Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Select your timezone:
In his State of the State Address last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to propose an amendment to the State Constitution that would make non-Native American high-stakes gambling legal in New York, potentially tapping the billions of dollars in casino revenues that are now being spent in other states. The push parallels an agreement between the state and a resort developer to build what the governor said would be the nation’s largest convention center, near the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, anchored by a casino within New York City limits.
But were such an amendment to become law, it remains to be seen how the project would impact the casino plans of the Shinnecock Indian Nation in Suffolk and Nassau counties. The amendment likely would be a complicated legislative blueprint for where gaming will be allowed in New York State, and by whom. The Shinnecocks’ plans for a casino at Belmont Park racetrack in Nassau County and possibly another in Suffolk County could be part of that blueprint. Or not.
Tribal leadership and Detroit-based casino developers Gateway Casino Resorts, who are backing them, said this week that they do not see the legalization of gaming, or the governor’s call for the development of a mammoth convention center at the Aqueduct Racetrack, as a threat to their fledgling proposal at Belmont Park, and possibly as many as two more sites farther east on Long Island.
The tribe and Gateway presented preliminary sketches of the casino development they will propose at Belmont to Nassau County leaders last summer, and have been in talks with Suffolk County lawmakers for more than two years about a number of possible sites for a Shinnecock casino development, including joint visits to some properties in Brookhaven and Riverhead towns.
Tribal Trustees President Randy King said this week that the tribe expects its rights to gaming will be considered and incorporated into whatever blueprint for gambling in New York State the governor and state lawmakers ultimately draft for voter consideration. An amendment allowing non-Native American entities to develop full-fledged casinos would not derail the tribe’s plans at Belmont or elsewhere, both parties said.
“We’ve always maintained that this market can sustain multiple gaming facilities, and the convention center announcement will not stop our efforts to bring jobs and revenues to Long Island,” Mr. King said through a spokesperson on Monday. “We hope and expect the governor will including Indian casinos in his plans to legalize gaming in New York. Our proposed facility does not need a constitutional amendment and can move forward now, to the benefit of all New Yorkers.”
A spokesman for Gateway, which has been bankrolling the tribe’s casino push since 2004, said the New York market is capable of hosting several casino facilities. The company owns three successful casinos in the Detroit area, a much smaller market than New York.
There are “three casinos in downtown Detroit and another across the river in Windsor, Canada,” spokesman Tom Shields said in an email. “They are all doing well, grossing more than $1.6 billion per year in a market less than 20 percent the size of New York.”
Mr. Shields noted that each of the casinos boasts hotels, restaurants and convention and meeting room space. He said the Shinnecocks and Gateway have pushed forward with their plans at Belmont, knowing that the Genting Group, a Malaysian resort company awarded a contract by the state in 2010 to develop a casino at Aqueduct, would be pushing a substantial development at Aqueduct.
“Multiple casinos in a geographical area creates the synergy of an entertainment district that together attracts more people than a single destination location,” Mr. Shields added. “The state and the region would have more jobs, more revenue, and more economic investment and development with two casinos than it would have with a single casino development.”
The state has allowed for limited gaming at racetracks, known as racinos, for several years, and Aqueduct now has more than 4,000 video slot machines and nearly 500 electronic table games. State law does not currently allow for the more popular high-stakes table games like blackjack, roulette and craps, except at Native American casinos, which were made legal nationally in 1988 by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
But just a day before the governor’s speech last week, the governor’s office and Genting quietly signed a non-binding agreement for the multi-national company to build a mammoth convention center at the Aqueduct property, the first phase of which would include a more than 2 million-square-foot convention center. Later phases would add thousands of hotel rooms and, potentially, a sprawling Vegas-style casino. While a Genting statement told city media outlets that the deal was not contingent on the passage of a gambling amendment by the state, the company committed only to moving forward with the first phase of the project until the gaming issue is resolved. The project could cost the company up to $4 billion to complete. The first phase could be ready to open by the end of 2014. A constitutional amendment to make way for gaming would likely lay out specific allowances for large gaming facilities in specific geographic regions, though the governor did not discuss specifics in his speech.
To become law, the amendment would have to be approved by a majority of both the State Assembly and State Senate in two consecutive terms, presumably in 2012 and 2013. It would then have to be approved at polls by voters statewide. The earliest such a referendum could be put up to the public would be November 2013.
State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said this week that despite what he expects would be substantial opposition to the anticipated amendment from some factions of the Assembly, he wouldn’t be surprised to see the measure make it to a referendum next year.
“The governor ha
But were such an amendment to become law, it remains to be seen how the project would impact the casino plans of the Shinnecock Indian Nation in Suffolk and Nassau counties. The amendment likely would be a complicated legislative blueprint for where gaming will be allowed in New York State, and by whom. The Shinnecocks’ plans for a casino at Belmont Park racetrack in Nassau County and possibly another in Suffolk County could be part of that blueprint. Or not.
Tribal leadership and Detroit-based casino developers Gateway Casino Resorts, who are backing them, said this week that they do not see the legalization of gaming, or the governor’s call for the development of a mammoth convention center at the Aqueduct Racetrack, as a threat to their fledgling proposal at Belmont Park, and possibly as many as two more sites farther east on Long Island.
The tribe and Gateway presented preliminary sketches of the casino development they will propose at Belmont to Nassau County leaders last summer, and have been in talks with Suffolk County lawmakers for more than two years about a number of possible sites for a Shinnecock casino development, including joint visits to some properties in Brookhaven and Riverhead towns.
Tribal Trustees President Randy King said this week that the tribe expects its rights to gaming will be considered and incorporated into whatever blueprint for gambling in New York State the governor and state lawmakers ultimately draft for voter consideration. An amendment allowing non-Native American entities to develop full-fledged casinos would not derail the tribe’s plans at Belmont or elsewhere, both parties said.
“We’ve always maintained that this market can sustain multiple gaming facilities, and the convention center announcement will not stop our efforts to bring jobs and revenues to Long Island,” Mr. King said through a spokesperson on Monday. “We hope and expect the governor will including Indian casinos in his plans to legalize gaming in New York. Our proposed facility does not need a constitutional amendment and can move forward now, to the benefit of all New Yorkers.”
