H.L. Mencken is often attributed with defining Puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time. Whether Mencken actually said it or not doesn’t matter, it pretty much accurately defines what a Puritan is and how they operate. In the past they’ve limited themselves mostly to public displays of what they consider immoral or indecent, but their modern-day counterparts have also gone after activities that are wholly private and affect nobody other than the participants. Their latest target: online gambling.
WASHINGTON — Gamblers who prefer their laptops to blackjack tables won’t like what Congress is doing. On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.
The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.
To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.
And the reason for the desire to stop American citizens from being able to do what they want with their time and money ?
John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet “the crack cocaine” of gambling.
“There are no needle marks. There’s no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house,” he said.
So the fact that some small subset of people cannot be responsible with their gambling justifies banning it altogether.
Of course, there are those that support the ban for other reasons:
Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues.
Because, of course, if the government runs the gambling enteprise its okay, right ?
Pro-sports leagues also like the bill, arguing that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
Give me a break.
The horse racing industry also supports the bill because of the exemption it would get. Betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing. It was updated a few years ago to clarify that betting on horse racing over the Internet is allowed.
Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is “a recognition of existing federal law,” not a new carve-out.
He said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and acknowledged the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites. “They’d return to the one place they can bet legally,” Avioli said.
One wonders how much the horse racing industry has contributed to the campaigns of certain Congressmen.
