U.S. gambling technology, sanctioned by the Israeli government,
patronized by Israeli tourists, and dedicated to finance the Palestinians’ destructive policy
toward Israel.2 During the 1990s, the Israeli government could have prevented the
establishment of the Jericho casino, but it did not,3 and the trend was even toward allowing
more casinos and gambling activities. During the 1990s, the world’s economic leadership
ensconced in the United States largely ignored the rapid spread of legalized gambling from the
Nevada establishment into the United States and the international community. This laissez
faire attitude by U.S. governmental and economic policymakers signaled and
encouraged the rapid embracing of the U.S. gambling industry’s philosophies and
technologies by other countries trying to emulate U.S. economic growth. Lost in the
differentiation between entrepreneurial policies enhancing long-term economic efforts, and
gambling policies cannibalizing the short-term economic wealth, governments worldwide
ignored or forgot the basic principle that government-sanctioned gambling encourages
transboundary economic raiding and destabilizes national and international economies. On a
strategic scale, widespread government-sanctioned gambling activities constitute inherently
destructive economic policy. Specifically, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat divulged his
administration’s financial secrets in 2000, revealing “a multimillion dollar slush fund to a state
monopoly on cement and a $60 million share in a highly profitable casino.”4 For years, the
international community had demanded that the Palestinian government disclose its financial
dealings, which, once revealed, showed “millions of dollars in tax revenues to secret
accounts...to which only Arafat and a few close advisers”5 had access. Close to $530 million did
not reach the Palestinian Treasury in 1998 and 1999, according to a Palestinian financial report
released in 2000.6 Significantly, the “largest holding, valued at $60 million, was a thirty percent
stake in a casino in the West Bank town of Jericho.”7 Prior to the 2000 report, “the Palestinian
Authority refused to acknowledge its involvement in the casino, apparently fearing criticism”8
from the international community including “Islamic fundamentalists who oppose gambling on
religious grounds.”9 These developments highlight the need for strategic analyses of
government policies involving legalized gambling activities and their impact on national and
international communities—particularly the economic security issues in the Age of Terrorism.
(1-2)
US Key - gambling policies here shape global gaming
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, AND Brynn JD, 05
(John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia. , Anne E.C.
an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s Business Services Group, where she concentrates her practice in the areas of trusts, estates,
and wills. Ms. Brynn received her J.D., cum laude, in 2002 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and her B.A., cum
laude, in 1993 from the University of Vermont. , Destructive Economic Policies in the Age of Terrorism: Government-Sanctioned
Gambling as Encouraging Transboundary Economic Raiding and Destabilizing National and International Economies ACDIS
Occasional Paper)
In this context, the World Bank Group began in the 1970s to incorporate externalities, such as
environmental issues, into its loan policies. Specifically, the World Bank established an Office of Environmental
Affairs in 1970.165 This Office reviewed loan applications from the LDCs and decided whether or not the project adequately
provided for environmental safeguards.166 The Office established guidelines for projects in the areas of agriculture, industry,
transportation, utilities, and public health.167 This was a significant procedural development for the World Bank decision-making
process. However, during the 1980s, the World Bank’s decision-making image suffered when, for example, it became apparent that
much of the Brazilian deforestation problems could be linked to World Bank loans. Regardless of these shortcomings in
environmental decision-making, it seemed that these public policy trends provided significant precedent for
the World Bank to focus on the “gambling policies” of LDCs before granting loans. Recognizing
the potential “domino effect” of economic-financial instability in any country, the
United States and the World Bank community have spent billions of dollars in loans to support
countries with economic-financial instabilities. It is incongruous to spend billions to stabilize a
country economically and then allow that country to use those monies to destabilize itself by
investing in casinos, and inviting U.S. casino companies to build in their jurisdictions. For
example, U.S. and World Bank funds were used to stabilize Mexico’s faltering economy during the mid-1990s. After receiving those
funds, one of Mexico’s prime economic so-called “development” strategies was to emulate U.S. gambling policy and invite U.S.
casinos to Mexico City. From May 13-14, 1996, Mexico City was the site of the Mexico Gaming Summit and Conference hosted by
representatives of several major U.S. gambling companies and designed obviously to influence the Tourist Commission of the
Mexican Department of Commerce.168 The Mexico Gaming Summit was advertised as a joint venture between the U.S. gambling
industry’s trade magazine, International Gaming and Wagering Business, and Mexico Business magazine which was billed ironically
as “the leading magazine of the NAFTA marketplace.”169 However, the policies of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA)170 were designed to promote and grow commerce via free trade, whereas gambling policies act in contravention of free
trade and promote sterile transfers of wealth that denigrate, destabilize, and corrupt the Mexican economy and its government.
Perhaps ironically, in March 2002, the U.N. Summit on Global Development was convened in Monterrey, Mexico and “compelled
the leaders of the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, [the European Union], and the International Monetary Fund,
gathered together for the first time, to address the poor in terms rarely associated with high finance.”171 President George W. Bush,
his administration, “and most of the Monterrey conferees agree[d] that increased development aid should flow only to deserving
nations that... [would] spend the aid wisely.”172 As U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan summarized: “There is no use... in
underwriting corrupt regimes ‘built on sand.’”173 As this analysis shows, legalized gambling creates
economic-financial instabilities, creating more demands for international relief funds to address
emergency situations. Furthermore, funding jurisdictions that sanction legalized gambling would be,
in most circumstances, futile attempts at stabilization. Legalized gambling is simply contrary to
sound international monetary policy because of its destabilizing effects .174 The United
States is implicated in this global dilemma precisely because of its economic power . The
spread of U.S. legalized gambling first precipitated and then promoted the
acceptance of legalized gambling activities by other countries , and the United States has
developed a substantial export market for gambling technology and related services. For example, as
of 1998, G-Tech (Gambling-Technology), a U.S. company founded in 1981, controlled seventy percent of the worldwide lottery
market, running lotteries in twenty-nine of the thirty-eight U.S. states with lotteries, as well as Great Britain and other places.175
Unlike other organizations, it appeared that gambling organizations were more often stigmatized by scandals and allegations of
corruption. In one well-known instance, a London jury found that the founder of G-Tech committed libel when he denied that he
had tried to bribe a competitor into not challenging his bid for Britain’s lottery business.176 The
United States sets the
global standards for gambling . In permitting gambling enterprises to flourish in the United
States and abroad, the United States undermines global socio-economic stability in
contravention of its international obligations . By virtue of both its position as world
economic leader and its commitment to international relief organizations, the United States
bears the burden of structuring its economy to reflect the goals of international stability and world
order.177 As President Clinton stated in his 1998 IMF address, “Strong government policies [and] sound business practices... are
needed to ensure growth into the future.”178 Promoting
gambling activities both in the United States and
abroad stands in direct conflict with these stated goals. (21-2)
Double-dipping causes nuclear extinction.
Wilson 3/27 – actuary writing on emerging risks, published by Thomas E. Ricks, Pulitzer Prize-winning former WSJ and
Washington Post reporter, now blogs for Foreign Policy and Center for a New American Security (Matt, “An Actuary Looks at the
Future of War (no.22)—and sees a nuclear war looming there”, 3/27/14; <
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/27/an_actuary_looks_at_the_future_of_war_no_22_and_sees_a_nuclear_war_lo
oming_there>)//Beddow
It's been almost 70 years since a great-power war, and war in general is declining. What does this
mean concerning the future of war? Imagine
an area that historically has gotten a large earthquake about
every 20 years. However, it hasn't had an earthquake in over 60 years. Should you be worried? It
turns out the basic processes moving societies into the future and the earth's crust into future
are similar. The future heavily builds on the past -- a positive feedback loop process. All
positive feedback processes that are stabilized (not allowed to crash) will
experience a very large crash at some point in time. And if a very large crash is still
suppressed, then the system (society or earth) will get stuck in the middle of a
phase change. When the system finally undergoes a phase change, then everything will get
wiped out. What happens when you put out every forest fire? Forests follow the same positive feedback loop process too. In
the meantime, the system will sit at the edge of a cliff, unable to move forward very well.
This explains Japan's economy and now the U.S. economy too. It also explains the future of
war: the large crash. Time of stability is the biggest factor in determining when a system is
nearing a crash state. After a long period of stability, a big problem in one area implies that big
problems are lurking elsewhere. The 9/11 shock in 2001 was our first sign of trouble. The 2008 financial
crisis pushed the United States into a pre-collapse state that is being suppressed.
Like Japan, the United States will not be able to get going again until it allows another great depression.
The next shoe to
drop could be a great-power nuclear war. Look at the connection between financial crisis
and war: 1. The 1907 U.S. financial crisis was followed by World War I in 1914. 2. The 1929 U.S.
financial crisis was followed by World War II in 1939. 3. The 2008 U.S. financial crisis was
followed by World War III in 2015-2018? The same build-up of problems that
caused a financial crisis also positioned societies for war. Those problems are a buildup of bad ideas, bad decisions, and corruption. They build up within all sectors of society at
about the same rate. So the fact that the financial sector is mostly independent of the military
sector is irrelevant. A big crisis in one area just tells us that time is up. You and everyone else
you know think that a great-power nuclear war is just about impossible. In fact, it just
might be the future of war.
ban cp
The United States federal government should
- assert authority under the commerce clause to regulate gaming activity
- ban all internet and brick and mortar gaming except for Las Vegas and
Atlantic City
- create criminal penalties for individuals who engage in online gambling
- pursue international treaties that prohibit gaming activity
- pursue voluntary agreements with financial institutions to restrict gaming
transactions
- pay annual compensation to the nation of Antigua and Barbuda in an
amount specified by the World Trade Organization
The CP restores US leadership on gaming which facilitates international legal
regulation of gaming activity
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, AND Brynn JD, 05
(John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia. , Anne E.C.
an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s Business Services Group, where she concentrates her practice in the areas of trusts, estates,
and wills. Ms. Brynn received her J.D., cum laude, in 2002 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and her B.A., cum
laude, in 1993 from the University of Vermont. , Destructive Economic Policies in the Age of Terrorism: Government-Sanctioned
Gambling as Encouraging Transboundary Economic Raiding and Destabilizing National and International Economies ACDIS
Occasional Paper)
Legalized gambling, when analyzed at a strategic macro-economic level, was a no-win
proposition for individual countries, as well as the international economy. The massive amount
of capital that accrues to the gambling industry at the expense of the public, destabilizes
economies by effectively foreclosing opportunities for new and pre-existing, non-gambling
industries, and by imposing social and rehabilitative costs on society which tax revenues are
insufficient to cover. The vast expenditure of money by pro-casino interests suggested
“unbalanced decision-making processes by elected officials, regulatory agencies, and even the
court system.”216 The United States needed to take a proactive approach to minimize
the destructive, destabilizing impact of the transnational economic raiding
inherent in legalized gambling activities. First, the United States, as leader of the
international economy, was prodded to spearhead international discussions concerning the
viability of gambling as a tool for economic growth. These discussions were to be conducted with
the ultimate goal of instituting international multilateral treaties designed to combat the
transnational economic raiding between countries caused by government-sanctioned gambling
activities. Unfortunately, efforts in this area were difficult due to U.S. domestic gambling
policy—or, more accurately, the lack of a U.S. gambling policy. Forcing the issue in the
international arena without setting a workable U.S. standard as a model was deemed
essentially inconsistent. Until the United States committed to different policy decisions on the
domestic level, economic isolationists would argue that the United States needed to assure that
its citizens were incubated from the dangers implicit in the spread of international legalized
gambling. To this end, the United States would need, for example, to effectively legislate
against the specialized dangers of Internet gambling, relying not on outdated laws such
as the Wire Act,217 which were designed to apply to other technology and passed in view of
different concerns. Since most transfers to Internet gambling operations are accomplished
through banks or credit cards, holding these service providers responsible for illegal gambling
transactions would deter much unwanted behavior. Absent effective measures in these
types of issue areas, the U.S. economy would be transferring a substantial portion
of its citizens’ assets, but not the accompanying social costs, to other jurisdictions.
For the United States to achieve its goal of domestic and international economic stability, it
needed to address the domestic state-sanctioned gambling issue. The first step required for
effective change was to undermine the unbalanced influence pro-casino interests had on the
legislative processes. Several measures needed to be taken to accomplish this goal. First, the
federal government needed to undercut interstate cannibalism by assuming jurisdiction over
gambling-related industries by invoking the Commerce Clause. The federal government then
would have an option. The U.S. Congress could and should, with the exception of Las Vegas and
Atlantic City (because the industry is too deeply embedded in the social fabric of the cities) ban
legalized gambling in its entirety. Preexisting gambling casinos and accompanying
hotels and restaurants could be transformed into educational institutions, trade
schools, and colleges using the gambling industry’s own revenues. Although industry
interests would claim substantial repercussions from such decisions, they have already made
many times their returns on investment and would lose nothing, while the states would gain an
educated public, as well as new consumer dollars pump-priming the economy. A
decision to this end would also mitigate the problems surrounding ill-adapted and deficient
treatment programs for pathological and problem gamblers. Short of this measure, the federal
government should impose a tax structure upon legalized gambling operations that reflects the
cost they impose on society, such as the Canadian model where taxes are 100 percent with only
management fees going to the casino companies. The U.S. government should appropriate the
revenue collected and allocate it to treatment and rehabilitation programs for pathological and
problem gamblers, as well as for educational buy-outs of the gambling establishments. (29)
Clarifying the law makes prosecution effective and deters players – substantially
reduces the size of the market – legalization results in regulatory rollback, means
the plan fails
Conon, 09 – Jonathan, JD Candidate at NU Law School (“Aces and Eights: Why the Unlawful Internet,” Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, vol 99, is 4, Summer 2009,
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7340&context=jclc //Red)
VI. PROPOSAL
An effective response to the problems of Internet gambling in general, and the UIGEA in specific, should
include the enactment of more stringent legislation that makes online gaming illegal on an
individual as well as on an operator basis. This outcome would directly contradict several recent
Congressional proposals to modify the UIGEA, but would align with the Justice Department's longstanding position that all Internet
gambling is against the law. An outright ban would also be a superior approach to gambling legislation
than what currently exists in Canada, one of the few countries whose national criminal code contains specific provisions against
gambling by both individuals and operators.23°
A. EXISTING PROPOSALS TO MODIFY THE UIGEA
While several bills to modify the UIGEA have been proposed in recent congressional sessions, 231 none of them adequately address
the flaws of the existing legislation. Both the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act 232 and the Internet Gambling
Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act 233 seek to federally license online gambling operators. Each bill also attempts to increase the
amount of federal tax revenues that are collected.234 The underlying motivation of the bills is sharing in the billions of dollars of tax
revenues that countries who license Internet gambling collect. 235 However, neither bill reduces the amount of online gambling,
although at least the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act promises to install safeguards to • combat money 236
laundering and fraud, protect minors, and assist compulsive gamblers.
A third measure, the Skill Game Protection Act (SGPA)237 would seek further exemptions within the UIGEA and Wire Act for games
of skill, a term the drafters believe encompasses poker. The SGPA was influenced by federal court decisions that interpreted the Wire
Act "as applying only to betting on sports." 238 Perhaps in anticipation of those in law enforcement who would interpret the SGPA
otherwise, Section 3 would exclude from the definition of "bets or wagers" in the Wire Act "participation in poker.., or any other game
where success is predominantly determined by a player's skill . ,,239 The SGPA would then amend § 5362(1)(E) of the UIGEA to reflect
in the definition of "bet or wager" the exclusion for participation in games of skill now granted in the Wire Act.240 Again, despite its
inclusion of an array of potential safeguards against Internet gambling harms, this proposal would do little to curb the amount of
online play.24 1
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008 (2008 Act)242 is one of the most
informed proposed amendments to the UIGEA. Initially, the 2008 Act recognizes the lack of clarity in federal law as applied to nonsports related Internet gambling, including poker.243 The 2008 Act also seeks to rectify the legal uncertainty the UIGEA created for
non-U.S. based entities. 244 It specifically disclaims criminal liability for people who offered Internet gambling services, excluding
sports betting, before the UIGEA's enactment but who ceased operations thereafter.245 The 2008 Act then explicitly reaffirms
criminal liability for those who offered illegal wagers to or accepted them from individuals within the United States after the passage
of the UIGEA.246
Where the 2008 Act falls short is in its failure to clarify which bets or wagers are illegal under federal law. In fact, the 2008 Act
concludes by stating that nothing in its contents should be read to imply that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers,
made after October 13, 2006 are illegal under federal law. 247 After openly acknowledging confusion over this subject in its findings
section,248 the 2008 Act fails to further define which bets are illegal under federal law. Therefore, its clarifications as to criminal
liability for Internet gambling are of questionable value, and individuals are still left wondering which activities can be excluded under
the UIGEA.