A spokesman for Gateway, which has been bankrolling the tribe’s casino push since 2004, said the New York market is capable of hosting several casino facilities. The company owns three successful casinos in the Detroit area, a much smaller market than New York.
There are “three casinos in downtown Detroit and another across the river in Windsor, Canada,” spokesman Tom Shields said in an email. “They are all doing well, grossing more than $1.6 billion per year in a market less than 20 percent the size of New York.”
Mr. Shields noted that each of the casinos boasts hotels, restaurants and convention and meeting room space. He said the Shinnecocks and Gateway have pushed forward with their plans at Belmont, knowing that the Genting Group, a Malaysian resort company awarded a contract by the state in 2010 to develop a casino at Aqueduct, would be pushing a substantial development at Aqueduct.
“Multiple casinos in a geographical area creates the synergy of an entertainment district that together attracts more people than a single destination location,” Mr. Shields added. “The state and the region would have more jobs, more revenue, and more economic investment and development with two casinos than it would have with a single casino development.”
The state has allowed for limited gaming at racetracks, known as racinos, for several years, and Aqueduct now has more than 4,000 video slot machines and nearly 500 electronic table games. State law does not currently allow for the more popular high-stakes table games like blackjack, roulette and craps, except at Native American casinos, which were made legal nationally in 1988 by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
But just a day before the governor’s speech last week, the governor’s office and Genting quietly signed a non-binding agreement for the multi-national company to build a mammoth convention center at the Aqueduct property, the first phase of which would include a more than 2 million-square-foot convention center. Later phases would add thousands of hotel rooms and, potentially, a sprawling Vegas-style casino. While a Genting statement told city media outlets that the deal was not contingent on the passage of a gambling amendment by the state, the company committed only to moving forward with the first phase of the project until the gaming issue is resolved. The project could cost the company up to $4 billion to complete. The first phase could be ready to open by the end of 2014. A constitutional amendment to make way for gaming would likely lay out specific allowances for large gaming facilities in specific geographic regions, though the governor did not discuss specifics in his speech.
To become law, the amendment would have to be approved by a majority of both the State Assembly and State Senate in two consecutive terms, presumably in 2012 and 2013. It would then have to be approved at polls by voters statewide. The earliest such a referendum could be put up to the public would be November 2013.
State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said this week that despite what he expects would be substantial opposition to the anticipated amendment from some factions of the Assembly, he wouldn’t be surprised to see the measure make it to a referendum next year.
“The governor ha
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
It's you against the field in a war of attrition, where endless perfect play can be spoiled by one mistimed mistake. You get to know the opposition, learning every nuance of their being, storing that information until you can use it against them, taking them out, ending their game. There may be friendly faces, but ultimately, every other player is your enemy because only one of you can win the big prize and when it comes down to it, you play to win. The rest be damned.
Poker, right?
The names Albert Destrade and Jim Rice may not be familiar to poker fans. Both play. Both have found success at the felt. Destrade, a baseball coach by trade, earns the majority of his income through raking pots in South Florida's live games. Rice, a legalized marijuana distributor from Denver (yes, his twitter account was all a-Tebow this weekend), has managed assorted tournament scores, including a $116,555 win in a $2,000 buy-in Festa Al Lago preliminary event. Their success suggests they play poker well, but poker is not what got their faces on national TV; that would be the long-running reality show "Survivor."
Even if you don't watch it, you probably know what "Survivor" is: A group of 16-20 Americans covering a broad spectrum of age, gender, skill set, race, color and creed is given scant supplies and a stunning patch of unoccupied, undeveloped land in a tropical locale on which they're to build a society, all the while playing a game in which they vote out one of their own every three days. Numbers dwindle until two or three players are left standing, at which point, evicted players vote for their champion, who receives $1,000,000 for their trouble. While the game is the mechanism, it's the humanity which makes for good television. That's where our poker players come in.
"There is never a concerted effort to cast any specific type of profession on 'Survivor', but I don't think it's a coincidence that poker players make for such great characters," said host/executive producer Jeff Probst via email. "'Survivor' is the social politics equivalent of poker. It's a game about reading other people, learning their tendencies, showing them only as much as you want them to see, but letting them think they are seeing more than they should. In the end, as we say on the show, 'only one will remain' -- that is the essence of 'Survivor' and poker."
Destrade and Rice finished third and 12th, respectively, on "Survivor: South Pacific," the recently concluded 23rd installment of the reality show. Following in the footsteps of former players Jean-Robert Bellande and "Survivor: Redemption Island" champion "Boston Rob" Mariano, the two brought poker experience and knowhow to an altogether different social game.
Poker, right?
The names Albert Destrade and Jim Rice may not be familiar to poker fans. Both play. Both have found success at the felt. Destrade, a baseball coach by trade, earns the majority of his income through raking pots in South Florida's live games. Rice, a legalized marijuana distributor from Denver (yes, his twitter account was all a-Tebow this weekend), has managed assorted tournament scores, including a $116,555 win in a $2,000 buy-in Festa Al Lago preliminary event. Their success suggests they play poker well, but poker is not what got their faces on national TV; that would be the long-running reality show "Survivor."
Even if you don't watch it, you probably know what "Survivor" is: A group of 16-20 Americans covering a broad spectrum of age, gender, skill set, race, color and creed is given scant supplies and a stunning patch of unoccupied, undeveloped land in a tropical locale on which they're to build a society, all the while playing a game in which they vote out one of their own every three days. Numbers dwindle until two or three players are left standing, at which point, evicted players vote for their champion, who receives $1,000,000 for their trouble. While the game is the mechanism, it's the humanity which makes for good television. That's where our poker players come in.
"There is never a concerted effort to cast any specific type of profession on 'Survivor', but I don't think it's a coincidence that poker players make for such great characters," said host/executive producer Jeff Probst via email. "'Survivor' is the social politics equivalent of poker. It's a game about reading other people, learning their tendencies, showing them only as much as you want them to see, but letting them think they are seeing more than they should. In the end, as we say on the show, 'only one will remain' -- that is the essence of 'Survivor' and poker."
