Last time I checked opinion editorials typically they have a name attached. Last week in the LA Times.com there was an editorial with no name, at least, none that I could find. It would be nice to know who wrote such a poignant piece pro-internet gambling industry but the latimes.com webmaster doesn't seem to think such things are important for the readers to know.

The title of the June 9th editorial was succinct and to the point "Legalize online gambling". What a nice title, do you think anyone in congress was reading? The article itself was a lot of the same logic that has been repeated over the past few months while this debate has been raging in the House of Representatives. "Doesn't the federal government have better things to do than outlaw Internet betting on the Super Bowl?" I can understand why sports betting should be made illegal; it helps avoid players taking bribes to fail. This keeps a sport true and promotes a better game. What I don't understand is why online casinos are illegal, and the writer of the op-ed agrees with me on this point. "The House of Representatives is due to vote soon on proposals to ban online gambling, and the deck seems stacked in favor of sound bites over sound policy."

Currently internet casinos are illegal, or at least it is illegal for them to be based in the US. However, while they may not be allowed to be based in the US that does not mean that US citizens are not allowed to play in off-shore online casinos. As the op-ed explains, "Federal law already outlaws businesses from using phone lines to place or receive bets across state lines, particularly when the bets are on sporting events. That restriction, although it's not a clear ban on Internet gambling, has stopped the country's major casinos from taking bets online. What it hasn't done is stop Web users from gambling around the clock at offshore sites, often based in Central America and the Caribbean. According to one estimate, offshore sites offering poker games, sports betting and casino-style gambling collect $12 billion a year, about half of it coming from American wallets."

This is why the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would ban most internet gambling that is inter-state. Another similar bill includes a point which would choke the money supply to internet casinos, poker rooms, and sports books as well.  The House of Representatives is now debating and consolidating the various bills.

The supposed ideal behind the bills is honorable enough. "Supporters of the measures insist they are trying to curb the spread of gambling addiction, protect minors and crack down on unscrupulous offshore operators." This is what the supporters want the public to believe. In reality it is economic protectionism. Why else would they still allow for online horse betting? "…the fact that the House bills wouldn't outlaw online betting on horse racing, which Congress allowed states to authorize in 2000, seems to belie the sincerity of the effort."

This is not a bill meant to protect US citizens. This is a bill to protect state interests. Lotteries are not being affected. Land-based casinos are not being affected. This is a bill aimed at killing the off-shore competition.

The writer of the op-ed then starts to go a bit off-track. "They may be right about online gambling's link to self-destructive spending, given its isolating, rat-at-the-pellet-bar quality. And isn't it a hallmark of a free society that we don't outlaw otherwise inoffensive vices simply because some people harm themselves?" I don't know if I would phrase it quite that way. How about pointing out instead that the Harvard Medical Review has stated that only one to two percent of all people who gamble ever become addicted. That it's a pity to close off a form of entertainment which so many people enjoy simply because an unfortunate few take it too far. This is political people. We should keep the spin positive.

Of course The Writer then makes the obvious suggestions. "Congress should be clarifying the law in the opposite direction. Legalizing online gambling and regulating the industry — as Britain has done — is the best way to toughen protections against gambling by minors, identify problem gamblers and ensure that online sites are more scrupulous than the back-alley bookie. Wouldn't it be preferable to have bettors deal with the sports book at Caesars Palace or the MGM Grand — heavily regulated Las Vegas casinos that are part of publicly traded companies — rather than with some fly-by-night offshore player?"

The Writer entices legalization with the promise of money through taxes. "Legalization also would allow the government to tax the industry and mitigate its hypocrisy in sanctioning some forms of gambling, such as state lotteries, but not others." He or she is right on that. The amount of money the US government could make from taxing the industry is astounding. This industry made $12 million from the US last year alone. This is with only approximately four percent of the population playing. Imagine the amount of people who would play if it were regulated? This would mean every payout over $5000 would have to be announced to the IRS and included in the tax return. The companies would have to pay taxes on their revenue. This is a lot of potential income.

The ending of the op-ed was a bit of a let down. The Writer is ranting about our right to freedom. "Moralistic members of Congress should not be allowed to thwart online freedoms. It's unlikely they will succeed anyway. The issue is whether Washington is to have any leverage over the burgeoning online gambling world, or whether that world will remain beyond the reach of U.S. law." The fact of the matter is that if this bill passes they will be able to have leverage, which is the point of the bill. Italy has proved it's possible to block the sites they don't want through and if individuals who played could be prosecuted then the industry could be stopped in the US. The point is, it shouldn't be killed. The US shouldn't be a granny state to it's citizens.