H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, is the most recent attempt at reforming
the UIGEA. 249 Proposed by Representative Barney Frank, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to grant licenses to
Internet gambling operators.2 Licenses would be conditioned on the satisfaction of the usual list of safeguards against fraud,
compulsive gambling, and underage wagering.251 All licensees would also be required to comply with any taxes imposed on their
operations.252
B. A MODEL FOR A STRICTER GAMBLING LAW
Instead of granting further exemptions from the UIGEA for games of skill or legalizing online play through a
licensing regime, Congress should expressly prohibit all forms of online gambling, a position
that would also clarify any existing uncertainty over prosecutorial actions of the Justice Department. Since the
Clinton administration, the United States Justice Department has consistently maintained that all Internet gambling is 253 prohibited.
It supports this view based on its interpretation of the Wire Act and continues to prosecute violators under it. 254 The Justice
Department cites concerns over underage and compulsive gambling, fraud, and money
laundering as reasons for its seemingly hard-line position against online gambling.255 These issues are
undoubtedly similar to the safeguards that potential amendments to the UIGEA seek to address.256 The Department of Justice
nevertheless maintains the position that total prohibition of Internet gambling, and not industry regulation, is necessary to protect
consumers from these ills. 257 Likewise, many state attorneys general support an effective national Internet
gambling law to combat the activity in their respective jurisdictions. 8
Congress should empower these parties with a strengthening amendment that
provides criminal sanctions on both online gambling operators and players. As a
baseline for this sea change,259 Congress can look to the prevailing interpretation of Internet gambling
law set out in the Canadian Criminal Code.26 ° In Canada, operators can be imprisoned for up to two
years for "sell[ing], barter[ing], exchang[ing] or otherwise dispos[ing] of... any lot, card, ticket or other means or device for advancing,
lending, giving, selling or otherwise disposing of any property by lots, tickets or any mode of chance whatever.' '26' While this Criminal
Code provision contains no explicit reference to online gambling,262 at least one Canadian court has stated in dicta that online
gambling is illegal in the 263 country. Many observers are also in agreement that individuals are likewise prohibited from gambling
online if the website is located in another country.264 According to the Criminal Code, any person who "buys, takes or
receives a lot, ticket or other device.., is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.,
265 The United States should improve upon Canada's approach of criminal liability for Internet gambling and not
adopt the exemption existing in Canadian law that still allows their citizens to wager, on average, $447 per person. 266
Because legal authority over gambling regulation in Canada is split between the federal and provincial governments, if a provincial
government conducts or manages a gambling activity "operated on or through a computer, video device or slot machine," then that
government exercises authority over any criminal penalties resulting from the activity. 267 Two conditions need to be met for Internet
gambling to be legal in Canada: the service must be (1) "operated by the provincial government" and (2) "restricted to the residents of
the province offering the service. 268 These requirements have proven difficult to implement.
In Earth Future Lottery,269 the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a lower court ruling that found the Province of Prince Edward
Island to be in violation of the Criminal Code by planning to conduct an Internet lottery. The proposed lottery was open and marketed
to individuals beyond the confines of the province, including citizens of the United States, through the use of computers and the
Internet.270 The court saw this as a fatal flaw under the Criminal Code even though the transactions related to the lottery, as well as
the server on which the site operated, were alleged to be housed entirely within the province.2 While the precedential value of this
decision is likely limited to the operation of an Internet lottery, the court noted that the provisions of the Criminal Code "clearly
demonstrate that Parliament does not happily abide gaming activities of any sort in Canada .... The purpose of Parliament... was
generally to outlaw gaming and lotteries, not just to ensure they would be run honestly. 272 The U.S. Congress should adopt
a similar posture in criminalizing online
gambling at the federal level without allowing for exemptions
for individual states.273 The National Gambling Impact Study Commission cited the ease with which online patrons could
conceal their location within the United States in order to gamble with a foreign-based operator.274 The approaches to country
concealment that the Commission highlighted, including a process where a patron first dials into a remote ISP to give the appearance
of being located in a jurisdiction where online wagering is legal,275 seem readily applicable to intra-U.S. gambling as most ISPs are
local carriers. A similar problem would arise if states differed in the legal gambling age they set for their operations. Even legalization
proponents admit that existing technology cannot yet accurately verify age online. 276 These logistical hurdles offer few assurances
that virtual state boundaries or regulations could be respected.
But beyond the burdens on a state to prohibit non-residents from partaking in state-authorized
Internet gambling, there is the added question of whether these desires would even exist. The
authority to operate Internet gambling sites may cause some states to "race to the bottom" in
an effort to capture a larger share of the tax revenues claimed to accompany
legalized gambling.277 A similar result occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s when states
began authorizing riverboat casino gambling.278 Initially, strict restrictions were in place: boats could
not be stationary and were limited in their hours of operation.279 In some instances, players' losses were also capped. 280 But once
additional states started competing for gambling patrons by authorizing their own riverboats, these
restrictions were gradually lifted.8 1 Moving boats begat stationary casinos and eventually riverfront properties were
established.282 A similar rush to maximize potential online tax revenue suggests some states have the
incentive to offer minimal regulation of age and location, or at least provide less stringent
enforcement mechanisms.
VII. POLICY DEFENSES A. PRESENCE OF NEGATIVE GAMBLING EXTERNALITIES
The arguments justifying an outright federal ban on Internet gambling
include a reduced economic
multiplier effect from expended consumer dollars, a potential rise in bankruptcies and pathological gaming,
and a heightened risk of underage gambling.283 Internet gambling also poses a risk that various forms of fraud will be
perpetrated against individual 284 players. A chief concern of the federal government is that online operators may unfairly take a
player's money or wrongly disseminate his or her personal information.285 This issue is particularly salient in light of the discovery
of the two largest cheating scandals in the history of Internet gambling, both of which occurred on poker sites.286
Players on web sites AbsolutePoker.com and UltimateBet.com were victims of scandals where cheaters hacked the companies' software
and defrauded players out of $1.6 million and $20 million, respectively. 287 The cheaters had manipulated the system so that they
could see the face-down cards of their online opponents, which is a virtually unbeatable advantage.2 8 The scandals were only
discovered upon the concerted effort of individual players acting as analytical detectives as the companies were either unable or
unwilling to respond to allegations of a scam.289 While the sites are now refunding money to the victimized players, the scandal raises
legitimate questions as to the integrity of the online gambling system, particularly poker.290 A comprehensive online
gambling ban would remove from participants' minds any tacit endorsement of the legitimacy of
Internet 29 gambling sites by the U.S. government. 291 It would also put players on sufficient notice that
they are participating in an illegal activity that the government believes is pervaded by fraud.
A related concern is the ability of criminals to use online gambling sites to launder money. An
individual with an ill-gotten gain can deposit the money into an online account, gamble a de minimus amount, and then request a
withdrawal of a now legitimate "winning." 292 Proponents of online gambling claim that this situation is not unique to the operation
of betting web sites and in fact pervades electronic commerce.293 While there is truth to this statement, an Internet gambling
site does provide an easy mechanism by which money can be moved electronically. 294 Simply
making a criminal's nefarious intentions harder to execute should serve as a sufficient justification
for restricting an economic activity that otherwise acts as a societal drain.295
B. IMPROPRIETY OF EXEMPTING ONLINE POKER FROM A COMPREHENSIVE GAMBLING BAN
Supporters of exempting online poker from the confines of the UIGEA downplay all these externalities and claim that regulation is
still a preferred solution.296 They contend that poker is a game of skill deserving of an exclusion from any outright gambling ban.297
Proponents also point to the tremendous financial windfall to the United States from a decision to regulate and tax Internet
gambling.298 These advocates are misguided for three reasons. First, online poker should not qualify as a game of skill deserving of
an exemption. Major skill elements of the activity in its traditional form, including the ability to read one's opponent, precisely 299
calculate mathematical probabilities, and implement complex stratagems, are diminished in the online context. As these skill elements
diminish, the relative importance of chance increases. Second, while the activity may not be as dependent on chance as other forms of
online gambling, one can easily imagine how the twenty-four hour, seven day a week nature of the Internet casino makes poker a
"gateway activity" to other, more pathological games. Lastly, as few economic revitalizations have actually occurred in cities that
opened commercial casinos, 300 one needs to strictly scrutinize the claims of online gambling proponents concerning the financial
benefits of regulating and taxing the activity. 30 1
The argument that poker constitutes a game of skill has yet to find wide support in the legal system.302 Moreover, major skill elements
of the game are diminished in the online context. One critical skill element present in poker occurs in the context of reading the
opponents against whom you are playing.30 3 In an analysis of the elements of chance and skill present in various gambling activities,
Professor Christine Hurt places poker to the right of blackjack on the chance/skill spectrum for this reason, noting the importance of
being able to effectively bluff one's opponents as well as not divulging one's own strategy. 3 0 4 Two-time World Series of Poker
champion Doyle Brunson notes that "[m]ore than any other game, poker depends on your understanding your opponent." 30 5
The ability to gather psychological and social information from one's opponents is greatly reduced in the online environment.30 6
There are far fewer visible clues, or tells, that an experienced player can ascertain from a weaker player's table demeanor.30 7 Online
poker players are forced to resort to tracking software that records a particular player's betting history and displays wagering
tendencies.30 8 Although this resource can provide information otherwise unavailable to a traditional poker player, it can be largely
unhelpful because of the ease with which online players exit and enter games.309
The speed at which online poker occurs also inhibits players' abilities to accurately respond to complex table decisions. 310 In an
online poker game, one simply has far less time to play a given hand.31 Online operator PokerStars quantifies this time allotment on
its website as follows: At PokerStars, a player in a ring (non-tournament) game is allotted 25 seconds to act on their hand if it is a fixed
limit poker game, and 35 seconds in a pot limit or no limit poker game. A warning message is displayed in the chat box when there are
15 seconds left to act.312
This compressed decision making schedule compares to the virtually unlimited time one has to act in a traditional poker game. The
ability to patiently think through a decision can be a valuable resource in a highly involved hand, although the casino can implement
a maximum time limit for taking action.313 Players do attempt to use the speed of the online game in combination with the opportunity
to simultaneously play at multiple games to maximize their profit potential.314 However, in doing so they usually must sacrifice the
ability to "respond to moves against them in a thoughtful manner., 315 Even after considering these differences between online and
the contention that online poker still deserves a UIGEA exemption is further
assailable when one evaluates the potential "gateway" nature of the activity.
traditional poker,
The term "gateway" is regularly found in the context of narcotics and applies to a relatively less dangerous drug, like marijuana, that
leads users to more invidious substances, such as PCP. 316 By analogy, participation in the relatively non-speculative
nature of online poker may lead to more pathological gambling due to the nature of the online
casino.317 Because a typical Internet casino offers games ranging from poker to blackjack to slot machines, 318 a dedicated
poker player could easily encounter and participate in another gambling activity simultaneously
with his or her poker experience. This temptation does exist at a traditional casino, but the
physical impracticalities of running between the roulette wheel and the poker table, for example,
severely limit this occurrence. Online, a regulatory body would need to incur considerable monitoring costs to allow a site
to provide poker capabilities, but restrict a player from other forms of gambling. The difficulty of ensuring that online
sites only offer poker, coupled with the earlier discussion on the potential for pathological gaming
in the online context,319 should give pause to those in a position to grant online poker a UIGEA
exemption.
Lastly, proponents of legalizing Internet gambling cite impressive estimates for the tax revenues that would result from regulating the
activity.120 One estimate claims that a flat Internet gambling tax of 6.25% could produce over $750 million in annual revenue. 32'
Even legislators are quick to point out the potential for the United States to share in the billions of dollars in global tax receipts that
the industry produces.322 These claims share a striking resemblance to the justifications many states proffered for initiating or
expanding land-based gambling activities within their borders in recent years.323 Afraid to raise taxes, many legislatures looked to
gambling taxation as a way to overcome budget deficits and pay for important services.324 Gambling taxation became a politically
expedient way to raise money, notwithstanding opposition from business leaders and 325 citizens.
Unfortunately, economic revitalizations tend not to materialize.326 One study that analyzed nineteen years of gambling data found
that the opening of a large-scale casino resulted in a decrease in sales tax revenues in eight of twelve analyzed states.327 This result is
not surprising considering the reduced economic multiplier effect observed in states with legalized gambling. 328 Forecasting a similar
result should legalized online gambling begin to compete for consumers' disposable income dollars seems reasonable.
The issue of tax collection presents a final obstacle to overcome. Proponents of regulation admit that the government would face
substantial monitoring and compliance costs,3 29 and these costs need to include an effective collection system. Receiving all gambling
taxes owed by commercial casinos has at times proven difficult,330 and the complexities of the Internet would only magnify this
collection problem. In view of these concerns, the rose-colored claims of Internet gambling proponents on the massive tax potential
of the industry need to be more seriously scrutinized.
VIII. Conclusion
Online gambling, once left for dead, has the strong potential to resurface in the United States.331 Key provisions of the UIGEA, such
as “unlawful internet gambling,” remain vague,332 and the number of explicit exemptions the law grants suggests that more could be
forthcoming.333 The introduction of H.R. 2267 by Representative Frank further portends the onset of licensed Internet gambling.
This Comment urges Congress to turn away from the idea of legalization and taxation and instead proposes a two-step solution to
address the problems of the UIGEA in its attempt to combat Internet gambling.
First, Congress needs to amend the UIGEA with a comprehensive definition of “unlawful internet
gambling” and explicitly limit the exemptions granted under the law. In this way, the legislature
can make most forms of Internet gambling illegal on an operator level. 334 A strengthening
amendment would provide law enforcement officials the unambiguous tool they
need to combat Internet gambling,335 while also avoiding many of the pitfalls
associated with prosecuting operators under the Wire Act.336 Lastly, a clear federal ban on
Internet gambling would remove much of the uncertainty currently existing in state law on the
subject.337
Second, Congress should take the broader step of amending § 5363 of the UIGEA to excise language that
requires a person to be “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” for criminal liability to
attach. Making Internet gambling illegal on an individual basis should not be viewed as
an unprecedented step when one looks to the prevailing interpretation of the Canadian Criminal
Code, 338 assuming that no state-based exceptions were also included. Adding another criminal sanction will undoubtedly trigger
discussion of the over-criminalization that purportedly exists in the United States.339 However, when the criminal law
cannot otherwise reach an activity deserving of punishment, a broader extension of liability may
be warranted.34 °
Internet gambling is the paradigmatic example of this type of activity. Efforts targeting the operators of online sites
will only go so far as long as the potential to earn millions of dollars from recreational and problem
gamblers exists to counteract the threat of prosecution.341 Additionally, the ability to enforce criminal penalties
on international operators and intermediaries is severely constrained when few of them ever set
foot on U.S. soil.342 In evaluating this type of situation, the benefits of an overly broad law, in this case one that reaches
individual gamblers, should be weighed against its attendant costs. 343
online gambling provides, at most, minimal benefit to society.
