Cohen, a proponent of the Internet gambling that Congress banned in 2006, also raised questions about William Wichterman, a White House staffer. Wichterman represented the National Football League, a proponent of the proposed rule, as a lobbyist as recently as March of this year.

“I am sure you will agree that, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest is undeniable,” Cohen wrote.

Cohen, instrumental in bring the lottery to Tennessee, called the late regulatory effort “midnight rulemaking.”

Casinos and gambling interests gave Cohen $64,000 in his recent bid for re-election, the third-largest industry group after lawyers and retirees, according to the center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group.

When the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Internet gambling last November, Cohen’s questions to witnesses, including a representative of the Family Research Council, made his position clear. Five days later, he attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas where he collected checks from 10 professional gamblers, some with nicknames like Texas Dolly and Vegas Stud.

Cohen’s letter raises questions about Wichterman’s role in the rulemaking effort and on the White House policy on conflicts of interest. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The CSM argues that bringing back online gaming would be bad because

“the social price paid from the suffering and financial ruin that online gaming inflicts on a minority of players who become addicted to gambling. And the privacy of Internet gambling provides a particular problem for this vulnerable group.” Then, in a quote from Congressman, “Internet gambling is a growing problem in the United States, particularly among young people and college students,” Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) of Oregon said in a floor speech at the time. “It is known to destroy families, marriages, and entire lives.”

So CSM’s view is that the entire United States of America should not be allowed to gamble online because “minority of players who become addicted to gambling.” Belittling the wishes of millions of American who gambled and bet on sports online without any problems. There are plenty of gambling help groups and even many online casinos provide access to information about addicted gamblers. Is it really fair to deny the entire country the freedom to play poker from a computer, because of a few sick individuals?

Following CSM’s logic we should also ban Las Vegas, Atlantic City and other casinos around the United States because they are contributing to a sickness of a few individuals. What difference is it if you play in person or online? Why do we need a nanny state to tell us what is permissible and what is not? America was built on the idea of capitalism, where the tough and enterprising survive and on freedom to do what we want without a nanny state. Have we all became so brainwashed by the government to idly stand by?

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 is making headway through Congress on its way to reversing the current anti-gambling legislation in place, the form of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 which has made is illegal for financial institutions to process online gambling transactions. The financial institutions have spoken out against the UIGEA because

“If the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the law, what hope is there that banks can resolve these confounding legal issues?” the American Bankers Association said in commenting on a conflict between the Treasury and Justice departments on the legality of betting on horses.

The Washington trade group said the suggested rules are more likely to catch its members in a compliance trap than stop profits from illegal gambling from escaping offshore.

The industry group had argued that the law was unconstitutional on many fronts, including freedom of speech and invasion of privacy concerns. It wanted the court to declare that people should be allowed to gamble from the privacy of their own homes. “You’re looking at a law criminalizing an activity online that is legal off-line in 48 of the 50 states,” said Joe Brennan Jr., the group’s chairman. “If I have that right off-line in the real world, I should have that right online.”

“The plaintiff’s claims express a fundamental disagreement with Congress’s judgment that Internet gambling should be controlled legislatively, and pose questions as to whether (the law) … will be successful in accomplishing its desired ends,” she wrote. “But it is not the court’s role to pass on the wisdom of a congressional act or speculate as to its effectiveness.”The law was legally enacted and does not violate the Constitution, she ruled in dismissing the association’s challenge.

But she did rule that the association has legal standing to challenge the law in a federal appeals court. Brennan said an appeal would be filed within the next two months.

The legislation strengthens provisions in an earlier version of the bill introduced last year, and includes an enhanced reporting mechanism under which licensed gambling operators are required to provide each customer an annual statement of winnings and losses. It also establishes a two percent licensing fee that is paid by the operator, not the individual gambler. The licensing fee is designed to equalize the costs of operation in providing gambling services online, as opposed to brick-and-mortar casinos providing gambling services in-person, and would only be applied to online operators. A large part of the lobbying effort to keep US residents from gambling online or placing sport wagers over the Internet has been driven by the US casino industry which this provision attempts to appease. “This is simply a framework to collect taxes on existing activity that is currently unregulated, unsupervised, and underground.”