Destrade and Rice finished third and 12th, respectively, on "Survivor: South Pacific," the recently concluded 23rd installment of the reality show. Following in the footsteps of former players Jean-Robert Bellande and "Survivor: Redemption Island" champion "Boston Rob" Mariano, the two brought poker experience and knowhow to an altogether different social game.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Education was supposed to be the main focus of the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, but as Governor Malloy's new concern suggests, maybe the focus should shift to Internet gambling, now that the U.S. Justice Department has changed its interpretation of federal law to allow it except on sports events.
After all, education has been state government's main focus for 40 years, ever since the school financing lawsuit of Horton vs. Meskill began working its way to the state Supreme Court, and despite various reforms and rewriting of the state school aid formula, by all accounts education has gotten worse. This is because of state government's misdiagnosis of the problem, which has nothing to do with schools and everything to do with the disintegration of the family.
As that disintegration cannot be addressed politically, the Internet gambling issue is more urgent. These seem to be its components.
Is Internet gambling, as the governor says, really inevitable, or can the state prevent it without federal law enforcement?
The leader of the state Senate's Republican minority, John McKinney, wants Connecticut to try to prevent it. But since state government long has been unable to collect its sales tax on Internet purchases, it's hard to see how state government on its own could stop Internet gambling. Thus, as the governor argues, some states will get into the business and take the money, and he wants Connecticut to claim its share before they do.
How does state government's contract with the two Indian tribes operating casinos apply to Internet gambling?
The tribes seem to construe the contract as giving them a monopoly on casino games played on the Internet as well as a monopoly on casino games played in casinos in the state, a monopoly for which they pay the state 25 percent of their slot machine revenue. State government still can authorize its lottery agency or private companies to undertake Internet gambling, but only by risking the slots revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
While Attorney General George Jepsen is unsure about the requirements of the contract, the governor seems to construe it as the tribes do and so wants to renegotiate it to allow state government to get into Internet gambling or receive tribute from anyone who does so in the state, presumably starting with the tribes themselves, while preserving the state's slots revenue. But that revenue is a diminishing asset, since in a few years Connecticut's casino tourism likely will be cut off, what with Massachusetts having just authorized casinos, Rhode Island planning a referendum on casino gambling, and New York's governor having just proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize casinos statewide.
Does Connecticut still need the two Indian tribes for gambling revenue? Did it ever?
Connecticut may be used to the tribes' monopoly on casinos, but as this monopoly has been awarded on the basis of ethnicity, it remains an affront to democracy, precisely the sort of "hereditary emoluments" prohibited by the state Constitution. While Indian gambling was authorized by federal law as a matter of reparations, no one in Connecticut's two casino tribes today ever knew oppression or suffered from the oppression of his ancestors. Indeed, the tribes were reconstituted mainly to exploit gambling.
The governor says he wants to protect the Indian casinos for their 20,000 jobs, which would seem worth protecting as long as the tourism revenue offsets the social costs. But state government could get into the casino business itself or license others to get into it, locate new casinos far more conveniently than the tribal casinos, which are in rural Montville and Ledyard in the eastern part of the state, and continue to collect the slots tribute from the tribes until the competing casinos opened. Indeed, state government always could have gotten into the casino business on its own, without Indians
-------------------------------------------------------------
State government usually takes the easy way out, and the easy way for it to handle Internet gambling will be to push the tribes into it aggressively and negotiate another percentage of the take. But the easy way will not necessarily be the best way.
State government should remember that it, not the tribes, is the real sovereign here; that it has much more leverage over the tribes than it has ever exercised; and that since the business to be undertaken is unfamiliar, uncertain, and changing, any new contracts should be of short duration and great flexibility.
By Chris Powell (Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer)
After all, education has been state government's main focus for 40 years, ever since the school financing lawsuit of Horton vs. Meskill began working its way to the state Supreme Court, and despite various reforms and rewriting of the state school aid formula, by all accounts education has gotten worse. This is because of state government's misdiagnosis of the problem, which has nothing to do with schools and everything to do with the disintegration of the family.
As that disintegration cannot be addressed politically, the Internet gambling issue is more urgent. These seem to be its components.
Is Internet gambling, as the governor says, really inevitable, or can the state prevent it without federal law enforcement?
The leader of the state Senate's Republican minority, John McKinney, wants Connecticut to try to prevent it. But since state government long has been unable to collect its sales tax on Internet purchases, it's hard to see how state government on its own could stop Internet gambling. Thus, as the governor argues, some states will get into the business and take the money, and he wants Connecticut to claim its share before they do.
How does state government's contract with the two Indian tribes operating casinos apply to Internet gambling?
The tribes seem to construe the contract as giving them a monopoly on casino games played on the Internet as well as a monopoly on casino games played in casinos in the state, a monopoly for which they pay the state 25 percent of their slot machine revenue. State government still can authorize its lottery agency or private companies to undertake Internet gambling, but only by risking the slots revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
While Attorney General George Jepsen is unsure about the requirements of the contract, the governor seems to construe it as the tribes do and so wants to renegotiate it to allow state government to get into Internet gambling or receive tribute from anyone who does so in the state, presumably starting with the tribes themselves, while preserving the state's slots revenue. But that revenue is a diminishing asset, since in a few years Connecticut's casino tourism likely will be cut off, what with Massachusetts having just authorized casinos, Rhode Island planning a referendum on casino gambling, and New York's governor having just proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize casinos statewide.
Does Connecticut still need the two Indian tribes for gambling revenue? Did it ever?
Connecticut may be used to the tribes' monopoly on casinos, but as this monopoly has been awarded on the basis of ethnicity, it remains an affront to democracy, precisely the sort of "hereditary emoluments" prohibited by the state Constitution. While Indian gambling was authorized by federal law as a matter of reparations, no one in Connecticut's two casino tribes today ever knew oppression or suffered from the oppression of his ancestors. Indeed, the tribes were reconstituted mainly to exploit gambling.