Pathological and problem gaming can be heightened in the online context, bankruptcies and
uncollectible debts may rise, and the potential for fraud, money laundering, and underage gambling
are at least as great as in the traditional gambling context. The alleged tax revenues that will flow to society can readily
be called into question, and the demonstrated multiplier effect on the economy from gambling
dollars is considerably less than from other forms of recreational spending.
This Comment demonstrates that
Furthermore, despite the claims of scholars who criticize any attempt to target individual bettors, circumstantial evidence exists that
criminalizing the activities of the "five-dollar bettor" may increase the percentage of otherwise law-
abiding citizens who stop gambling online. According to the estimate of former U.S.
Federal Reserve advisor Edward Kane, 30% of online gamblers were law abiding
citizens who stopped gambling after the UIGEA was passed.344 By extending the
prohibition under the UIGEA to the individual level, a larger percentage of the
citizenry is likely to withdraw from the online gambling community. Of course, no level of
prohibition or sanction will ever stop those with a determined mind to gamble. Yet, criminalizing
both the supply and the demand of Internet gambling by making most forms illegal on an operator as well as on an
individual basis is the surest way to achieve the desired results of the UIGEA.
banning all online gambling ends the WTO dispute---universal ban solves
discrimination against foreign providers
Nelson Rose 5, professor, recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on gambling law,
Internet Gaming: U.S. Beats Antigua in WTO,
www.gamblingandthelaw.com/index.php/columns/65-109wto
First, the WTO decided not to look at U.S. state laws, which outlaw all unlicenced commercial gambling.¶ As for federal law,
with just a little tweaking of the I nterstate H orseracing A ct, the U.S. will be in complete
compliance with its WTO treaty obligations .¶ The entire controversy can be traced back to a mistake the
U.S. federal government keeps making: It does not take gambling seriously.¶ Nations that sign trade treaties like the ones creating
the WTO agree that they will let in some types of goods and services of other signatories. One category was "Recreational, Cultural &
Sporting Services," which included everything from circuses to news agencies. Some other countries expressly stated that they were
not agreeing to open their doors to foreign gambling operations. But the U.S. agreed to let in every recreational service, "except
sporting."¶ Sporting" services were undoubtedly excluded to keep out foreign sports teams. The U.S. argued that "sporting" includes
gambling. It didn't work.¶ The funny thing is that the U.S. did want to keep out gambling. And all it had to do was say so.¶ The U.S.
signed the WTO treaty in 1994. Maybe the federal government did not know about Internet gaming then, but it should have. It
certainly did know that foreign operators were trying to gain patrons from the U.S.: The federal government was seizing a million
pieces of foreign lottery mail at the borders each year.¶ But the U.S. could still keep out Internet gambling if it could show that this
was "necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order."¶ The first panel held the U.S. had failed to show this because
the U.S. had refused to talk with Antigua about changing its laws against Internet gaming. On appeal the WTO ruled that whether or
not the U.S. had met with Antigua was irrelevant to the legal of question of whether the anti-gambling laws were necessary.¶ The
WTO held that the federal laws prohibiting interstate and international betting were
necessary . Specifically, it said that the U.S. had established "a specific connection between the
remote supply of gambling services" and dangers to the American public. It found the U.S. had
presented evidence showing "a link in relation to money laundering, fraud, compulsive gambling
and underage gambling."¶ This does not mean that any of this is true. Only that the federal government was able to show
that it had reason to be concerned about foreign operators taking bets from at-home Americans. It focused on Internet gambling's
"volume, speed and international reach," "virtual anonymity," "low barriers to entry," and "isolated and anonymous environment." ¶
The WTO did reject the federal government=s concern for organized crime, finding the U.S. had not submitted concrete evidence to
show that remote gambling, as opposed to other forms of gambling, was particularly vulnerable to mob involvement.¶ This WTO
ruling was the first ever to discuss "public morals," but it follows established international law. The High Court of Europe has
consistently ruled that the nations of the European Community cannot keep out trade from other members - except gambling. Even
in the U.S., we have long had the concept of a state's Police Power, the state's right to do just about anything to protect the health,
safety, welfare and morality of that state's citizens.¶ But the U.S. laws had to pass one more test. A nation can
enact laws to protect its residents from the perceived evils of gambling, but it cannot
discriminate against foreigners just to protect its local businesses. One federal law failed this
test.¶ In December 2000, Congress amended the Interstate Horseracing Act ("IHA") to allow parimutuel betting
on horse races by phone or computer. But the law on its face is limited to states in the U.S.
where it is legal to place and accept bets.¶ Since foreign operators were expressly excluded, the
WTO found the U.S. had failed to show there was no discrimination. The government lawyers did not help
by making the silly argument that the IHA was only civil and that it did not repeal the criminal anti-gambling laws. Of course it did.
That was why it was amended, so that off-tracking betting parlors would not be arrested for taking out-of-state bets.¶ Once again, the
government did not bother to talk to anyone in the business. If it had, it would have learned that international betting on
horseracing has been around for decades. Betting on the Kentucky Derby is very big in Canada and France, and I personally saw
Hollywood Park taking bets on races in Hong Kong.¶ ¶ The WTO held the U.S. had not shown that it applied its
prohibition on remote wagering on horseraces in a nondiscriminatory manner.¶ But the
solution is easy. Congress should immediately amend the IHA to allow what is already being
done: expressly allow Americans to bet on foreign races and allow foreign bettors to wager on
American races. The U.S. could then safely prohibit all other forms of Internet
gambling, foreign and domestic .
midterms
Dems can maintain control of Senate now but they can’t afford any missteps
Huey-Burns, 8/27 --- congressional reporter for RealClearPolitics (Caitlin, 8/27/2014, “How
Democrats Can Hold Their Senate Majority,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/27/how_democrats_can_hold_their_senat
e_majority_123782.html, JMP)
The summer has been a difficult one for Democrats hoping to hold on to their majority in the
U.S. Senate this fall.
Their incumbent in Montana exited the midterms after being tarnished by a serious plagiarism
incident. A race in Iowa that wasn’t supposed to be a top battleground has tightened and their
candidate’s stumbles have attracted national attention. Colorado, where Democrats have been
on a winning streak over the past several years, is now hosting one of the most competitive
contests in the country.
Meanwhile, establishment Republicans got their favored pick at the conclusion of Alaska’s
primary -- and in a handful of other states, for that matter. And a new and surprising poll in
New Hampshire last week threatened to put Democrats on their toes.
This all comes as Democratic seats in West Virginia and South Dakota increasingly look lost,
meaning that unless they can pick up one of two competitive GOP-held seats, the party in power
appears dangerously close to ceding its majority.
But it’s not all doom and gloom for Democrats. A silver lining, party operatives say, has been
there all along. What the party has going for it are strong, battle-tested incumbents. And that
advantage is holding up -- so far .
“Republicans have a terrible record of beating incumbent Democratic senators, going back to
their last good year in this category, 1980,” wrote Larry Sabato and his “Crystal Ball” colleagues
this week. “There is no obvious way for the GOP to gain the six seats necessary for control
without taking down some incumbent Democrats, a task at which Republicans have struggled -they haven’t beaten more than two Democratic Senate incumbents since that huge 1980
landslide.”
Democratic senators, especially those in red states won by Mitt Romney, are certainly
vulnerable. The unfavorable political climate has been well noted, and President Obama’s drag
on candidates hasn’t eased (some are still reluctant to be seen with him). But several Democratic
incumbents are either leading or within the margin of error, according to polls. With the
exception of Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, no Republican challenger has pulled
into a significant lead in Democratic-held states.
After Labor Day weekend, voters will begin to tune in in earnest to the congressional races in
their states and districts and the ad wars will heat up. Contests will surely tighten, and both
Democrats and Republicans expect close races up until Election Day. But Democrats say they
feel confident in their incumbents’ abilities, so far, to hold up against national headwinds.
Democrats note that at this point in 2010, a GOP wave was already coming and much hope was
lost. “Now, the Republican brand is worse than it’s ever been, so even in red states where we
should be losing, we’re not,” said Justin Barasky, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee. “It speaks to the strength of our incumbents and their brands.”
In Alaska, Mark Begich is leading Republican Dan Sullivan -- who won the state’s GOP primary
last week -- by 4.6 percentage points, according to the RCP average. In New Hampshire, Jeanne
Shaheen leads Scott Brown by 6.6 points, even with that recent poll showing the Republican
closing the gap. And in Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is leading the Republican field by 13.8 points.
Louisiana has a jungle primary, meaning that everyone runs together on Nov. 4. If no candidate
breaks 50 percent -- and at this point, Landrieu is averaging around 40 percent -- the top two
enter into a runoff (set for Dec. 6, if needed). Landrieu has a long history of winning challenging
races. The runoff figures to be close, but the outcome will depend on which Republican
candidate emerges. Conservative challenger Rob Maness could pose problems for the party,
which is backing Rep. Bill Cassidy
Though Begich is also leading, the general election race has just begun. The incumbent has been
on the airwaves longer than Sullivan, however, with positive, biography-based ads touting his
family connections to Alaska.
In New Hampshire, the general election has not yet officially taken off. The Republican primary
doesn’t take place until Sept. 9.
And Democrats are not just playing defense. Party operatives point to competitive Republicanheld seats in Kentucky and Georgia as a way to help stem the GOP tide. Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell is running just three points ahead of Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, a
political newcomer whose campaign revolves almost solely around unseating the powerful and
longtime Republican incumbent. Grimes’ challenge is an uphill one, but her presence forces
McConnell, the ultimate campaign strategist, to spend vast sums of money and time.
In Georgia, businessman David Perdue leads Democrat Michelle Nunn, but there, too, the
margin is a narrow one -- 4.2 points in the RCP average. The race to replace retiring GOP Sen.
Saxby Chambliss is rated a tossup, and Democrats hope the state’s changing demographics work
in their favor. (However, Nunn’s campaign attracted some negative attention recently for the
leak of a memo that candidly outlined her vulnerabilities.)
Like other Democrats this cycle, Nunn is running on her family legacy (her father was a popular
senator). She and Democrats in the state are working to bring down Perdue’s numbers by
focusing on his business practices and by painting him as a partisan. Both candidates are
considered political newcomers and will continue to be well financed. The race is certainly a
challenge for Democrats, and the absence of a presidential election makes strong turnout among
key constituencies difficult to achieve. But Democrats point to the NRSC’s recent ad buy in the
state as evidence of its competitiveness.
Democrats believe that if they can take one of these two Republican seats, they will have blocked
the GOP’s path to the majority. The party also sees races possibly turning their way in North
Carolina -- where they hope the unpopularity of the state legislature will galvanize Democratic
voters and sink House Speaker Thom Tillis -- and in Arkansas, where Sen. Mark Pryor is leading
in Democratic internal polls and running an ad in defense of the Affordable Care Act.
(Republican Rep. Tom Cotton leads by three percentage points in the RCP average.) And in
places like Iowa and Colorado, Democrats see opportunities to drive up their opponents’
negative numbers.
Strong GOP challengers, the prospect of low turnout and the national climate present serious
challenges for Democrats. While analysts don’t predict a GOP wave election this year -- yet -there is still little room for error on the Democratic side with so many of their seats in
play.
Better fundraising is giving Dems an advantage --- big GOP donors have not
opened their wallets enough
Enten, 9/16/14 --- senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight (Harry, “Senate
Update: Democrats Take Another Small Step Forward,”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-democrats-take-another-small-stepforward/, JMP)
Yet, Kansas is part of an unnerving trend for the GOP; Tuesday was the latest in a string of bad
polling days for Republicans. A PPP poll released Tuesday in North Carolina gave Democratic
Sen. Kay Hagan a 44 percent to 40 percent lead over Republican Thom Tillis. Just a week ago,
Hagan had no better than a 50 percent chance of winning, but PPP is the fifth pollster to release
a survey in the past week that has her up by at least 3 percentage points. Hagan is now a 70
percent favorite.
Why have Democrats been moving the ball? It’s the not the national environment, which favors
Republicans. And many less competitive races haven’t moved one way or another.
On Monday, my colleague Nate Silver suggested one theory: Democrats have been outfundraising Republicans by a substantial margin in many of the most competitive
races. The Cook Political Report’s Charlie Cook noted in a column Monday that Republicans are
worried mega donors on the right are not opening their wallets to the degree they did during
2012 campaign.
And a new report released by Wesleyan Media Project, using data from Kantar Media/CMAG,
reinforces Nate’s hypotheses. Democratic Senate candidates and the outside groups supporting
them have enjoyed advertising edges in almost all the competitive Senate contests over the past
few weeks. Three of their larger advertising leads have been in Colorado, Michigan and North
Carolina — the three states where we’ve seen the biggest movements toward
Democratic candidates in the FiveThirtyEight forecasts. New Hampshire, one of the few
competitive states to move toward the GOP over the last week, is also one of the few states where
Republicans have had an advertising advantage.
[map omitted]
It’s important not to oversell this point. Democrats also have large advertising advantages in
states where the polls don’t look so good for them, including Georgia. And the raw number of
ads each side is airing is less important than what time the ads are on, because people are more
likely to be watching television at some times than others.
Still, it’s clear that Democrats are dominating the airwaves. The question is whether
Republicans and their affiliated groups can catch up. If they can, then we may see a
reversion to the mean, and the Republicans’ more robust position might be restored. If
Democrats maintain their lead on the air — and if that edge is what’s driving the Democratic run
over the past few days — then they might able to overcome a bad national environment.
The plan causes a major GOP donor to bankroll candidates to try and block online
gambling --- he has more clout than supporters
Clozel, 14 (7/25/2014, Lalita, “Casinos Chip In On Bill to Ban Online Gaming,”
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/casinos-chip-in-on-bill-to-ban-online-gaming/,
JMP)
Casinos are upping the ante over a ban on online gaming being considered in Congress, recent
lobbying filings show. The Restoration of America’s Wire Act, introduced in March by Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), has caused an outpouring of
spending from groups either supporting or opposing the bill. Meanwhile, loosened restrictions
on political spending since McCutcheon have allowed party contributions to swell, particularly
those from one influential billionaire.
All hands on deck
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has regularly broadcast his support for the ban while
ensuring its supporters in Congress were properly rewarded . The billionaire CEO of
Las Vegas Sands, the largest casino company in the world, has stated that the fledgling online
gaming industry is “a train wreck, it’s a toxicity, it’s a cancer waiting to happen.” Also, “a toxin
which all good people ought to resist.” At the same time, Adelson has encouraged the goodwill of
the bill’s primary sponsor in the Senate: This cycle, members of his extended family have
donated $15,600 to Graham while the Las Vegas Sands PAC has given him $5,000.
Now, the company is boosting its lobbying effort to promote the bill. Las Vegas Sands is set to
spend record amounts on K Street this year. The company paid out $290,000 during the second
quarter lobbying solely on the issue of online gambling or the two bills that would ban it. That
brings its yearly lobbying total to $460,000 — spending in six months just $10,000 shy of what
it spent in all of 2008, the year of its biggest-ever K Street splurge.
An Adelson rival in business and policy debates, Caesars Entertainment, is spending even more
on lobbying. Caesars owns several casinos, including New Jersey establishments that are
licensed to run online gaming operations. It spent $980,000 to advocate on various issues
including online gaming in the second quarter, bringing its total so far this year to almost $1.8
million. That’s close to the $1.9 million tab Caesars ran for 2013 in its entirety.
Several other groups are actively fighting Adelson’s efforts as well. Churchill Downs, Inc, a
conglomerate of horse tracks and casinos and the leading online wagering website for horse
races, spent $95,000 lobbying in the second quarter, mainly to oppose the ban. Meanwhile,
Boyd Gaming, another online gaming pioneer, spent $230,000, mostly on the same issue.
MGM Resorts reported spending $240,000 so far this year on several issues, including online
gaming, which it supports.