“Before us is a tremendous opportunity to protect consumers and recoup billions of dollars that should be collected by the Internal Revenue Service,” said McDermott. “These are revenues that are desperately needed, given that we are at war and face difficulty financing the nation’s priorities.”

Law of the Game blog analyzed the proposed bill to narrow down what the act includes and clarifies [The rest of this entry is paraphrased from their analysis]:

There are three critical points in this act in terms of inclusion:

1. Success is predominantly determined by a player’s skill
2. Competition only between and among participants
3. [competition] not against the person operating the game

The has to be won by skill, bet on by players, and the house must not have a seat at the table.

Here are some examples of what is and isn’t allowed under this proposed legislation.

Allowed:

• Players wagering on the outcome of the next round of Halo.
• Players pay to enter a tournament, with the winner or top few spots taking the money paid in.
• People wagering on the results of player – vs – player combat in an MMORPG (round or tournament), so long as the betters were all players.
• People bet on the result of a a race in, for example, Forza 2.
• Wagering on the outcome of a round of Mario Party you are participating in. (This is the most questionable, as there are so many chance elements in Mario Party. However, I believe that the game is more skill than chance, so I think application would work here.)

Not Allowed:

• Betting on the outcome of a game you’re not playing. For example, I couldn’t put cash on a player to win the next round of Halo as an observer.
• Betting on someone else to win when you’re playing. (This is a traditional gambling issue. If you’re playing poker, you can’t put money on the guy 2 seats down the table. It would eliminate the integrity of the game.)
• Betting on the outcome of a Player vs. Computer match, i.e. betting as to whether a player character could beat a high level creature in a coliseum.
• It does not legitimize gold farming or other MMORPG profiteering, as those are generated in a player vs. computer (environment) model.
• Betting on anything primarily determined by chance, i.e. blackjack within an MMORPG.

The bill could be heard as early as next month and proposes a study that would seek answers to the position of the Federal Government regarding a Californian state decision to legalize the gaming. It would study‘regulatory oversight and licensing, technological issues, underage and problem gambling matters, methods of play and types of games that may be legally offered, economic benefits to State and local governments and the means by which those games and forms of gambling may be conducted and operated’.

The Democrat’s bill proposes that the CGCC carry out this study by June 30, 2009, collaborating with the US Department of Justice and assess whether the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) applies to transactions within a state.

H.R. 2046 prescribes requirements for the licensing of Internet betting or wagering, provides that activities involving investment banking, payment and transaction processing, and financial transactions are shielded from liability if they are conducted in compliance with this Act and specified law.

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. On April 30, 2007 H.R. 2046 was referred to House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and no activity has taken place since.

If this act became a law, it would become simple for people living in the United States to bet on NBA Basketball, NFL Football, MLB Baseball, NCAA March Madness, NHL Hockey or even Boxing, Motorsports, Soccer, Golf and Rugby.

The UIGEA resulted in many online gambling companies withdrawing from the American market, but a number of private companies continue to serve it.

The states of Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Louisiana have all passed legislation that specifically prohibits unauthorized forms of Internet gambling. All forms of gambling are illegal in Hawaii and Utah.In 2006, H.R. 4777 : Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to to expand and modernize the prohibition against interstate gambling, and for other purposes was introduced by Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], but was never passed into law.

In conclusion, the legality varies state to state, but the problem is not in your desire to bet on sports games, it’s in finding a company that will be willing to accept a US-based player. To compare,the British Parliament passed legislation to regulate online gambling. Under this new legislation, online casinos are allowed to operate from Britain while a new commission, and a body of some 100 investigators, have been established to regulate the industry.