The governor says he wants to protect the Indian casinos for their 20,000 jobs, which would seem worth protecting as long as the tourism revenue offsets the social costs. But state government could get into the casino business itself or license others to get into it, locate new casinos far more conveniently than the tribal casinos, which are in rural Montville and Ledyard in the eastern part of the state, and continue to collect the slots tribute from the tribes until the competing casinos opened. Indeed, state government always could have gotten into the casino business on its own, without Indians
-------------------------------------------------------------
State government usually takes the easy way out, and the easy way for it to handle Internet gambling will be to push the tribes into it aggressively and negotiate another percentage of the take. But the easy way will not necessarily be the best way.
State government should remember that it, not the tribes, is the real sovereign here; that it has much more leverage over the tribes than it has ever exercised; and that since the business to be undertaken is unfamiliar, uncertain, and changing, any new contracts should be of short duration and great flexibility.
By Chris Powell (Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer)
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
The fight to fully legalize online gambling in the U.S. is now less about whether Americans will be able to play and more about who will bring the action to them — and when.
A recent U.S. Justice Department opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting.
The DOJ memo also enflamed a battle within the industry over how to legalize online gambling that once generated an estimated $6 billion yearly just from poker: Should each state have its own system, or should there be a nationwide law?
While the opinion sent gambling stocks rising, many players who've been shut out from top online poker sites since April just want games to restart and don't care who profits.
"I don't like this legal limbo. Is it legal, or is it illegal?" said writer Brian Boyko, who plays poker as a hobby.
Boyko of Austin, Texas, has been using a small offshore site since executives and others at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker were accused of illegally getting banks to process gambling funds.
Most of the U.S. games disappeared after the indictments.
One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the DOJ memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.
"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."
Online poker boomed in the U.S. over the last decade, but a 2006 law made it illegal to run most online gambling businesses by forbidding financial institutions from processing transactions related to illegal online gambling.
The law, however, didn't clearly specify what kinds of gambling were illegal.
Some forms of gambling, like fantasy sports and horse racing, got explicit carve-outs, while many poker games kept going online as some operators got differing legal opinions about whether the Wire Act of 1961 applied to them.
Since then, poker proponents have argued that the game is different from other casino games like blackjack or slots because it involves significantly more skill.
Even casino companies — which make far more money from luck-based games than poker — began pushing for poker-only legislation under the assumption that poker regulations would be easier for lawmakers to stomach than other games.
Meanwhile, New York and Illinois officials asked the DOJ in 2010 whether the Wire Act or the 2006 law prevented them from selling lottery tickets online to adults within their states.
Last week, the DOJ answered: The Wire Act only prevents players from wagering on sports outcomes — other bets are OK.
The commercial casino industry's top lobbying group in Washington, D.C., believes the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act was correct, but added more confusion than solutions.
"There's probably some staffers at work on (Capitol Hill) now taking a real hard look at this as they figure to bring some sanity," said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of the American Gaming Association.
Fahrenkopf said his group will keep pushing Congress for online poker legislation that establishes baseline rules for Internet poker operators.
Within the gambling world — which includes lotteries, private and publicly-traded companies, American Indian tribes, software manufacturers, offshore sites and others — there are differing visions for ideal online gambling laws.
Mark Hichar, an outside lawyer for the company that runs the Texas lottery, said the memo removes uncertainty and will prompt lotteries to begin running as many different kinds of games as are allowable under state laws.
"This helps lotteries, which are ... determined to remain relevant and to attract a new generation of players," said Hichar, who represents Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp.
Lotteries have generally opposed federal legislation, pushing for states to retain control of gambling laws.
I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert, said the opinion's timing and deference to states could mean trouble for commercial casinos that want an inside track on running licensed online gambling.
"They're going to have problems because when the states legalize, their natural inclination is to give it to the locals," said Rose, who regularly writes about online gambling developments at his blog, Gambling and The Law.
And that, he said, is the big question: Who's going to get the license?
"If you're a Nevada casino operator, you don't want to be competing in more than 50 separate jurisdictions against connected, politically powerful operators," Rose said.
Rose said new federal laws are a longshot in 2012, while states could choose to enter into compacts with other states to pool players, making games more lucrative.
U.S. lotteries could emulate counterparts in Canada that run limited online gambling sites in the provinces, he said.
Recreational player Mark Gorman of Austin, Texas, said he's skeptical, because different DOJ officials under a future president could change their opinion, forcing lawmakers to start over again.
"I wasn't terribly excited that this would change the landscape," Gorman said.
In Nevada, where gambling regulators adopted online poker regulations the day before the DOJ opinion, it's not clear whether casinos will try to let gamblers wager on more than just poker online.
Michael Gaughan, owner of the South Point casino in Las Vegas, said his lawyers are looking at how the opinion has changed legal situation as he tries to become the first Nevada casino operator to run legal online poker in the state.
"I don't know what happens," Gaughan said. "This opens up a whole can of worms, now."
He said he'll wait for their analysis before deciding whether to ask Nevada regulators to expand his plans.
Poker may be a baby step, legalized before other games as states argue that gambling creates jobs, said Alexander Ripps, a legal a
A recent U.S. Justice Department opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting.
The DOJ memo also enflamed a battle within the industry over how to legalize online gambling that once generated an estimated $6 billion yearly just from poker: Should each state have its own system, or should there be a nationwide law?
While the opinion sent gambling stocks rising, many players who've been shut out from top online poker sites since April just want games to restart and don't care who profits.
"I don't like this legal limbo. Is it legal, or is it illegal?" said writer Brian Boyko, who plays poker as a hobby.
Boyko of Austin, Texas, has been using a small offshore site since executives and others at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker were accused of illegally getting banks to process gambling funds.
Most of the U.S. games disappeared after the indictments.
One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the DOJ memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.
"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."
Online poker boomed in the U.S. over the last decade, but a 2006 law made it illegal to run most online gambling businesses by forbidding financial institutions from processing transactions related to illegal online gambling.
The law, however, didn't clearly specify what kinds of gambling were illegal.
Some forms of gambling, like fantasy sports and horse racing, got explicit carve-outs, while many poker games kept going online as some operators got differing legal opinions about whether the Wire Act of 1961 applied to them.
Since then, poker proponents have argued that the game is different from other casino games like blackjack or slots because it involves significantly more skill.