Wynn Resorts, the casino empire of Stephen Wynn, has not lobbied the issue since 2013. That
year, the company spent $80,000 just on the issue of “international taxation and internet
gambling issues,” according to lobbying reports. Steve Wynn, who has also been a major donor
in his own right, recently joined Adelson’s side in the online gaming controversy but hasn’t been
outspoken on the issue.
But these other players in the debate don’t have the cachet of Adelson , whose
consecration is sought by aspiring Republican candidates at his “Sheldon Primary” conferences.
Moreover, no other gaming executives have expended the same amount of personal energy
(read: dollars) as Adelson to build political capital within the GOP .
Adelson has been quick to take advantage of the loosened restrictions on political contributions
since the decision of the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In its
April 2 ruling, the Court struck down aggregate limits on how much an individual can give to
candidates, political parties and PACs, meaning that a well-organized donor can now spend
close to unlimited amounts, while still abiding by per-candidate and per-committee limits.
GOP Senate will trigger sanctions on Iran crush successful nuclear deal
Hunt, 14 (3/30/2014, Albert R., “Republican Senate Could Work Around Obama's Veto,”
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-30/republican-senate-could-work-aroundobama-s-veto, JMP)
If Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate in this year's elections, it will be, as Vice President
Joe Biden might put it more graphically, a big deal.
Last week, elections handicapper Nate Silver gave a 60 percent probability that the Republicans
would gain at least the half-dozen seats required for a majority. This wasn't news to top party
strategists. But it produced a palpable panic among Democrats along Pennsylvania Avenue,
from the White House to Capitol Hill.
Rationalizations followed. Maybe the assumptions were flawed, or Republicans would overreach
and set the stage for Democrats to come back in 2016. In any case, President Barack Obama has
the veto pen for the last two years of his term. That glosses over the profound policy
implications of a change that would affect many areas.
The Affordable Care Act: The president can stop repeal of Obamacare, but a determined
congressional majority can wreak havoc by using the initial budget process, known as
reconciliation, which allows major changes to be made with only a majority Senate vote that
isn't subject to filibusters.
"The Republicans can use reconciliation to pass lots of policies -- even repealing parts of
Obamacare," says Lanhee Chen, formerly a top policy adviser to Mitt Romney and now a
research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a Bloomberg View columnist.
Republicans have struggled to come up with any palatable alternatives to the health-care law.
That means major components such as the subsidies and tax credits, or the ban on
discrimination against insuring those with pre-existing conditions, wouldn't be changed. But
deep cuts in funding for running the program and getting new enrollees would take a toll.
"There could be a big hit in day-to-day administration," says Chris Jennings, a health-care
expert who has worked with the Obama administration.
Fiscal Priorities: Despite the power of the presidential veto, all the compromises would move to
the right. Congress would adopt measures closer to those favored by House Budget Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan, cutting social spending for the poor and increasing defense spending.
Republicans would try to enact conservative tax measures. Reform of the corporate code might
be a starting point, though changes to individual income taxes would be unlikely for budgetary
and political reasons.
Regulation: A Republican Congress would hold the upper hand. Regulatory agencies the party
doesn't like -- a long list that includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal
Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration,
and the Environmental Protection Agency -- could turn into toothless watchdogs with slashed
budgets.
There would be a big push for the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which
requires congressional approval for all major regulations.
Appointments: Senate confirmation for all but the most routine nominations would be a slog.
Republicans might repeal the so-called nuclear option rule, which requires only 51 votes (not 60
to break a filibuster) to confirm an executive or judicial appointment short of the Supreme
Court.
It's difficult to envision a Republican-run Senate confirming any Supreme Court appointment by
Obama.
Foreign Policy: The biggest issue might be a nuclear deal with Iran. Odds are the current
negotiations will be extended until the end of this year or next year. For now, only the strong
hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevents legislation that might scuttle the
negotiations from coming to the floor .
If a deal is reached, a Republican Congress would probably refuse to repeal the sanctions
imposed on Iran. The president can waive some of these measures by executive order. But
Congress would still have latitude to complicate any arrangement .
Sanctions bill causes Israeli strikes
Perr, 12/24/13 - B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University; technology marketing
consultant based in Portland, Oregon. Jon has long been active in Democratic politics and
public policy as an organizer and advisor in California and Massachusetts. His past roles include
field staffer for Gary Hart for President (1984), organizer of Silicon Valley tech executives
backing President Clinton's call for national education standards (1997), recruiter of tech
executives for Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns, and co-coordinator of
MassTech for Robert Reich (2002). (Jon, “Senate sanctions bill could let Israel take U.S. to war
against Iran” Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265184/-Senatesanctions-bill-could-let-Israel-take-U-S-to-war-against-Iran#
As 2013 draws to close, the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program have entered a
delicate stage. But in 2014, the tensions will escalate dramatically as a bipartisan group of
Senators brings a new Iran sanctions bill to the floor for a vote. As many others have warned,
that promise of new measures against Tehran will almost certainly blow up the interim deal
reached by the Obama administration and its UN/EU partners in Geneva. But Congress' highly
unusual intervention into the President's domain of foreign policy doesn't just make the
prospect of an American conflict with Iran more likely. As it turns out, the Nuclear Weapon Free
Iran Act essentially empowers Israel to decide whether the United States will go to war against
Tehran.
On their own, the tough new sanctions imposed automatically if a final deal isn't completed in
six months pose a daunting enough challenge for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry.
But it is the legislation's commitment to support an Israeli preventive strike against Iranian
nuclear facilities that almost ensures the U.S. and Iran will come to blows . As Section
2b, part 5 of the draft mandates:
If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against
Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and
provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of
Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to
the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.
Now, the legislation being pushed by Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) does not automatically give the President an authorization to use force
should Israel attack the Iranians. (The draft language above explicitly states that the U.S.
government must act "in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force.") But there should be little
doubt that an AUMF would be forthcoming from Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. As
Lindsey Graham, who with Menendez co-sponsored a similar, non-binding "stand with Israel"
resolution in March told a Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in July:
"If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will
authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."
Graham would have plenty of company from the hardest of hard liners in his party. In August
2012, Romney national security adviser and pardoned Iran-Contra architect Elliott Abrams
called for a war authorization in the pages of the Weekly Standard. And just two weeks ago,
Norman Podhoretz used his Wall Street Journal op-ed to urge the Obama administration to
"strike Iran now" to avoid "the nuclear war sure to come."
But at the end of the day, the lack of an explicit AUMF in the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act
doesn't mean its supporters aren't giving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu de facto carte
blanche to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. The ensuing Iranian retaliation against to Israeli and
American interests would almost certainly trigger the commitment of U.S. forces anyway.
Even if the Israelis alone launched a strike against Iran's atomic sites, Tehran will almost
certainly hit back against U.S. targets in the Straits of Hormuz, in the region, possibly in Europe
and even potentially in the American homeland. Israel would face certain retaliation from
Hezbollah rockets launched from Lebanon and Hamas missiles raining down from Gaza.
That's why former Bush Defense Secretary Bob Gates and CIA head Michael Hayden raising the
alarms about the "disastrous" impact of the supposedly surgical strikes against the Ayatollah's
nuclear infrastructure. As the New York Times reported in March 2012, "A classified war
simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that
the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave
hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials." And that September, a bipartisan
group of U.S. foreign policy leaders including Brent Scowcroft, retired Admiral William Fallon,
former Republican Senator (now Obama Pentagon chief) Chuck Hagel, retired General Anthony
Zinni and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering concluded that American attacks with the
objective of "ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb" would "need to conduct a
significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years."
(Accomplishing regime change, the authors noted, would mean an occupation of Iran requiring
a "commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the
past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.") The anticipated blowback?
Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with
problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A
dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended
consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out
regional war.
An Israeli strike fails, but triggers World War 3, collapses heg and the global
economy
Reuveny, 10 – professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana
University (Rafael, “Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression” Gazette
Xtra, 8/7, - See more at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strikecould-trigger-world-war-iii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash.
For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that
would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force.
Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are
not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground.
All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not
only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well.
By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear facilities,
developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and
enlarged its armed forces.
Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike—or even numerous strikes—
could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond.
Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability
comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish
forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the
assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war.
During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by
President Nixon’s shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical inferiority is
greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After years of futilely
fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superiority—bolstering
its enemies’ resolve.
Despite Israel’s touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist
attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat.
In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s military resources may quickly dwindle,
forcing it to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973.
An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and
its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in
the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war
and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela
would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe.
From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The world economy would head
into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully
turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops.
Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey—all of which essentially support Iran—
could be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony.
Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed
Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973.
President Obama’s response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s
nightmarish scenario.
Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it
knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States
leads the attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted.
If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send
weapons but would probably not risk using force.
While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign
policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light.
A unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World War III .
Laundering
Legalization increases laundering – there’s no way to enforce regulations
Pataki and Thackston, 14 – George, Former NY Governor and James, technology professional has briefed the FBI and
congressional staff regarding online gambling and crime (“Online gambling a bigger risk than you think: Column,” USA Today,
1/30/14, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/30/online-gambling-terrorists-column/5055941/ //Red)
Online gambling might be coming to a computer near you, and while it may seem like the only risk is on the
player, the FBI fears it will be used by terrorists and organized crime rings to launder money.
In a September 2013 letter to Congress, the FBI warned that while many industries are vulnerable to money
laundering, Internet gambling goes a step further by providing an anonymous forum
for bad actors to move money undetected: "Online gambling, therefore, may provide more opportunities for criminals to
launder illicit proceeds with increased anonymity. Individuals may use a wide array of mechanisms to conceal
their physical location, or give the appearance of operating in a different jurisdiction, when
accessing a website."
So, could innocent Americans find themselves gambling with dangerous criminals or terrorists and unknowingly help them move
money? In New Jersey alone, which just legalized Internet gambling two months ago, the number of accounts has already reached
nearly 150,000. And Internet gambling is rapidly expanding across the country, with other state legislatures looking at it this
session.
My co-author, James Thackston, a technology professional with a background in the aerospace, manufacturing and energy
industries, has briefed the FBI and congressional staff on exactly how criminals — even terrorists — could use Internet
gambling sites to move huge sums of money, thwarting website operators and their
regulators. He was recently joined by a group of experts, including a post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism coordinator active in
investigating and prosecuting illegal offshore online commercial gambling enterprises, in calling on Congress to weigh the law
enforcement impacts of Internet gambling.
Thackston has demonstrated in chilling detail how games can be rigged using pre-determined winners and
losers to move money between each other and spoof their physical locations.
It all begins with the "money mule," a person hired by a terror or criminal organization to open a bank account and Internet poker
account under a legitimate identity. Here's how just one of many possible scenarios would play out:
Money "mules" are hired by colluders to sign up for online poker, provide the colluders with
their log-in info, install software that allows the user to mask their geographic location, and then
simply leave their computer on at all times so that it can be remotely controlled by the colluders
from any location around the world. The mules never play, but have a legitimate account under
their own name.
The collaborators use devices called "frame grabbers" or Internet-enabled cameras to see what
cards his or her partners are holding.
Since cell phones are easily tracked by law enforcement, sophisticated money launderers would likely use custom-built messaging
systems.
Once the money is "won," it is in the mule accounts. It is then removed from the online poker account where it
can be cashed out or deposited into the mules' bank accounts to then be removed again so they may pay the criminal or terrorist
group backing them. There would be no reason for the federal government to flag this action since the
money was "legitimately" acquired in an online poker game.
In the same letter, the FBI said: "Online casinos are vulnerable to a wide array of criminal
schemes. For example, criminals may participate in games with exclusively criminal players,
exchanging money to launder criminal proceeds…Individuals may use a wide array of
mechanisms to conceal their physical location, or give the appearance of operating in a different
jurisdiction, when accessing a website…some sophisticated methods would be difficult to readily
identify or deter."
We should take the FBI at its word. There are sophisticated technologies that can be employed
by terrorist groups and criminal organizations to move money undetected, conceal their physical
locations, and entangle unwitting online players.
The FBI's warning is part of a growing body of evidence that demonstrates
the dangers the expansion of Internet
gambling poses to our national security. Internet gambling is moving full tilt without any consideration of the many
and varied law enforcement impacts. Congress needs to do the responsible thing to protect American
families and the innocent bystanders caught up in criminal schemes online. It must move swiftly
to restore the long-standing federal ban on all forms of Internet gambling.
Intangible factors increase the barrier to terrorist development of WMD
Ouagrham-Gormley, 12 – Sonia, Assistant Professor in the Biodefense Program at George Mason University (“Barriers
to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation,” International Relations, Vol. 36, no. 4, Spring 2012, Muse //Red)
The vast majority of analysts
and U.S. policymakers believe that with access to "tangible assets," such as
written scientific data, blueprints, bomb designs, production protocols, or assistance from foreign scientists, a determined state
or terrorist group could develop biological weapons. The focus on tangible assets stems from a
widely held belief that specialized knowledge can be readily captured and transferred in written form,
allowing individuals with only basic or even no specific technical expertise to use it for nefarious
purposes. In the biological weapons field, the dual-use nature of scientific knowledge and the availability of the required
technologies and material support this belief. This article challenges the conventional wisdom by showing that the success of a
bioweapons program also depends on "intangible factors," such as work organization, program management,
structural organization, and social environment, that affect the acquisition and efficient use of scientific
knowledge. In-depth studies of past weapons programs, including the former Soviet and U.S. bioweapons programs described in
this article, reveal that intangible factors can either advance or degrade a program's progress. In addition, the impact of these
factors is felt more strongly within clandestine programs, because their covertness imposes
additional restrictions on the use and transfer of knowledge, which more often than not
frustrates progress. Therefore, focusing only on tangible determinants of proliferation can lead to government policies
that respond inadequately to the threat. To more accurately identify the nature and evaluate the pace and scope of future proliferation
threats, and consequently develop more efficient nonproliferation and counterproliferation policies, scholars and policymakers must
include the intangible dimension of proliferation in their assessments. They must also understand the factors that determine the
mechanisms and the conditions under which scientific data and knowledge can be efficiently exploited.
Trade
Trade No impact to the dispute – nobody cares
Henderson, 9/12/14 – Hartley (“Antigua offers a new proposal to end Internet gambling dispute with U.S.,” OSGA,
http://www.osga.com/online_gaming_articles.php?Antigua-offers-a-new-proposal-to-end-Internet-gambling-dispute-with-U.S.14330#.VBdIVRa86SD //Red)
Unfortunately the situation with Antigua and the United States has become almost that silly. The WTO posted a
notice on its website that the new Gaston Browne administration has submitted a proposal to Washington to end the decade old
dispute. The notice read:
"Antigua and Barbuda urged the U.S. to consider the proposal with good faith and to engage comprehensively with Antigua and
Barbuda so as to end the dispute."
While no details were released on the website, sources close to the situation have indicated that Antigua is asking for $100
million in compensation either in cash or in trade incentives. This is down substantially from the last
Antiguan government which demanded $300 million and a promise to be able to offer gambling to the U.S., if their values
changed.
