About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


35 Sw. U. L. Rev. 293 (2005-2007)
Everyone's a Winner: Regulating, Not Prohibiting, Internet Gambling

handle is hein.journals/swulr35 and id is 301 raw text is: EVERYONE'S A WINNER: REGULATING, NOT PROHIBITING, INTERNET GAMBLING I. INTRODUCTION Everyone's a winner1 if Internet gambling is regulated. The United States federal government, State governments, and all its citizens will win if Internet gambling is regulated. Regulation means that the federal and State governments gain revenue from this booming economic activity, and that those people who wish to pursue Internet gambling can do so knowing that the games are as safe as they are in any land-based casino. Considering the recurring problem of the national debt, the United States must consider any means by which tax revenue can be raised. Since websites that host Internet gambling are located outside of the United States, in jurisdictions that either tolerate or regulate Internet gambling, Congressional legislation prohibiting Internet gambling would be ineffective.3 Internet gambling is a trans- national activity and cannot simply be prohibited by domestic legislation.4 Even if legislative proscription could effectively eliminate Internet gambling, regulation is still the preferred option. The proposed Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act (IGFPA), Congress' most recent attempt at prohibition, if passed, would prohibit the use of financial instruments for 1. A common refrain announced when all players beat the dealer, such as when the dealer busts in blackjack. See Blackjack Rules, http://www.howto-play-blackjack.com/dealerrules.html (last visited Oct. 20, 2005). 2. For an extended discussion on the development of the Internet, see ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 830-45 (E.D. Pa. 1996), af'd, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). 3. See, e.g., Antonia Z. Cowan, The Global Gaming Village: Interstate and Transnational Gambling, 7 GAMING L. REV. 251-52 (2003). 4. In re MasterCard Int'l, Inc., Internet Gaming Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, 485 (E.D. La. 2001) (MasterCard 1) ([lit is undisputed that were [Internet gambling] declared illegal and banned in the United States, the activity would continue in other parts of the world.), aff'd, 313 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002) (MasterCard 11); H.R. REP. No. 108-51, pt. 1, at 12 (2003) (dissenting view of Rep. Ron Paul); Thomas James Friedrich, Internet Casino Gambling: The Nightmare of Lawmaking, Jurisdiction, Enforcement & The Dangers of Prohibition, 11 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 369, 382, 385 (2003).