Even casino companies — which make far more money from luck-based games than poker — began pushing for poker-only legislation under the assumption that poker regulations would be easier for lawmakers to stomach than other games.
Meanwhile, New York and Illinois officials asked the DOJ in 2010 whether the Wire Act or the 2006 law prevented them from selling lottery tickets online to adults within their states.
Last week, the DOJ answered: The Wire Act only prevents players from wagering on sports outcomes — other bets are OK.
The commercial casino industry's top lobbying group in Washington, D.C., believes the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act was correct, but added more confusion than solutions.
"There's probably some staffers at work on (Capitol Hill) now taking a real hard look at this as they figure to bring some sanity," said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of the American Gaming Association.
Fahrenkopf said his group will keep pushing Congress for online poker legislation that establishes baseline rules for Internet poker operators.
Within the gambling world — which includes lotteries, private and publicly-traded companies, American Indian tribes, software manufacturers, offshore sites and others — there are differing visions for ideal online gambling laws.
Mark Hichar, an outside lawyer for the company that runs the Texas lottery, said the memo removes uncertainty and will prompt lotteries to begin running as many different kinds of games as are allowable under state laws.
"This helps lotteries, which are ... determined to remain relevant and to attract a new generation of players," said Hichar, who represents Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp.
Lotteries have generally opposed federal legislation, pushing for states to retain control of gambling laws.
I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert, said the opinion's timing and deference to states could mean trouble for commercial casinos that want an inside track on running licensed online gambling.
"They're going to have problems because when the states legalize, their natural inclination is to give it to the locals," said Rose, who regularly writes about online gambling developments at his blog, Gambling and The Law.
And that, he said, is the big question: Who's going to get the license?
"If you're a Nevada casino operator, you don't want to be competing in more than 50 separate jurisdictions against connected, politically powerful operators," Rose said.
Rose said new federal laws are a longshot in 2012, while states could choose to enter into compacts with other states to pool players, making games more lucrative.
U.S. lotteries could emulate counterparts in Canada that run limited online gambling sites in the provinces, he said.
Recreational player Mark Gorman of Austin, Texas, said he's skeptical, because different DOJ officials under a future president could change their opinion, forcing lawmakers to start over again.
"I wasn't terribly excited that this would change the landscape," Gorman said.
In Nevada, where gambling regulators adopted online poker regulations the day before the DOJ opinion, it's not clear whether casinos will try to let gamblers wager on more than just poker online.
Michael Gaughan, owner of the South Point casino in Las Vegas, said his lawyers are looking at how the opinion has changed legal situation as he tries to become the first Nevada casino operator to run legal online poker in the state.
"I don't know what happens," Gaughan said. "This opens up a whole can of worms, now."
He said he'll wait for their analysis before deciding whether to ask Nevada regulators to expand his plans.
Poker may be a baby step, legalized before other games as states argue that gambling creates jobs, said Alexander Ripps, a legal a
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Manne wrote:
The fight to fully legalize online gambling in the U.S. is now less about whether Americans will be able to play and more about who will bring the action to them — and when.
A recent U.S. Justice Department opinion opened the door for cash-strapped states and their lotteries to bring online gambling to their residents, as long as it does not involve sports betting.
The DOJ memo also enflamed a battle within the industry over how to legalize online gambling that once generated an estimated $6 billion yearly just from poker: Should each state have its own system, or should there be a nationwide law?
While the opinion sent gambling stocks rising, many players who've been shut out from top online poker sites since April just want games to restart and don't care who profits.
"I don't like this legal limbo. Is it legal, or is it illegal?" said writer Brian Boyko, who plays poker as a hobby.
Boyko of Austin, Texas, has been using a small offshore site since executives and others at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker were accused of illegally getting banks to process gambling funds.
Most of the U.S. games disappeared after the indictments.
One lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing to make online gambling legal, citing the DOJ memo. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak said he'll try to get a bill to Gov. Chris Christie's desk by next week.
"We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming," he said. "It's the wave of the future."
Online poker boomed in the U.S. over the last decade, but a 2006 law made it illegal to run most online gambling businesses by forbidding financial institutions from processing transactions related to illegal online gambling.
The law, however, didn't clearly specify what kinds of gambling were illegal.
Some forms of gambling, like fantasy sports and horse racing, got explicit carve-outs, while many poker games kept going online as some operators got differing legal opinions about whether the Wire Act of 1961 applied to them.
Since then, poker proponents have argued that the game is different from other casino games like blackjack or slots because it involves significantly more skill.
Even casino companies — which make far more money from luck-based games than poker — began pushing for poker-only legislation under the assumption that poker regulations would be easier for lawmakers to stomach than other games.
Meanwhile, New York and Illinois officials asked the DOJ in 2010 whether the Wire Act or the 2006 law prevented them from selling lottery tickets online to adults within their states.
Last week, the DOJ answered: The Wire Act only prevents players from wagering on sports outcomes — other bets are OK.
The commercial casino industry's top lobbying group in Washington, D.C., believes the DOJ's interpretation of the Wire Act was correct, but added more confusion than solutions.
"There's probably some staffers at work on (Capitol Hill) now taking a real hard look at this as they figure to bring some sanity," said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of the American Gaming Association.
Fahrenkopf said his group will keep pushing Congress for online poker legislation that establishes baseline rules for Internet poker operators.
Within the gambling world — which includes lotteries, private and publicly-traded companies, American Indian tribes, software manufacturers, offshore sites and others — there are differing visions for ideal online gambling laws.
Mark Hichar, an outside lawyer for the company that runs the Texas lottery, said the memo removes uncertainty and will prompt lotteries to begin running as many different kinds of games as are allowable under state laws.
"This helps lotteries, which are ... determined to remain relevant and to attract a new generation of players," said Hichar, who represents Rhode Island-based GTECH Corp.
Lotteries have generally opposed federal legislation, pushing for states to retain control of gambling laws.
I. Nelson Rose, a gambling law expert, said the opinion's timing and deference to states could mean trouble for commercial casinos that want an inside track on running licensed online gambling.
"They're going to have problems because when the states legalize, their natural inclination is to give it to the locals," said Rose, who regularly writes about online gambling developments at his blog, Gambling and The Law.