Antigua has to be commended for standing up to the U.S. government and taking them on despite the fact it was clear the U.S. were
never going to give in. But the time has come for the island to accept that under no circumstances is the
U.S. going to allow gambling services from Antigua nor will the U.S. ever give Antigua
compensation as long as it looks like it relates to the WTO dispute. And truth be told Antigua has lost all its bargaining power.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Antigua had decided to set up an infrastructure in the mid-1990s whereby for a moderate
licensing fee gambling operators could take bets worldwide using Antiguan servers and be rest assured the activity was legal since it
was sanctioned by the Antiguan government. The U.S. apparently encouraged Antigua to offer remote technological services in
attempt to build its economy since tourism dollars were declining but the United States clearly hadn't envisioned the island resorting
to offshore gambling and they certainly weren't expecting the island to license gambling websites which targeted Americans. The
U.S. refused to accept that gambling from Antigua was legal and issued arrest warrants against American gambling site owners in
Antigua, Costa Rica and other jurisdictions with Attorney General Janet Reno announcing "you can't hide offshore". Several owners
returned to face the charges but Jay Cohen, a founder of World Sports Exchange (WSEX), licensed in Antigua, returned to fight the
charges in U.S. court. In the end Cohen was found guilty and spent time in prison but at the encouragement of WSEX management
along with other offshore sites based in Antigua the country took the U.S. to the WTO courts complaining they were in violation of a
GATS treaty which the U.S. signed which said they would allow gambling services from other WTO nations including Antigua. The
U.S. argued they signed that paper in error and meant to exclude gambling but in the end the WTO courts ruled for Antigua and
offered compensation of $21 million a year in trade resolutions which was what they deemed Antigua would have garnered if they
were allowed to offer remote horse racing. It was a far cry from the $3.4 billion a year Antigua was asking for but the courts allowed
Antigua to use the award by bypassing trademarks and copyrights (TRIPS), i.e. offering cheap licensed versions of music, software
and videos. The hope was that with that threat companies like Sony, MGM and Microsoft would lobby the U.S. government to end
the dispute once and for all. And it possibly could have worked except the island continuously refused to use that ruling fearing
retaliation by the American government against the island in the area of tourism bans, which would have completely devastated
their economy.
Now more than a decade later WSEX is defunct and there are only a handful of offshore gambling establishments that still have
licenses from Antigua, but most operate elsewhere. The benefits of operating from Antigua that once existed are now seen as better
in jurisdictions like Kahnawake or Costa Rica. And for European gambling establishments that don't accept U.S. customers Antigua
really offers them no benefits.
So the current proposal by Antigua to the U.S. is irrelevant. At this point the U.S. probably just views Antigua as
a pesky fly that won't go away and in all honesty they probably don't care about the WTO case anyways, since several U.S. states
including New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware are already offering online gambling and several others are about to follow suit. And as
the United States proved with Black Friday, if they truly want to retaliate against offshore companies there's nothing the
jurisdictions that license them can truly do. Alderney was useless in protecting Full Tilt Poker from being seized and the same held
true for the Isle of Man and PokerStars. And the threat of using the TRIPS solution was lost when Antigua dithered for so long and
failed to live up to the threat. Moreover, the U.S. government knows full well that Antigua companies would never sell unlicensed
software, music or videos for fear of being seen in the same light as Chinese companies that break the law in that way. And more
importantly, they know that legitimate businesses and law abiding American citizens would never buy the products from Antigua
because they would view it as pirated goods. And those Americans who would buy those products can already purchase them from
unlicensed foreign entities or at their local merchants that sell knockoff goods from China. The last time I spoke to Mark Mendel,
Antigua's main council, it was clear that he had resigned to the fact that while Antigua was right to take the U.S. to court and while
they should be pleased that they actually won the case in the WTO courts, the truth is that it was all in vain, since the U.S. never had
any intentions of abiding by the WTO decision nor were they ever really willing to negotiate a settlement that both sides could live
with.
So where does Antigua go from here? As difficult as this may be to accept, Antigua may have to just come to the
realization that remote gambling is not in their future and that any compensation they receive will have to
appear to be one out of compassion and not tied to the WTO case. It's uncertain what services or goods Antigua could offer that
would bring in revenue similar to what offshore gambling did originally, but this is where the U.S. could actually help and where the
U.S. Trade Representatives may be willing to finally cooperate with the Antiguan government. If there's one advantage the U.S.
really has it's the technological experience and ability to recognize where opportunity exists. Perhaps the U.S. could send experts to
the island and identify industries that Antigua could consider offering that would benefit both countries (and possibly others in the
world). It could still be with technology and the Internet, it could be military based, and it could be by offering new crops or food
sources. Regardless there is no doubt that the U.S. could see Antigua as a strategic ally in the Caribbean and provide opportunities
and jobs that paid similar to what the offshore gambling industry paid and provide needed revenue to the island. Moreover the U.S.
could probably help strengthen the Antiguan banking system so it is no longer seen as a rogue system that is avoided by most of the
Western world and it could help promote the island to Americans as an ideal tourist destination.
By keeping on the same confrontational track, however, Antigua is only harming itself. So the best solution for Antigua is
to announce that they are willing to accept that the United States is not obligated to them despite the WTO
decision and are withdrawing their complaint. But they would appreciate help from the U.S. government to rebuild
their economy in another direction. This will provide the U.S. a way to save face in the dispute and, while it may be humbling to
Antigua, it would be a reason for the U.S. to finally sit down with the country and provide them with ways to build their economy.
Moreover, it would provide a reason for the U.S. not to rewrite its commitments under GATS which would remove the U.S.
government's obligations to Canada, the EU, Macau, Antigua and Japan as all those countries asked for compensation because of
loses it could suffer should the U.S. rewrite its commitments.
Unfortunately, going along the current path, Antigua is not helping itself because at the present moment, like the Black Knight,
Antigua is nothing more than a stump and has no bargaining power left whatsoever.
International norms fail
Evenett, 12 – Simon J., University of St. Gallen and Centre for Economic Policy Research (“Executive Summary,” Débâcle: The 11th GTA
Report on Protectionism, Centre for Economic Policy Research,
http://www.globaltradealert.org/sites/default/files/GTA11_exec_summary.pdf) Red
the evidence presented in this report casts doubts on the strength of international
restraints on the resort to protectionism by governments, in particular by G20 governments. There are two pieces of compelling
evidence here. First, the share of the worldwide totals of protectionism implemented by the G20
countries has risen year-in and year-out. In 2009 sixty per cent of protectionism was implemented by G20 governments—
that percentage has risen in the year to date in 2012 to 79%. Findings such as these cast the repeated G20 commitments to
eschew protectionism in a particularly bad light. Some observers of the G20 have noted that these commitments have
What is more,
been demoted in the respective summit declarations and the GTA’s evidence reveals just how little priority the G20 countries have actually given
to maintaining an open world trading system. Second, while there
has been a sustained increase in the use of trade
defence measures since the last G20 summit, resort to the traditional forms of protectionism that are relatively-speaking
better regulated by the WTO account never exceeded 42% of measures implemented in any recent year. During the crisis era, then,
governments have circumvented tougher WTO rules and used beggarthyneighbour policies subject to
less demanding or no binding multilateral trade rules. Much of that discrimination is pretty non-transparent—that is, it is
murky protectionism. This finding does not imply that the WTO rules are useless, rather so long as they remain incomplete
that circumvention is to be expected. If anything, the policy implication is that more far-reaching WTO rules
are ultimately needed, even if there is little apparent appetite among governments for
expanding the remit of multilateral trade rules at this time. It is probably safer to conclude that the WTO rules have altered
the composition rather than the amount of protectionism in recent years. Since official international
initiatives amount to a weak bulwark against protectionism, any restraint is likely to have
domestic sources. For sure, it would be desirable for G20 governments to start doing what they said they would do at their first summit
in November 2008—that is, refrain from protectionism—and having failed to do so to date, to unwind the protectionism that has been put in place.
Moreover, peer pressure could and should be employed to rein those G20 countries that have engaged in extensive discrimination against trading
partners. Short of a major change of heart, the G20 is unlikely to deliver on these recommendations—and expectations should be moderated
accordingly. The emphasis then must
be on winning the argument for maintaining open borders in each major
trading nation. Here business associations, consumer groups, and
the media—supported by information provided by international
organisations— should be at the fore of making the case against protectionism. The hard work
in fighting protectionism is at
the national level and not in writing reports for international summits. Information has its role, but it is not enough to limit the
damage done to the relatively liberal world trading system created in the post war era.
China won’t go nuclear
Moore 6 (Scott; Research Assistant – East Asia Nonproliferation Program – James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies – Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Nuclear
Conflict in the 21st Century: Reviewing the Chinese Nuclear Threat,” 10/18,
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_80.html)
Despite the tumult, there
is broad consensus among experts that the concerns generated in this discussion are
exaggerated. The size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is small, estimated at around 200 warheads;[3] Jeffrey
Lewis, a prominent arms control expert, claims that 80 is a realistic number of deployed warheads.[4] In
contrast, the
United States has upwards of 10,000 warheads, some 5,700 of which are operationally deployed.[5]
Even with projected improvements and the introduction of a new long-range Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile, the DF-31A China's nuclear posture is likely to remain one of "minimum
deterrence."[6] Similarly, despite concern to the contrary, there is every indication that China is
extremely unlikely to abandon its No First Use (NFU) pledge.[7] The Chinese government has continued to
deny any change to the NFU policy, a claim substantiated by many Chinese academic observers.[8] In sum, then, fears over China's
current nuclear posture seem somewhat exaggerated.
This document, therefore, does not attempt to discuss whether China's nuclear posture poses a probable, general threat to the
United States; most signs indicate that even in the longer term, it does not. Rather, it seeks to analyze the most likely scenarios for
nuclear conflict. Two such possible scenarios are identified in particular: a declaration of independence by Taiwan that is supported
by the United States, and the acquisition by Japan of a nuclear weapons capability.
Use of nuclear weapons by China would require a dramatic policy reversal within the
policymaking apparatus, and it is with an analysis of this potential that this brief begins. Such a reversal would also likely
require crises as catalysts, and it is to such scenarios, involving Taiwan and Japan, that this brief progresses. It closes with a
discussion of the future of Sino-American nuclear relations.
2nc
2nc CP Solvency Top
The internal link is reversible- changing course can end global gaming
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, AND Brynn JD, 05
(John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia. , Anne E.C.
an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s Business Services Group, where she concentrates her practice in the areas of trusts, estates,
and wills. Ms. Brynn received her J.D., cum laude, in 2002 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and her B.A., cum
laude, in 1993 from the University of Vermont. , Destructive Economic Policies in the Age of Terrorism: Government-Sanctioned
Gambling as Encouraging Transboundary Economic Raiding and Destabilizing National and International Economies ACDIS
Occasional Paper)
The United States wields an enormous amount of power in determining global policy
and bears a proportionate burden to structure its economy to minimize deprivation, poverty,
and instability. Legalized gambling is an enormous problem for both the U.S. and the
international economies. The inherently addictive nature of gambling activities makes it an
untenable burden on society. Strategic cost-benefit analysis shows that gambling is a
no-win proposition for the United States and for the world. The United States has
created a global trend toward the legalization of gambling activities. This has spurred
a system of transnational economic raiding which produces insufficient revenue to cover the
bankruptcy, crime, and corruption costs associated with these activities. The U.S. Congress
has the power to reverse the global trend of economic cannibalism, poverty, and
instability, and its first step toward this end should be to incubate the United
States from the destructive forces of Internet gambling. The Congress should also
recognize that legalizing gambling activities falls far short of maximizing the “public health,
safety, and welfare” of U.S. citizens and should legislate nationally on the issue. This will give the
United States the credibility it needs to effect a change in global perspective and to encourage
economic stability in the maintenance of a favorable world legal order. (31)
Legalization prompts race to the bottom and targeting of at risk populations
Raj, JD, 06
(Kiran S., JD Emory, BS Berkeley, DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND: HOW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN WORK WITH THE STATES TO REGULATE INTERNET GAMBLING 56
Emory L.J. 777 )
The third social cost is general negative social-welfare costs attributed to gambling operations. This general
social-welfare cost can be divided into three distinct categories. First, gambling tends to target specific
groups of people. Specifically, gambling acts as a regressive tax on the poor and [*795] minority
groups. n151 Gambling's attraction to those who can least afford it contributes to general social
costs. n152 People who are poor and lack education are least likely to appreciate the odds against
winning and thus gamble with the "hope of changing their lives." n153 Second, the legalization of
gambling tends to have a negative impact on preexisting businesses. n154
Nongambling businesses, especially in the entertainment market, are at a competitive disadvantage vis-avis gambling businesses for consumer dollars. n155 Although legalized gambling may promote more tourism in the
short term, the long-term socioeconomic effects may provide an incentive for many businesses to locate in a gambling-free state.
n156 Also, nongambling businesses will be further discouraged by the favorable tax breaks gambling businesses receive. n157 Thus,
while some markets and business segments might benefit from the legalization of gambling in a specific geographic area, for the
most part, the costs to nongambling-related businesses create an overall negative impact on local economies. n158 Third, and
somewhat related to the second concept, is that the legalization of gambling tends to create a "race to the
bottom." n159 Each area that legalizes gambling tends to compete with neighboring regions to
attract more gamblers. This competitions forces operators to provide the widest variety of games
to attract the largest segment of the population. n160 The more gamblers that are attracted from
outside a given geographical region, the easier it is for local economies to generate revenues that
exceed the inherent social costs of [*796] gambling. n161 Thus, communities tend to compete
against each other by racing to provide more thrilling and "harder" forms of gambling. n162
Trade
Codd says the US should comply with the 2007 recommendations
Codd 7 [Kathryn B. Codd - J.D. Candidate 2008, William & Mary School of Law; B.A. 2005,
summa cum laude, Gonzaga University, Betting on the Wrong Horse: The Detrimental Effect of
Noncompliance in the Internet Gambling Dispute on the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS), 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 941 (2007)]
Over the past decade, Internet gambling has become a global force . In 2003, the
projected industry revenues summed five billion dollars worldwide.' With the click of a button,
bettors could link up with counterparts in other parts of the globe for a poker tournament or a
game of blackjack. As other countries embraced the operators of this new recreational activity,
recognizing it as an opportunity to spur economic growth and bring in valuable tax revenue, the
United States began to crack down on the industry.2 As part of this crackdown, the U.S. federal
government and the states started to pass and enforce regulations prohibiting Internet
gambling, resulting in the arrest and conviction of executives of foreign gambling operations
who dared to set foot on U.S. soil.3 This onslaught against the foreign gaming industry did not
go unnoticed, however, and eventually, one small country, Antigua and Barbuda, attempted to
fight back against what it perceived as unfair discrimination against one of its primary sources
of income. Antigua brought a complaint against the United States to the World Trade
Organization (WTO), alleging violations of U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS).4 The WTO found the United States to be in violation of a specific
provision of GATS and ordered the United States to bring federal law into conformity with its
GATS obligations.5 Though many scholars consider the violation to be minor and the fix
relatively uncomplicated, 6 thus far the United States has failed to comply with the WTO's
recommendations.7 The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) governs disputes, such as
this one, that arise under GATS, as well as disputes under other WTO agreements.8 The DSU
vests adjudicatory power in the WTO for all disputes that arise under WTO agreements.9
Although WTO member nations have failed to comply on occasion with WTO decisions
involving violations under other agreements-such as the General Agreement on Trade in Tariffs
(GATT) or Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)-this lack of
compliance has not proved fatal to these agreements. 10 GATS, however, is a fairly young
multinational trade agreement, and some scholars argue that GATS has struggled to shape its
identity amidst problems with overly flexible provisions and lack of attention from WTO
ministers." Although most countries are likely to acknowledge that the agreement has been a
relative success thus far, 2 it has yet to weather any serious tests to its legitimacy. Because it was
instrumental in the formation of GATS, a other countries will likely look to the United States as
an example when deciding whether to comply with WTO decisions under GATS. The outcome
of the gambling dispute may prove to be a bellwether for the success or failure of
the agreement as a mechanism for regulating trade in services. This Note argues that
if the United States fails to respond appropriately to the recommendations made by the
WTO, the legitimacy of GATS as a mechanism for regulating trade in services
disputes will be undermined . Without legitimacy, GATS becomes nothing more than
symbolic lip service to the importance of liberalization in the service trade. Member nations will
perceive the agreement as a weak guarantor of rights and, as a result, will be less likely to resort
to the GATS dispute mechanism should a service trade dispute arise. This in turn may compel
WTO members to take unilateral action to enforce their rights, leading to elevated hostilities
and possible trade wars . To avoid these devastating results and to preserve GATS, the
United States should adopt the WTO recommendations proffered in the gambling dispute. Part I
provides background on the Internet gambling industry, both in Antigua and worldwide. Part II
discusses Antigua's complaint against the United States and the WTO decision in the gambling
dispute and sets forth the basic GATS and DSU provisions governing such a dispute. Part III
considers the benefits of maintaining a strong mechanism for resolving service trade disputes
under GATS and addresses specific compliance issues under the DSU generally. Part IV analyzes
previous compliance issues under other WTO agreements and explains why noncompliance in
the gambling dispute, in particular, is more likely to damage the pertinent multilateral trade
agreement, GATS. Finally, this Note argues for the United States's quick adoption of the WTO
recommendations in the gambling dispute to preserve the legitimacy of GATS.
That’s just paying them
William New 14, Intellectual Property Watch, 6/18/14, Bark But No Bite? Antigua Talks Tough
On WTO Gambling Case, But No TRIPS Remedy, www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/18/bark-but-nobite-antigua-talks-tough-on-wto-gambling-case-but-no-trips-remedy/
In December 2007, the DSB arbitrator ruled that the annual level of nullification or impairment
of benefits accruing to Antigua and Barbuda was US$21 million and that Antigua could request
authorisation from the DSB to suspend the country’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for the same amount annually.
Total ban is an alternative – Newnham just assumes the US wouldn’t do it
Newnham 7 (Tom – LL.B. at University of Michigan, “WTO CASE STUDY: UNITED STATES-MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING
SERVICES”, 2007, 7 Asper Rev. Int'l Bus. & Trade L. 77, lexis)
[*96] While it is possible that the Appellate Body may dilute some of the Panel's findings, as
the Appellate Body did with the Dispute Panel Report, it seems unlikely that the key findings of
the most recent report will change in any material respect. If the final Appellate Body Report is
adverse to the U.S., as most experts predict it will be, it raises an interesting dilemma for a
nation which has a relatively good record of compliance with WTO panel decisions. The U.S.
clearly realized that its passage of the U nlawful I nternet G ambling E nforcement A ct was
not in compliance with the WTO ruling and was merely trying to buy time. However, once
the U.S. exhausts its appeals, it will have to make a difficult decision: ban all remote gambling in
the U.S., open their doors to Antiguan operators, or continue to ignore the WTO ruling
and suffer the consequences . Clearly the U.S. will not ban all remote gambling within its
borders, given the revenue implications to the horse racing industry, which lobbied vigorously
for the provision given under the IHA, and are unlikely to relinquish those rights in an effort to
appease the government. It is also highly unlikely that the U.S. will ease access to companies
with servers licensed in a nation with only 80,000 people, whose legal efforts were largely
bankrolled by British-owned Internet gambling operators, especially given all the rhetoric it
spouted in the past about morals. n94 Thus, it seems that the U.S. will choose to ignore the
ruling and allow Antigua to retaliate with trade sanctions. This wouldn't be the first time the
U.S. has chosen this route, as it ignored several rulings in favour of Canada relating to the
softwood lumber dispute, resulting in Canada eventually offering the U.S. many concessions
simply to end the ongoing fight. n95 Unlike the situation with Canada, however, the U.S. will
have a much larger problem if it chooses to ignore the WTO ruling relating to Antigua.
Japan, Chinese Taipei, the European Union (representing several European countries), Canada,
and Mexico all chose to participate in the most recent panel as interested third parties and their
motivation seems obvious. Each of these member countries had disputes with the U.S. in which
the WTO ruled in favour of the U.S. Each of these countries consequently abided by the WTO
decision and complied with the ruling to their own economic detriment. n96 The U.S. has
clearly been the greatest benefactor of WTO rulings and Antigua will be a test case for the
world to see what the U.S. will do if the roles are [*97] reversed. If the U.S. chooses simply to
ignore the final WTO ruling favouring Antigua, other countries may decide based on its actions
that WTO rulings are not applicable and as a result , they may just decide to stop
abiding by previous or future findings themselves. This chain of events would greatly
undermine the WTO dispute settlement system, making it appear as a "toothless tiger ,"
which in the end would hurt U.S. interests the most. n97 It is uncertain how the U.S. will
proceed once its stalling tactics cease to be effective. However, considering the long-term
damage that ignoring the ruling would do to the credibility of the U.S. and the WTO
dispute settlement system , it seems the U.S. will eventually have no choice but to enter into
meaningful negotiations with Antigua to resolve this dispute.
Payoff solves
The WTO has ruled against the online gambling ban but the U.S. refuses to comply
– the case is ongoing
Nevill 13 (Andrew – J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, “FOLDED INDUSTRY? BLACK
FRIDAY'S EFFECT ON THE FUTURE OF ONLINE POKER IN THE UNITED STATES”, 2013,
2013 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 203, lexis)
3. International Implications Due to the fact that many of the online poker websites are operated
outside of the U nited S tates, n133 the DOJ injunction also impacts the economies [*216] of
other nations. This is not a new issue, as it has already been the subject of trial at the World
Trade Organization. n134 In 2003, the twin Caribbean Island nations of Antigua and Barbuda
brought a complaint against the U nited S tates on the grounds that U.S. law prohibits
gambling and betting services from other members of the WTO. n135 The WTO decided this
case in favor of Antigua, saying that the U nited S tates could not block online gaming
operators from Antigua from conducting business in the American market if it would, at the
same time, permit online wagering on horse racing. n136 When the United States refused to
change its laws to allow for online gambling operations in Antigua, the WTO awarded the island
nation $ 21 million in damages. n137 The ruling declared that instead of direct payment to
Antigua, these damages would come from the allowance of Antigua to "violate copyright
protections on goods like films and music from the United States." n138 Antigua is only one
of over thirty nations that filed claims for compensation with the WTO due to the U nited
S tates' stance on online gambling. n139 The U.S. government negotiated settlements with
several of the nations. n140 Australia and Japan dropped their claims for an undisclosed
amount, and the European Union dropped its claim in exchange for new trade opportunities
with the United States in areas unrelated to Internet gambling. n141 The online gambling
industry is very important to some smaller nations like Antigua where online casinos serve as
the nation's second largest employer. n142 The Black Friday indictment has a direct impact on
the Antiguan economy, as Absolute Poker is based on the island. n143 With the shutdown of the
online poker sites on Black Friday, the issue already decided by the WTO regarding the United
States' rules on Internet gambling could possibly be revisited to determine if more
sanctions are necessary . n144 Harold Lovell, Antigua's finance minister, went as far as to
state that he was "concerned that [*217] at this point in time United States authorities continue
to prosecute non-domestic suppliers of remote gaming services in clear contravention of
international law." n145 Although a complaint has yet to be filed with the WTO, this is a case
that could arise and possibly cost the U nited S tates more money in the form of
sanctions.
at: Perm
Prohibition must be absolute- any exception will be exploited
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, AND Joy PhD 07
((John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia. , Anne E.C.
an associate with Seyfarth Shaw LLP’s Business Services Group, where she concentrates her practice in the areas of trusts, estates,
and wills. Stephen W, Steve graduated from Augustana College in Illinois with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology and a minor in
Sociology. He then jumped into the legal arena by working as a Legal Assistant for a law firm in North Carolina before attending the
University of Illinois to obtain his J.D. and working as a Law Clerk for a law firm in Illinois. Steve next decided to further his
education and training by pursuing graduate degrees from Florida International University, where he earned his Master's and Ph.D.
in Legal Psychology, with an emphasis in Social Psychology. Internet Gambling and the Destabilization of National and
International Economies: Time for a Comprehensive Ban on Gambling Over the World Wide Web Research of the Program in
Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign September 2007 )
Utilizing the basic McDougal/Lasswell methodology of policy-oriented jurisprudence and
applying these methods to the issues involving Internet gambling revealed that only a policy
of “totally banning” Internet gambling was practically feasible. Exceptions
eventually led to wide-open Internet gambling and an overwhelming litany of
economic ills and social consequences—increased addicted gamblers, bankruptcies, and
crime and corruption. Accordingly, all cyberspace and Internet gambling needs to be banned
domestically in the United States and prohibited internationally by a United Nations
multinational treaty. Implementing this policy is essential because of Internet
gambling’s very real potential to destabilize regional, national, and even global
financial systems and economies. (35)
1nc Kindt evidence indicates that online gambling is the threshold for gambling
doing massive damage to the international economy – US ban emulated now and
the CP would strengthen it, legalization collapses economic stability
Kindt 13 – professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, senior fellow at the London School of Economics (John Warren,
“Kindt: Internet Gambling Will Cripple World's Economic, Financial Systems”, 1/7/13; <
http://www.rollcall.com/news/kindt_internet_gambling_will_cripple_worlds_economic_financial_systems-2205161.html?pos=oopih>)//Beddow
Internet gambling is an issue of strategic financial stability and Wall Street regulation. It is not
just an issue of silly games and electronic poker as argued by supporters of the proposed ReidKyl bill to legalize gateway gambling in cyberspace (See “Lipparelli: Congress Should Use This Brief Window to
Legislate Internet Gaming.”) In 1995, congressional hearings led to enactment of the U.S. National
Gambling Impact Study Commission, which concluded in 1999 that maintaining a total ban on
Internet gambling was a U.S. imperative. Currently this ban is supported by almost all members
of the National Association of Attorneys General. Congress even strengthened the ban by
enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which passedin
the House with an overwhelmingly favorable bipartisan vote. Immediately the Internet gambling stocks on
the London Stock Exchange lost billions of dollars as speculators finally recognized that these stocks were predicated on illusory
gambling activities. Fortunately for Wall Street, the U.S. ban meant that such vacuous gambling stocks were already prohibited on
U.S. stock exchanges. Around the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin sanguinely noted the
economic and crime costs of state-sanctioned gambling and recriminalized 2,230 casinos —
virtually wiping the economy clean. Associated leaders such as Chechen President Ramzan
Kadyrov confirmed that “the gambling business is ... [a threat to] national security.” What do the
Russian economists know that is still eluding Washington politicians? Led primarily by the U.S. ban on
Internet gambling, by 2009 about 30 other countries had also banned online
gambling. Recent academic volumes of the multi-volume United States International Gambling Report even have titles
reflecting the international economic realities. Specifically, the 2010 volume is alarmingly titled “The Gambling Threat to
Economic and Financial Systems: Internet Gambling.” The title of the 2012 volume is even more
alarming: “The Gambling Threat to National and Homeland Security: Internet Gambling.” In its
news video “The Bet That Blew-Up Wall Street,” the website for 60 Minutes reports on
gambling’s interface with the current crisis in credit default swaps. Cogently, Warren Buffett
named the story “Financial WMDs,” while U.S. Senate hearings blasted this Wall Street
gambling debacle as “casino capitalism.” At least the subprime crisis had some real
property as collateral. However, with Internet gambling there’s nothing of real
value — just people dumping money into gambling accounts which can evaporate
more easily than the Bernie Madoff monies. U.S. gambling is an economic cancer
ready to metastasize into Internet gambling. For example, the Congressional Gaming
Caucus used the 9/11 tragedy to cripple the 2002 Economic Stimulus Bill with $40 billion in tax
write-offs for slot machines and associated electronics (and the caucus had asked for $133
billion in tax write-offs). These recurring write-offs for slots are still draining the U.S. Treasury
and could easily be transposed into more write-offs for Internet gambling technologies. Gambling
lobbyists also dominate the economic policies of 28 states, draining state treasuries — as exemplified by Illinois, with the nation’s
worst state budget crisis. With a total fair market value of $5 billion ($9.5 billion in 2012 dollars), the original 10 Illinois casino
licenses, for example, were granted to political insiders for $25,000 each — including one political insider recently convicted in the
scandals surrounding former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Within this gambling aura, experts commonly refer to Internet
gambling as “crack cocaine” for addicting new gamblers. Internet gambling would place the
worst type of computer gambling at every school desk, at every work desk, in every living room
and on every cell phone. In an instant, a person could “click the mouse and lose the house.” Again,
60 Minutes highlights these problems in its video “Slot Machines: The Big Gamble.” With justification, gambling
lobbyists brag that Internet gambling is the “killer application” — killing both individual and
institutional finances. Countries cannot gamble their way to prosperity. Internet
gambling shrinks the consumer economy and destroys consumer confidence by
promoting a ubiquitous gambling philosophy. Legalizing U.S. online gambling
would allow dubious parties to tout the U.S. imprimatur — empowering them to
create a queue of speculative bubbles that could collapse already fragile financial
systems and destabilize essential international economic security.
US Key
We represent 1/2 the market
Conon, JD Candidate, 09
(Jonathan, Associate at Ropes&Gray, JD magna cume laude, ACES AND EIGHTS: WHY THE
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT RESIDES IN "DEAD MAN'S"
LAND IN ATTEMPTING TO FURTHER CURB ONLINE GAMBLING AND WHY EXPANDED
CRIMINALIZATION IS PREFERABLE TO LEGALIZATION 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1157 )
Measuring the size of the online gambling market is difficult, but it is believed that the United
States represents at least half of a market with total revenues estimated to be between $ 7 billion
and $ 10 billion in 2004. n31 Market revenues have been projected to reach over $ 24 billion by
2010. n32 The growth in online gambling was caused, in part, by the rapid increase in online
poker play. n33 From 2003 to 2005, online poker site revenue increased from approximately $
34 million per month to nearly $ 200 million. n34
2nc Overview
Disad turns and outweighs the case – gambling structurally destabilizes the
international economy – makes long term growth unsustainable – regulatory
failures mean aff solvency is minimal, but there’s a large probability that US
legalization will incentivize global online gambling growth – that’s the worst
economic scenario imaginable
Kindt, Prof @Illinois Champaign, 7-30-10
(John a professor of business and legal policy at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. After receiving a B.A. in business
from the College of William and Mary in 1972, Professor Kindt earned several graduate degrees in law and business, specifically,
J.D., 1976, and MBA, 1977, from the University of Georgia; LL.M., 1978, and S.J.D., 1981, from the University of Virginia.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/07/29/should-internet-gambling-belegalized/keep-the-ban-on-internet-gambling)
After being illegal under U.S. anti-gambling laws for almost 100 years, credit default swaps were
decriminalized by Congress in 2000, precipitating the subprime economic crisis. Congress must
not make a similar mistake by repealing the decades-old U.S. ban on Internet gambling, which
was just strengthened in 2006 via the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (which
passed the U.S. House of Representatives with an 80 percent favorable vote). Legalizing Internet
gambling has been historically opposed by numerous authoritative organizations and studies,
including the U.S. Justice Department, the 1999 U.S. National Gambling Impact Study
Commission, the 2009 United States International Gambling Report, and practically all
members of the National Association of Attorneys General. The stability of international
economic and financial systems demands that the United States maintain its ban on Internet
gambling. By 2009, the U.S. ban was being emulated by about 30 other countries. National
economic security dictates that the United States must prod the G-20 countries
and the international community to enact new treaties extending the prohibitions
on Internet gambling. Otherwise, economic speculative bubbles dwarfing the
subprime crisis will be caused by ubiquitous gambling via computers, cell-phones and other
cyberspace technologies. Furthermore, Internet gambling is the “crack cocaine” of gambling and
it would be located at every school desk, work desk and in every living room — simplifying the
ability to “click your mouse, lose your house.” Lobbyists’ claims that decriminalized Internet
gambling will create net new revenues are simply red-herring taxation arguments misleading
Congress and the Internal Revenue Service because the monies diverted from the taxable
consumer economy into vacuous gambling accounts will significantly diminish overall tax
revenues. The sybaritic monetary philosophies endemic to Internet gambling must not be
allowed to infect, destabilize and destroy international economies and financial systems. The
real issues are international and national economic security issues. Nations cannot gamble
their way into prosperity.
AT: Walker
Walker’s a hack – a genealogical analysis
Grinols and Mustard, 8 – *Department of Economics, School of Business, Baylor University.