And that, he said, is the big question: Who's going to get the license?
"If you're a Nevada casino operator, you don't want to be competing in more than 50 separate jurisdictions against connected, politically powerful operators," Rose said.
Rose said new federal laws are a longshot in 2012, while states could choose to enter into compacts with other states to pool players, making games more lucrative.
U.S. lotteries could emulate counterparts in Canada that run limited online gambling sites in the provinces, he said.
Recreational player Mark Gorman of Austin, Texas, said he's skeptical, because different DOJ officials under a future president could change their opinion, forcing lawmakers to start over again.
"I wasn't terribly excited that this would change the landscape," Gorman said.
In Nevada, where gambling regulators adopted online poker regulations the day before the DOJ opinion, it's not clear whether casinos will try to let gamblers wager on more than just poker online.
Michael Gaughan, owner of the South Point casino in Las Vegas, said his lawyers are looking at how the opinion has changed legal situation as he tries to become the first Nevada casino operator to run legal online poker in the state.
"I don't know what happens," Gaughan said. "This opens up a whole can of worms, now."
He said he'll wait for their analysis before deciding whether to ask Nevada regulators to expand his plans.
Poker may be a baby step, legalized before other games as states argue that gambling creates jobs, said Alexander Ripps, a legal a
Soon or later we will going to play online again!!
Join:
2006/12/11
Messages:
1758
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ recently released Global Gaming Outlook, the Asia Pacific Region will be the fastest growing in terms of the casino gaming industry over the next five years. The gaming revenue is said to increase from $34.3 billion US to a projected $79.3 billion US by 2015.
However, despite these numbers, the online casino industry is currently illegal in Singapore. Jonathan Galaviz, a gaming analyst said that the governments in the area should really try to seize this growing opportunity rather than push it away as there is huge growth in online gaming. The report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that there is a very strong argument right now in the area that as consumers continue to engage in websites offering illegal online gambling opportunities, it is much better to provide licenses and tax it, rather than allowing unlicensed operators to continue to amass large amounts of revenue.
Galaviz said that the Singapore government should do some serious research regarding the issue of online gambling and bring it up during policy discussions. However, not all gaming analysts have taken the same approach as Galaviz. Felix Ling, a senior partner and casino consultant at Platform Asia Management Services said that by legalizing online casinos in Singapore, it will create a devastating social impact. Derek da Cunha, the author of “Singapore Places its Bets,” agreed with Ling. He stated that if online gambling were to be legalized in Singapore, it would bring in new players who do not really know what online gambling is. The social consequences would be that people, rather than work, would be using their computers only for gambling purposes.
But the “social consequence” argument is not as strong as people would like to believe. If it was a strong argument, then how could it explain the opening of two brick-and-mortar casinos in Singapore in 2010? These casinos have amassed over $4.4 billion US in 2011. Think about what kind of revenue online gambling could bring in? It seems as though Singapore would like to think that online gambling is a much bigger evil than physical casinos.
However, despite these numbers, the online casino industry is currently illegal in Singapore. Jonathan Galaviz, a gaming analyst said that the governments in the area should really try to seize this growing opportunity rather than push it away as there is huge growth in online gaming. The report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that there is a very strong argument right now in the area that as consumers continue to engage in websites offering illegal online gambling opportunities, it is much better to provide licenses and tax it, rather than allowing unlicensed operators to continue to amass large amounts of revenue.
Galaviz said that the Singapore government should do some serious research regarding the issue of online gambling and bring it up during policy discussions. However, not all gaming analysts have taken the same approach as Galaviz. Felix Ling, a senior partner and casino consultant at Platform Asia Management Services said that by legalizing online casinos in Singapore, it will create a devastating social impact. Derek da Cunha, the author of “Singapore Places its Bets,” agreed with Ling. He stated that if online gambling were to be legalized in Singapore, it would bring in new players who do not really know what online gambling is. The social consequences would be that people, rather than work, would be using their computers only for gambling purposes.
But the “social consequence” argument is not as strong as people would like to believe. If it was a strong argument, then how could it explain the opening of two brick-and-mortar casinos in Singapore in 2010? These casinos have amassed over $4.4 billion US in 2011. Think about what kind of revenue online gambling could bring in? It seems as though Singapore would like to think that online gambling is a much bigger evil than physical casinos.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Seattle online gaming company Double Down Interactive hit the jackpot.
It's being acquired by Nevada gambling giant IGT for $250 million in cash, plus $85 million in potential retention payments and up to $165 million more if revenue goals are met over the next three years.
The move comes after a Dec. 23 decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to loosen its stance against online gambling.
IGT (International Game Technology) now has a massive new audience of players on the largest social network who can potentially be upgraded from virtual to real gambling. Its stock — IGT on the New York Stock Exchange — closed up 3 percent at $17.78 today.
Double Down Casino describes itself as the world's largest virtual casino. It was one of the top four social-media games on Facebook last year and has 4.7 million monthly active users, up from 3.3 million in October, according to AppData stats shared by the company.
"The addition of Double Down provides IGT instant size and scale in the fast growing world of casino-style social gaming and is expected to broaden IGT's popular gaming titles beyond the physical casino to Facebook, the world's largest social network with over 800 million global users," IGT said in a news release.
Double Down's 70 employees will remain in Seattle. A spokeswoman said it's on a "hiring spree" and currently working to add more than 10 jobs.
The company was started in 2010 by Greg Enell, a veteran of Microsoft and Big Fish Games, along with designer Cooper DuBois, who earlier co-founded online trivia game company Pickjam with Enell.
Enell worked on enterprise software at Microsoft and left to join Wild Tangent before starting a casual-games company that was acquired by Big Fish.
Glenn Walcott, former chief financial officer of Big Fish, joined Double Down in November 2010 as president.
It's being acquired by Nevada gambling giant IGT for $250 million in cash, plus $85 million in potential retention payments and up to $165 million more if revenue goals are met over the next three years.
The move comes after a Dec. 23 decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to loosen its stance against online gambling.
IGT (International Game Technology) now has a massive new audience of players on the largest social network who can potentially be upgraded from virtual to real gambling. Its stock — IGT on the New York Stock Exchange — closed up 3 percent at $17.78 today.