Waco, Texas 76798 AND **Department of Economics, Terry College of Business, University of
Georgia. Athens, GA 30602. (Earl and David, “Connecting Casinos and Crime: More Corrections
of Walker” Econ Journal Watch, Volume 5, Number 2, May 2008, pp 156-162, ebsco)
2. Mr. Walker also expands his criticisms beyond Grinols and Mustard (2006) to papers written
by other authors (Thompson, Gazel, Rickman 1996b; Thompson and Quinn 1999; and Schwer,
Thompson, and Nakamuro, 2003). This is consistent with his pattern of writing “rebuttals” in
which he provides no original research or no new empirical work.3 In his present commentary,
Mr. Walker also misinterprets or misunderstands the work of other researchers. He writes:
These are only three examples, but they are sufficient to show just how arbitrary such cost
estimates are, both in methodological and empirical terms. Indeed, such studies have long been
criticized for their poor quality, as discussed by the National Research Council (1999). (Walker
2008b, 153)
Two of the three studies Mr. Walker cites are, in fact, not cited by the National Research Council
(NRC) report. One of these papers could not possibly have been cited in NRC (1999) because it
was written four years after the report was published. Furthermore, Thompson, Gazel, and
Rickman (1996b) was cited favorably, not critically, by the NRC.4 The NRC refers to the study as
“an excellent example” and a study that “makes a significant contribution to the literature on the
economic impacts of gambling.”
Footnote 3
3 In 1998 he produced a rebuttal of Gross (1998) that provided no original research or empirical
work. A few years later he wrote a rebuttal of Kindt (2001), which criticized the gambling
industry and originally appeared as part of a symposium of 10 papers dealing with gambling in
America. Walker was not a participant in the original symposium and none of the papers in the
symposium cited any papers by Mr. Walker. His paper contained no new results or additional
empirical work of his own. The same year the Las Vegas Sun reported, “Earlier this month, the
Nevada Resort Association—the chief lobbying group for Nevada casinos—commissioned a
rebuttal report by Georgia College & State University Assistant Professor of Economics Douglas
Walker, who said the results of Thompson’s study were ‘unreliable because their analysis is
seriously flawed’ ” (Benston 2003). The referenced study is Schwer, Thompson, and Nakamuro,
2003 (later Thompson and Schwer 2003). In 2005 the Casino Association of Indiana hired Mr.
Walker to write a rebuttal of the study by Policy Analytics 2006. Again, no original research
or empirical work was conducted . In 2006 Mr. Walker was hired by the Taiwan Amazing
Technology Co. Ltd, a manufacturer of gambling machines. A paper could not be found on the
web to know if it contains original research or is promotional in nature. The following year in
2007 the American Gaming Association commissioned Mr. Walker to write a rebuttal of casino
cost-benefit studies. No original empirical research was involved. Two months later Mr. Walker
wrote his commentary on Grinols and Mustard (2006).
1nr
Trade
No impact – Antigua is All Bark and No Bite
New 6/18/14 (William New, Intellectual Property Watch, Bark But No Bite? Antigua Talks Tough On WTO Gambling Case,
But No TRIPS Remedy. http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/18/bark-but-no-bite-antigua-talks-tough-on-wto-gambling-case-butno-trips-remedy/)
The tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda again had
strong words today for the United States’
seeming incalcitrant refusal to change its law or pay up in a W orld T rade O rganization case it
lost for blocking the island nation’s online gambling business. But Antigua stopped short of
any direct threat to use the weapon it was given by the WTO dispute settlement panel: to
stop protecting US intellectual property rights in the amount of the damages.
Antigua has the right to not protect US$ 21 million per year for each year the US blocks its gambling services. This is a crossretaliation solution because of the lack of substantive trade in other areas between Antigua and the US that would not also harm
Antigua to target.
But despite charging that the US is remiss in its obligation to pay, Antigua at today’s WTO
Dispute Settlement Body meeting refrained from raising the spectre of lifting
protections for US IP rights.
In its vitriolic statement, Antigua complained that the US has indicated that its compliance with the
decision is optional, and to date has failed to make any payment to Antigua despite its obligation to do so.
“The facile excuses presented in the past are completely without merit, and the United States as well as every other member of this
body knows it,” Antigua’s statement said. “We understand that this is all orchestrated to frustrate us to cause us to tire and slink
away into oblivion.”
US stakeholders after the WTO decision painted Antigua as a pirate nation bent on
stealing US IP rights, despite the choice of cross-retaliation being fully authorised by the WTO dispute panel.
Antigua again raised the question of whether the WTO dispute procedures are working,
especially for small countries . This was the strong message at the last DSB meeting (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 26 April
2014).
Trinidad and Tobago made a statement in support of Antigua and Barbuda.
The dispute dates back to 2003 when Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations with the US regarding measures applied by
central, regional and local authorities in the US affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services from Antigua and
Barbuda.
In December 2007, the DSB arbitrator ruled that the annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Antigua and
Barbuda was US$21 million and that Antigua could request authorisation from the DSB to suspend the country’s obligations under
the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for the same amount annually.
At the DSB session of January 2013, according to the WTO, Antigua and Barbuda requested that the DSB authorise the suspension
of concessions and obligations to the US in respect of IP rights. The DSB agreed to grant such authorisation.
However, the authorisation had not been used so far by Antigua and Barbuda .
The WTO doesn’t solve protectionism – that’s Evenett – it’s too easy to circumvent
to be effective and domestic pressures will outweigh its rules
Bilateral diplomacy is key – WTO isn’t enough
COPELAND ‘96 (Dale, Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of
Virginia, International Security, Spring)
The value of maintaining an open trading system through the new World Trade Organization (WTO) is
also clear: any significant trend to regionalization may force dependent great powers to use military force to protect their trading
realms. In this regard, my analysis tends to support the liberal view that international institutions may help reinforce the chances
for peace: insofar as these institutions solidify positive expectations about the future, they reduce the incentive for aggression.
Yet trade expectations between great powers are usually improved without formal institutions
being involved, simply as the result of smart bilateral diplomacy. Nixon and Kissinger
achieved just that when they negotiated the 1972 trade treaty with the Soviets. Conversely, trade
expectations can be shattered by poor bilateral diplomacy even within the context of an
overarching international regime. American trade sanctions against China or Japan tomorrow, for
example, might produce profound political-military tension, even under the new WTO
framework. The existence of formal institutions, therefore, does not do away with the need for intelligent great power foreign
policy between individual great powers.
Governments just use loopholes – WTO doesn’t solve
Evenett, 12 – Simon J., University of St. Gallen and Centre for Economic Policy Research (“Executive Summary,” Débâcle: The 11th GTA
Report on Protectionism, Centre for Economic Policy Research,
http://www.globaltradealert.org/sites/default/files/GTA11_exec_summary.pdf) Red
Governments have circumvented tougher WTO rules The traditional forms of protectionism—
tariff increases and trade defence instruments—account for less than 37% of the worldwide total of
discriminatory measures implemented since November 2008. Only in 2010 did that percentage breach 40% and then
not by much (see Figure 1.4). In terms of measures still in force the respective percentage is 38.9%. In short, non-traditional forms of
protection still dominate crisis-era protectionism. The fact that so many of the top 10 most used protectionist instruments
are subject to weak or no WTO rules confirms an earlier GTA finding—namely, that governments under
pressure during the crisis era have circumvented the more constraining binding multilateral trade
rules (see Table 2.7 in the next chapter).
Alt causes
A. China
Donohue and Garfield, 12 - *Thomas J., president and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce, **Dean C., president and CEO of
the Information Technology Industry Council (“Protectionism Is Back,” Wall Street Journal, 6/16/12,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577462780222989286.html) Red
Despite the stunning power of innovation, there are forces trying to stifle it and replace it with economic schemes that threaten
global
trade and recovery. A new kind of protectionism is turning innovation policy on its head, unfairly
benefiting domestic firms at the expense of foreign players. Left unchecked, the result could be calamitous.
Instead of thriving in a globally integrated economy, we will limp toward Balkanized, closed
systems. Sometimes branded as "indigenous innovation," these policies are really designed to boost
domestic manufacturing, plus high-technology and R&D capabilities, by discriminating against
foreign companies. They have emerged especially in China, with Brazil, India, Russia, Nigeria,
Indonesia and Argentina now joining the fray. Among the policies are forced technology transfer; local sourcing requirements;
requirements to disclose sensitive designs as a condition of market access; domestic-standards mandates that ignore international standards; and
restrictions on the free flow of data. This doesn't amount only to putting a thumb on the scale, but to
collapsing the scale itself.
As other countries see China acting to develop economies of scale in manufactured goods, they
adopt similar strategies. How should industries and governments respond to these developments? First, companies must be
prepared to speak out and use the power of their investments to drive better policy. Already, foreign direct investment in some of these nations has
slowed as global companies recalibrate investment decisions toward markets where global trading rules are upheld. In a recent European Chamber
of Commerce in China survey, 22% of respondents indicated that they may shift investments out of China, citing regulatory barriers to accessing
If multinationals don't respond to these mercantilist schemes, countries will see little
harm in accelerating and expanding them. Second, the U.S. government must intensify bilateral
dialogues with key countries, focusing on market access and safeguarding the interests of American companies against the burgeoning
markets.
practices of forced localization and indigenous innovation. Third, like-minded governments must be prepared to take collective and aggressive
action at the World Trade Organization and in other multilateral forums to contest practices that are clear violations of international agreements
and norms. We need to come together on a sustained strategy that places a greater emphasis on enforcement. Fist-pounding and hand-wringing
won't do it. Fourth, the United States must get serious about reforming its own problematic tax, immigration and education policies and practices.
Timely and effective efforts to combat the emerging protectionist trend will invariably fall short if we don't put our own house in order. The coming
G-20 meetings offer a significant opportunity for the leaders of the world's major economies to state unequivocally that protectionism is a threat to
Unchallenged, these practices risk damaging the
fragile global economy. The nations at the center of this trend are too big and
influential, and their policies too troubling, for us to ignore.
the entire system of transparent, market-based global trade rules.
Crime
Legal online gambling isn’t immune – lack of international coordination means
the plan can’t be enforced
McMullan and Rege, 10 – John, Department of Sociology and Criminology, Saint Mary's University, Halifax and
Aunshul, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University (“Online crime and internet gambling,” Journal of Gambling Issues, Is 24,
July 2010, http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2010.24.5 //Red)
Money-laundering enterprises
Criminal assemblages also operated or worked in tandem with Internet gambling sites to further
other criminal pursuits. From 1997 to 2008, for example, US state and federal courts have charged and
convicted gambling companies such as World Sports Exchange, World Interactive Gaming Corporation, Golden Chips
Casino, Paradise Casino, Gold Medal Casino, Betcris, Dukesports, Betcorp, Betwwwts, BetonSports, Bettheduck, Sportingbet, and
Safedepositsports for crimes including conspiring to violate the Wire Wager Act, tax fraud, illegal
gambling, money laundering, racketeering, and enterprise corruption. While many of these
prosecutions were for engaging in or enabling illegal sports betting using phone lines and
computers on the Internet, several had complex structures involving formal organized-crime
elements.
The Giordano money-laundering enterprise is a good case in point. Members of this network were
adept at moving unlawfully earned proceeds through online casinos, shell corporations, and bank
accounts to Central America, the Caribbean, Switzerland, and Hong Kong . The executors involved front
companies that developed the gambling Web site www.playwithal.com, which enabled approximately 40,000 customers to set up
accounts and place bets on football, baseball, golf, and other sports events. Giordano, the organizer, ran the strategic operation of the
network; his son-in-law, the controller, oversaw the everyday operations, managed bettor information, and handled Internet
accounting matters and discrepancies; and his wife and daughter, the financial officers, laundered crime proceeds to several offshore
banks. Five other individuals acted as street-level clerks, runners, and enforcers, collecting bets; distributing, delivering, and
transferring illegal gambling proceeds between members; and maintaining network and bettor discipline when necessary (CERTLEXSI, 2006; North Country Gazette, 2006; Venezia, Martinez, & Livingston, 2006).
The Uvari Bookmaking network also combined an illegal gambling business with money
laundering and tax evasion. They had network members and clients in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Nevada, North
Dakota, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma, as well as in offshore locations, such as the Euro Off-Track in the Isle of Man and the Elite
Turf Club in Curacao. The Uvari Group operated as an intermediary between gamblers and sport-betting companies. They determined
their “take” based on the volume of accounts they opened at offshore sites and always returned a portion of their commissions to
bettors as an incentive for them to continue using their bookmaking facilities. They created customer accounts for individual bettors,
took their customers’ personal information, and attached it to the social security numbers of group members, creating hundreds of
dummy accounts in their own names. This permitted customers to remain anonymous and avoid paying taxes on winnings and,
simultaneously, allowed the Uvari Group to launder money and claim income tax deductions by associating their customers’ losses
with their own accounts (CERT-LEXSI, 2006; USASDNY, 2005, pp. 1–6; DOJ, 2007b, pp. 1–6).
Finally, the Corozzo network engaged in an illegal gambling and loan-sharking enterprise that was based
in the United States and Costa Rica. The network of at least 26 members relied on toll-free telephone numbers and four
online betting Web sites to handle thousands of sport wagers each month from November 2005 to January 2008, amounting to an
estimated take of $10 million. A controller ran the operations, resolved bettor and accounting disputes, and managed account
information, and three agents oversaw the offshore accounts, calibrated wins and losses, counted the weekly take, and advised the
controller regarding economic matters. In addition, an onshore clerk accepted wagers over the telephone and recorded them on
audiotape and on paper, six money collectors transferred gambling proceeds between members of the organization and financial
institutions, and 13 runners managed bettors by accepting wagers and setting up login codes and passwords. Finally, two enforcers
lent money at exorbitant interest rates to troubled bettors and instilled fear in all bettors not to miss their payments (District Attorney
Queens County, 2008, pp. 1–5; North Country Gazette, 2008, pp. 1–3; Ginsberg, 2009).
These case studies suggest that Internet gambling sites are ideal for money
laundering and other complex fraudulent and extortionist activities that, in turn,
can finance yet other crimes. Despite the strict codes for reporting financial transactions,
money launderers seem able to function by manipulating accounts, making smaller cash
exchanges, putting players “on the take” on their payrolls, hiding transactions in a bewildering
array of gambling and bank accounts, and mobilizing fear when necessary.
Characteristics of criminal assemblages
Criminal assemblages were structured as ongoing projects or businesses rather than as crafts or
solo operations. Unlike the “short cons” of the dot.con teams, which were often intermittent events, the “big cons” of the criminal
assemblages relied upon the time-honoured methods of long firm fraud: the willingness of a large
number of victims to supply credit and information and to invest or agree to acquiesce to schemes
that promised to pay well over the odds. This culminated in the establishment of clever illegal
business premises on the net where victims were relieved of both identity and capital before bankruptcies were declared or corporations
disappeared. This was especially apparent with the modus operandi of cyberextortion groups whose organizations were remotely controlled rather than
directly and locally managed. Nodal subnetworks in extortion rings coexisted in a dispersed lateral field of global information flow. The virtual
rings
that brought down gambling sites were dynamic, international pods of loosely connected groups.
The networks supplied contact points to assemble criminal endeavours and to develop
counteractions against reluctant or resistant victims, competitors, or law enforcement agencies, after which they usually
dispersed, only to resurface later (Brenner, 2002; McMullan & Rege, 2007).
However, because
larger amounts of money were being appropriated in an increasingly visible way,
gambling providers, regulators, police, and private security companies necessarily stepped up
their efforts to prevent it. Criminal networks and public and private law enforcement agencies were
more and more engaged in techno-wars, which had a tendency to escalate as each side improved
their techniques to outwit and outflank the other. One consequence was that assemblages had to be prepared to take greater
chances, including raising the risks involved in marketing their products and using direct confrontations with their victims while
simultaneously upgrading their techniques and planning to minimize these higher risks. The danger of recognition in victim
confrontations at virtual venues was reduced by upgrading the speed of operations and by deploying ingenious aliases, clones, and
simulations. The danger that information might be leaked before or after the commission of crimes was reduced by remote planning,
careful recruiting of members, secret meetings, and prudent online behaviour that aroused as little suspicion as possible. The danger
of exposure was reduced by communicating via screen identities that were difficult to trace and by engineering trust in the act of crime.
In short, speed, anonymity, synchronization, and coordination were arranged as much as possible
in advance so that criminal acts appeared as “natural” as possible and aroused few suspicions.
A second consequence was that operations on this scale become known to corporate and government
agencies, and their success depended on the ability of the industry and the state to suppress them.
Certainly victims — bona fide lotteries, online betting shops, and Internet poker rooms — took more precautionary
licensing and registration measures, developed better internal security measures, hired private cybersecurity
firms, and tried to mobilize existing law enforcement agencies to help them combat criminal
networks. Without a doubt, US authorities have cracked down on the sport-betting market and its software and
payment-processing companies in an effort to restrict the reach of Internet gambling Web sites (Geiss, Brown, & Pontell, 2009).
However, cybercrimes of an international sort are especially difficult to discover
and limit by traditional law enforcement bodies, third-party multilateral policing partnerships,
and victims using self-help market-based solutions. The laws governing cybercrimes occurring at
Internet gambling sites were and remain imprecise and confounding as to where offences
occurred (i.e., whether in the country where criminal networks were based or in the jurisdiction
where the crimes happened), where evidence should be collected, what laws applied and in what
jurisdiction, what courts prevailed, and what sanctions were appropriate.
This ambiguity surrounding legal guardianship was compounded by the fissured
structure of law enforcement within and between nation-states, making the policing
of cyberassemblages complicated, costly, and occasional. Many police forces simply did not have
the reach, resources, or expertise to investigate crimes that were committed from remote places in multiple sovereign
jurisdictions where the offenders were not even present. As the deputy director of SRI International put it, the
botnet-hunting community “is two or three years behind in terms of response mechanisms” (cited in
Naraine, 2006, p. 2). Cybercrimes committed from across the globe have played ducks and drakes with
international law enforcement agencies, which lack enforceable international
instruments, effective transborder crime management measures, and up-to-date
forensic tools, (Nhan & Huey, 2008; Moore, 2007; McMullan & Rege, 2007; Jewkes & Andrews, 2007; Smith & Wynne,
1999).
The weakness of global legal governance has encouraged multilateral policing by private-sector providers and digital security firms
and fostered self-help business solutions reliant upon authentication and encryption technologies. This has meant investing in
business opportunity reduction remedies such as detection systems, enhanced firewall protection, and patch and configuration
systems to limit malware infections and software compromises, and in intelligent web-based products such as parallel network
intrusion prevention architectures and self-correcting software to identify, filter, and divert illegitimate traffic from gambling sites to
improve security. But these reforms have not eliminated the problems. To start, the relations between private and public agencies have
not always been workable. The case of Don Best Sports, which was extorted for $200,000, is illustrative of this problem. A computer
security company tracked the cyberattacks to a chat room in Kazakhstan, but when they notified the FBI and the Secret Service, the
latter “threw up their arms because it was in Kazakhstan,” said the CEO of the private security company (cited in Ratliff, 2005, p. 3).
Furthermore, resorting to multilateral policing and self-help solutions has been costly. Many gambling companies cannot afford the
expensive investments in hardware, software, maintenance, and upgrading. The result is a global patchwork of private self-help
fiefdoms that afforded security to some but created few industry-wide standards on safety and protection and little consensus about
the best devices to stop cybercrimes early and at a distance from gambling venues. Finally, As cybersecurity has evolved,
the high-level plans of cyberthieves, cybercons, and cyberextortionists have disguised attacks,
intrusions, and simulations at their point of ingress into gambling site networks; tested the
guards, tech boxes, switches, and detectors for anomalies and weaknesses; and probed the new
multilateral and commercial security systems for gaps, lapses, and intelligence. A never-ending
cycle of enhanced detection and counterdetection measures has proliferated to rationally handle the
technical problems of crime and negotiate the exigencies of legal control on the Internet, resulting in an online
marketplace that remains replete with criminal potential (Jewkes, 2007; Nhan & Huey, 2008;
McMullan & Rege, 2007).
In sum, crime assemblages were more formal and continuous in operation when compared to the two other kinds of online criminal
organization. They were more sophisticated than dot.cons or cybernomads, had the most elaborate division of labour for engaging in
criminal behaviour, and lasted for an extended duration across time and space. However, despite the more complex stratification
system and apparent ability to neutralize formal law enforcement, there is no evidence that these crime networks coordinated their
activities into cartels, purchased immunity from the state by bribery or influence peddling, or imposed a monopoly either by consent
or coercion over cybernomads or dot.cons. There is no tendency toward a business enterprise type of organization where the former
usurps or administers the latter. If anything the economy of online gambling-related crime is in a state of vertical malintegration. So
there appears to be no managerial rationality, where one entity is capable of running other online crime groups. More likely there
will be no sudden disappearance of cybernomads, dot.cons, or crime assemblages
from Internet gambling sites in the near future.
Legalization doesn’t solve – money won’t be laundered through US sites anyway
Stutz, 14 – Howard, (“Report’s author says both sides misrepresent study on Web gambling, money laundering,” Las Vegas
Review-Journal, 4/28/14, http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/report-s-author-says-both-sides-misrepresentstudy-web-gambling-money //Red)
The author of a new report on the use of Internet gaming for money laundering activities said
Monday the findings of the study have been misrepresented by both anti-online wagering activists
and pro-Web gaming backers.
The white paper — “Jackpot! Money Laundering Through Online Gambling” — was released last week by cyber security firm McAfee,
which supplies Internet safety software for businesses and home computers.
The paper immediately fueled heated rhetoric over its conclusions.
“I feel like I kicked a hornets’ nest,” Raj Samani, chief technology officer of McAfee and lead author of the report, said in a phone
interview from his offices in London. “Unfortunately, there has been some angry debate over the report. The reality is the most of (the
discussions) are irrelevant to the findings.”
Samani and his co-authors said online gaming was “the most prominent method” used by cybercriminals to
launder money. McAfee highlighted six different efforts jurisdictions could take to halt the activity.
“Greater collaboration between law enforcement agencies to target unlicensed gambling sites is required, particularly with those that
operate outside the visible Internet,” the report stated.
In an interview, Samani said cybercriminals will attempt to launder money through several means, with online gaming being a popular
source. However, Samani said the small U.S.-based regulated Internet gaming operations “are just
a drop of water in the ocean” when looking at the realm of the online wagering universe.
Cybercriminals in the U.S., he said, look to unregulated websites in foreign jurisdictions, to
launder money.
“In any jurisdiction criminals can circumvent any obstacle used to block their access,” Samani said.
“You put in regulations, the criminals will find another vehicle.”
Samani said the report was written as a follow-up to a McAfee study on cyber crime that was produced a year ago. The findings
were seized upon by both opponents and proponents of legalized Internet gaming in U.S.
Three states — Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware — have laws that legalize forms of Internet wagering. Some 10 states are exploring
the idea. Meanwhile, in Congress there two competing bills that would legalize and regulate Internet gaming and an opposing bill that
would outlaw the activity.
In a statement Monday, the Coalition to Stop Internet Gaming, which is funded by Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman Sheldon Adelson,
said the McAfee report backed up previous warnings by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Internet gambling will lead to money
laundering by terrorists and other criminal groups.
“In the world that proponents of Internet gambling want to impose on the rest of us, there will be 50 different laws regulating Internet
gambling sites, and innocent Americans could find themselves gambling with dangerous criminals or terrorists and unknowingly help
them move money,” the coalition said in a statement.
Alison Harden, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Consumer and Online Protection, which is funded by MGM Resorts International,
Caesars Entertainment Corp, and the American Gaming Association, said the McAfee study showed banning Internet wagering would
lead to additional unregulated websites.
“(The authors) repeatedly argue that licensed sites provide more protection for Americans, and that unlicensed black market sites
present the biggest concern for criminal activity,” Harden said in an emailed statement. “In fact, they say that, ‘requiring licenses for
gambling operators is an important approach,’ in dealing with the problem.”
Samani said he spoke with representatives of both sides of the issue after the report was released, but he refused to debate publicly
with either party.
“You can’t make an argument in 140 characters,” Samani said in reference to several Twitter feuds that were fueled by the report. “We
didn’t have any skin in the game, so to speak. To be fair, we saw both sides of the story.”
While Samani said regulated Internet gaming can help stem some of the illegal activity, the report
said, “For every licensed online gambling site, there could be up to nine unlicensed
online gambling sites.”
Gaming Control Board Chairman A.G. Burnett read the report and said Monday he disagreed with one finding concerning money
launderers using Bitcoin and other online currencies.
“Nevada does not allow the use of crypto currencies when it comes to gaming,” Burnett said.
He said Nevada addressed money laundering issues when the state drafted its online gaming regulations.
“The standards created are as tough or tougher than the standards for land-based operators,” Burnett said. “We have minimized the
risk by very rigorous auditing, accounting and enforcement standards.”
Samani said money launderers are more likely to avoid American sites because of the
small number of Internet locations.
No risk of nuclear terrorism---too many obstacles
John J. Mearsheimer 14, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political
Science at the University of Chicago, “America Unhinged”, January 2,
nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639?page=show
Am I overlooking the obvious threat that strikes fear into the hearts of so many Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. Sure,
the United States has a terrorism problem . But it is a minor threat . There is no question we fell victim to a
spectacular attack on September 11, but it did not cripple the United States in any meaningful way and another
attack of that magnitude is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there has not been a single
instance over the past twelve years of a terrorist organization exploding a primitive bomb on
American soil, much less striking a major blow. Terrorism—most of it arising from domestic groups—was a much bigger
problem in the United States during the 1970s than it has been since the Twin Towers were toppled.¶ What about the
possibility that a terrorist group might obtain a nuclear weapon? Such an occurrence would be a game changer,
but the chances of that happening are virtually nil . No nuclear-armed state is going to
supply terrorists with a nuclear weapon because it would have no control over how the recipients might
use that weapon. Political turmoil in a nuclear-armed state could in theory allow terrorists to grab a loose
nuclear weapon, but the United States already has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely
contingency.¶ Terrorists might also try to acquire fissile material and build their own bomb. But that
scenario is extremely unlikely as well : there are significant obstacles to getting enough
material and even bigger obstacles to building a bomb and then delivering it. More
generally, virtually every country has a profound interest in making sure no terrorist group acquires a
nuclear weapon, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target of a nuclear attack, either by the terrorists
or another country the terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short, is not a serious threat . And to the extent
that we should worry about it, the main remedy is to encourage and help other states to place nuclear materials in highly secure custody.
EU checks
Simon, former strategy prof, 7— Chief, National Military Strategy Branch at the Strategic
Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for National
Strategic Studies, National Defense University (Jeffrey, 4/1, Preventing Balkan Conflict,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-163546333.html, AG)
International and regional organizations have come to play a significant role in West Balkans stability,
though it was not always that way. Initially, when the Balkan wars began in 1991, the best that NATO and the EU could muster was half-hearted support for a humanitarian aid
effort led, weakly, by the United Nations. That changed in late 1995, when a combination of developments on the ground and U.S.-led coercive diplomacy produced the
Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian war and ushered in a major ramp-up of NATO and EU activities. Ever since, NATO and
the EU have engaged in stabilization, cooperation, and integration activities in the region. Over the
past decade, NATO and EU ranks have swelled with new members and partners so that both institutions now bound the West Balkans geographically and
create conditions for building cooperative security by fulfilling NATO and EU membership aspirations through a variety of techniques. Dual enlargement and integration
Greece and Turkey (NATO members since 1952),
Hungary in 1999, and Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania in 2004 has formed a stable security
boundary around the six states presently comprising the West Balkans. NATO's PFP and Membership Action Plan (MAP) program keep Albania,
incentives have played, and continue to play, a vital role in enhancing West Balkan stability and security. Along with
the addition of
Macedonia, and Croatia (the so-called Adriatic Three) constructively focused and engaged in cooperative security activities consistent with NATO principles and will continue to
do so as long as NATO's "Open Door" policy remains credible. Albania and Macedonia joined PFP in 1994 and 1995, respectively, and MAP in 1999, while Croatia joined PFP in
2000 and MAP in 2002. The incentive of PFP also keeps the remaining three West Balkan states--Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina (which could easily become four
with Kosovo or potentially five with an independent Republika Srpska)--focused on reform because they perceive PFP as their initial pathway to Euro-Atlantic structures and
legitimacy. The continuing engagement of the Adriatic Three in MAP and of BiH, Serbia, and Montenegro in PFP has become increasingly important because of NATO's
continuing need to coordinate its Sarajevo headquarters with EUFOR Operation Althea since NATO's Stabilization Force (SFOR) transfer in December 2004 in BiH; to deploy
NATO's Riga
membership invitation prospects for 2008 and offered invitations to
join PFP and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council to BiH, Montenegro, and Serbia to temper nationalistic tendencies and to enhance
long-term stability in the West Balkans. (10
KFOR in Kosovo; and to deal with unresolved Serbia status issues in Kosovo, which create counterproductive temptations. To help maintain this course,
Summit in November 2006 sent a strong signal to the Adriatic Three regarding
2nc US Not Key
Can’t solve laundering – requires global cooperation
Hoegner 13 – international gaming lawyer and accountant with specialized skills in the
planning and execution of cross-border transactions (Stewart, “Regulating Internet Gaming
Challenges and Opportunities”, 2013,
http://gamingpress.unlv.edu/regulating_internet_gaming.html)
The second set of constraints on the effectiveness of regulators deals with interconnectedness; money laundering is an
international and multi-institutional problem. To prevent it, operators must rely on multiple
functionalities. First, money laundering is, as recognized by the Third Directive, “frequently carried out in an
international context.”63 As noted by the FATF, criminals will seek to exploit the differences between
anti-money laundering agencies. They will move their networks and operations to states with weak or ineffective
countermeasures.64 The movement of capital—facilitated by modern technology—makes this a continuous
search by criminals for the global path of least resistance. Moreover, from an exclusively inves-tigative
standpoint, tracking flows of cash through financial institutions is an international exercise.
Effective money laundering investigations and prosecutions require the co-operation of different
sovereign governments. 65 Accordingly, an Internet gaming regulator with the best proven methods
for deterring money laundering is at the mercy of the weakest link in a global financial chain.
Operators in the financial system can be shut out of transactions based upon risk, but the exposure and limitation fundamentally
remains: any regulator will be constrained by the global nature of both Internet gaming and money laundering. Second,
regulatory effectiveness depends on multiple institutions; the interconnectedness of financial
institutions, regulators, and intermediaries at a national level precludes any one institution from
providing a complete solution to the problem. For instance, if a gaming regulator has stringent controls on financial
institutions that deal with Internet gaming, but the state’s banks experience a breakdown of their respective money laundering
controls, then the operators could become part of an illicit laundry. For this reason, the IMF adopts a cross-institutional perspective
in its various country reports.66 Finally, anti-money laundering controls appeal to many facets of Internet gaming. This point can
seem abstract, but consider some specific ways different factors can affect the fight against laundering. Among others, cash
limits on transactions, assessments of suitability, control over local operating nexus, and the act
of gaming regulation itself can affect money laundering. But what about something like location verification?
This can be a serious risk factor, for example, where a customer’s location is a country on the FATF’s list of jurisdictions that require
countermeasures or is on its deficiencies list.67 Consider an Internet gaming site’s random number generator (“RNG”). A corrupted
RNG can turn a gaming website into a laundering vehicle for players or members of the operator’s staff.68