Double Down Casino describes itself as the world's largest virtual casino. It was one of the top four social-media games on Facebook last year and has 4.7 million monthly active users, up from 3.3 million in October, according to AppData stats shared by the company.
"The addition of Double Down provides IGT instant size and scale in the fast growing world of casino-style social gaming and is expected to broaden IGT's popular gaming titles beyond the physical casino to Facebook, the world's largest social network with over 800 million global users," IGT said in a news release.
Double Down's 70 employees will remain in Seattle. A spokeswoman said it's on a "hiring spree" and currently working to add more than 10 jobs.
The company was started in 2010 by Greg Enell, a veteran of Microsoft and Big Fish Games, along with designer Cooper DuBois, who earlier co-founded online trivia game company Pickjam with Enell.
Enell worked on enterprise software at Microsoft and left to join Wild Tangent before starting a casual-games company that was acquired by Big Fish.
Glenn Walcott, former chief financial officer of Big Fish, joined Double Down in November 2010 as president.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
A representative from Beverly Hills based U.S. Digital Gaming has been making the rounds at the state Capitol in recent days to inform lawmakers about the huge revenue potential of online gambling.
“They turn out to be really large numbers that can really benefit in funding essential services for the state of Hawaii,” said Melissa Riahei, executive vice president and general counsel for USDG.
According to a power point presentation being shown to state lawmakers, projected revenues for online poker alone would reach $19.6 million in the first year, with the state retaining $2.5 million as profit. By the fifth year estimated revenues balloon to $103.9 million with $78.8 million set aside for the state.
“It is a very significant sum,” said Riahei. “What we were doing is basically just informing the senators and the representatives of what's going on across the country right now in the digital gaming world and what different states are doing.”
The push for state sponsored or state approved online gambling web sites comes after a December 23 ruling by the U.S. Justice Department that said the federal Wire Act of 1961 only applies to sports betting. The new interpretation opened the door for state governments to provide intrastate gambling on the internet.
“It was a monumental decision that was issued and has a huge impact on the state’s ability to no longer be handcuffed and be able to tap into that revenue generation potential,” explained Riahei.
Although a new Council on Revenues projection shows Hawaii’s state government operating at a deficit of more than $312 million by fiscal year 2016, many lawmakers are still not sold on the idea of internet gaming.
Even Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, who chairs the Tourism Committee and supports placing slot machines and video poker games in Waikiki hotels, has concerns about what gambling on the web would mean to Hawaii.
“While we need the money we have to look at where we're getting it from and on whose backs are we're going to put it on,” she said. “Everything's so new that I think we have to do a lot more research on it and move cautiously.”
Two bills introduced by Mercado Kim that would have allowed slots and video poker in Waikiki hotels failed to make it out of committee in 2009 and 2011.
The anti-gambling lobby remains strong in the Aloha State despite financial difficulties in the past few years that has resulted in furloughs for public workers, budget cuts and tax increases.
“Over the years we've looked at gambling propositions every session and there has not been the desire or the votes here at the Legislature to pass any gambling measures,” said Sen. Will Espero, chair of the Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee.
“With gambling and what it incites, I think I'm very cautious about how that would impact families and affect the impoverishment of more people,” added Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, chair of the Human Services Committee.
Still, proponents of online gambling say it’s likely to take place in Hawaii regardless of whether or not the state makes it legal.
“If the states don't move forward in doing this, it is very likely that other illegal sites will pop up here and there and take that revenue potential,” Riahei told Khon2. “There's a vacuum right now, poker players want to be playing,”
On April 15 of last year, the Justice Department shut down three online poker web sites, accusing operators of money laundering, fraud, and violating the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The DOJ action against PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker devastated the online poker industry as well as millions of players.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, a spokesperson for Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, said Tuesday the governor would entertain any gambling bill that crosses his desk.
“Whatever is formulated and it actually survives the session and it gets to the governor’s desk, then he’ll look at it.”
“They turn out to be really large numbers that can really benefit in funding essential services for the state of Hawaii,” said Melissa Riahei, executive vice president and general counsel for USDG.
According to a power point presentation being shown to state lawmakers, projected revenues for online poker alone would reach $19.6 million in the first year, with the state retaining $2.5 million as profit. By the fifth year estimated revenues balloon to $103.9 million with $78.8 million set aside for the state.
“It is a very significant sum,” said Riahei. “What we were doing is basically just informing the senators and the representatives of what's going on across the country right now in the digital gaming world and what different states are doing.”
The push for state sponsored or state approved online gambling web sites comes after a December 23 ruling by the U.S. Justice Department that said the federal Wire Act of 1961 only applies to sports betting. The new interpretation opened the door for state governments to provide intrastate gambling on the internet.
“It was a monumental decision that was issued and has a huge impact on the state’s ability to no longer be handcuffed and be able to tap into that revenue generation potential,” explained Riahei.
Although a new Council on Revenues projection shows Hawaii’s state government operating at a deficit of more than $312 million by fiscal year 2016, many lawmakers are still not sold on the idea of internet gaming.
Even Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, who chairs the Tourism Committee and supports placing slot machines and video poker games in Waikiki hotels, has concerns about what gambling on the web would mean to Hawaii.
“While we need the money we have to look at where we're getting it from and on whose backs are we're going to put it on,” she said. “Everything's so new that I think we have to do a lot more research on it and move cautiously.”
Two bills introduced by Mercado Kim that would have allowed slots and video poker in Waikiki hotels failed to make it out of committee in 2009 and 2011.
The anti-gambling lobby remains strong in the Aloha State despite financial difficulties in the past few years that has resulted in furloughs for public workers, budget cuts and tax increases.
“Over the years we've looked at gambling propositions every session and there has not been the desire or the votes here at the Legislature to pass any gambling measures,” said Sen. Will Espero, chair of the Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee.
“With gambling and what it incites, I think I'm very cautious about how that would impact families and affect the impoverishment of more people,” added Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, chair of the Human Services Committee.
Still, proponents of online gambling say it’s likely to take place in Hawaii regardless of whether or not the state makes it legal.
“If the states don't move forward in doing this, it is very likely that other illegal sites will pop up here and there and take that revenue potential,” Riahei told Khon2. “There's a vacuum right now, poker players want to be playing,”
On April 15 of last year, the Justice Department shut down three online poker web sites, accusing operators of money laundering, fraud, and violating the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The DOJ action against PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker devastated the online poker industry as well as millions of players.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, a spokesperson for Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, said Tuesday the governor would entertain any gambling bill that crosses his desk.
“Whatever is formulated and it actually survives the session and it gets to the governor’s desk, then he’ll look at it.”
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Online gaming website Jackpotjoy has announced details of its latest winner. Mrs. Wendy R, a dab hand at online slots, scooped the jackpot of £3,433 on her favourite online slots game Diamond Bonanza, all for the price of a 25p game ticket.
Diamond Bonanza is one of Jackpotjoy's most popular games and a big draw in the world of online slots. A multi-line slot with massive jackpot payouts, players can increase their chances of winning by playing across five lines.
One of the most distinctive features of Diamond Bonanza is its chic 1920s art deco theme. With stunning graphics and great game play, it really does capture the glamour of the era; think Betty Boop in a swimsuit!
In Diamond Bonanza you can play for one of three different jackpots based on the coin denomination of your choice - 25p, 50p or £1 - so you're sure to find one that suits your pocket. The amount you then bet on each line is multiplied by the number of lines, so if you bet 25p per line and bet on 25 lines you'll be betting £6.25 on each spin.
The game also includes a useful Auto Spin feature, which allows you to pre-set the number of spins you want, while the Stop Button halts proceedings at any time. You can even customise the Auto Spin function so that it stops if a single win exceeds a fixed amount, or if the total account balance goes above or below a certain figure.
This is a great way for you to keep in charge of your winnings, and it certainly paid off for Wendy, who had this to say about her win "I'm delighted with my new win! Good time for it to come and good things to be done with them!"
Congratulations Wendy from everyone here at Jackpotjoy.
Diamond Bonanza is one of Jackpotjoy's most popular games and a big draw in the world of online slots. A multi-line slot with massive jackpot payouts, players can increase their chances of winning by playing across five lines.
One of the most distinctive features of Diamond Bonanza is its chic 1920s art deco theme. With stunning graphics and great game play, it really does capture the glamour of the era; think Betty Boop in a swimsuit!
In Diamond Bonanza you can play for one of three different jackpots based on the coin denomination of your choice - 25p, 50p or £1 - so you're sure to find one that suits your pocket. The amount you then bet on each line is multiplied by the number of lines, so if you bet 25p per line and bet on 25 lines you'll be betting £6.25 on each spin.
The game also includes a useful Auto Spin feature, which allows you to pre-set the number of spins you want, while the Stop Button halts proceedings at any time. You can even customise the Auto Spin function so that it stops if a single win exceeds a fixed amount, or if the total account balance goes above or below a certain figure.
This is a great way for you to keep in charge of your winnings, and it certainly paid off for Wendy, who had this to say about her win "I'm delighted with my new win! Good time for it to come and good things to be done with them!"
Congratulations Wendy from everyone here at Jackpotjoy.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
French online retailer Cdiscount, a subsidiary of the Casino Group, has selected Verizon to help ensure that the company's electronic payment-processing platform complies with international payment card industry data-security standards.
Cdiscount has more than 10 million registered users in France, with the company's online retail site, cdiscount.com, attracting 800,000 visitors and handling 30,000 orders each day, on average. Cdiscount processes and manages all payments via its own payment platform, which it also offers as a payment-processing provider to other companies. Compliance with PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) is therefore a key business driver for Cdiscount, as it demonstrates to customers that their personal and payment information is protected.
Verizon's professional security services team provided a range of audit, management and implementation services to help Cdiscount achieve the company's first PCI DSS certification.
Cdiscount.com's director of information systems security said: "We value the trust our customers place in us every time they shop online and take our role in protecting their personal and payment information very seriously. Verizon's expertise in this area has been invaluable, delivering a thorough and detailed approach that has enabled us to achieve our goal. PCI DSS compliance is an ongoing process for the assured security of our customers' payments and is critical for the credibility of our payment processing service. With the Verizon team's assistance, we are confident we can maintain the best possible industry standards."
The annual "Verizon Payment Card Industry Compliance Report," issued in September 2011, found that too many businesses are struggling to comply with payment card security standards, putting consumers' confidential information at risk. Company investigators found that only 21 percent were fully compliant during the initial PCI DSS audit. The report notes that the difficulty in achieving compliance, along with overconfidence, complacency and the need to focus on other compliance and security issues, are among the possible reasons for the widespread PCI noncompliance.
About Cdiscount.comA pioneer in e-commerce, Cdiscount.com is a subsidiary of Casino and is the leading online retailer in France (euro 1 billion of net sales in 2010)[1]. The company has 1,100 employees.
Cdiscount has more than 10 million registered users in France, with the company's online retail site, cdiscount.com, attracting 800,000 visitors and handling 30,000 orders each day, on average. Cdiscount processes and manages all payments via its own payment platform, which it also offers as a payment-processing provider to other companies. Compliance with PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) is therefore a key business driver for Cdiscount, as it demonstrates to customers that their personal and payment information is protected.
Verizon's professional security services team provided a range of audit, management and implementation services to help Cdiscount achieve the company's first PCI DSS certification.
Cdiscount.com's director of information systems security said: "We value the trust our customers place in us every time they shop online and take our role in protecting their personal and payment information very seriously. Verizon's expertise in this area has been invaluable, delivering a thorough and detailed approach that has enabled us to achieve our goal. PCI DSS compliance is an ongoing process for the assured security of our customers' payments and is critical for the credibility of our payment processing service. With the Verizon team's assistance, we are confident we can maintain the best possible industry standards."
The annual "Verizon Payment Card Industry Compliance Report," issued in September 2011, found that too many businesses are struggling to comply with payment card security standards, putting consumers' confidential information at risk. Company investigators found that only 21 percent were fully compliant during the initial PCI DSS audit. The report notes that the difficulty in achieving compliance, along with overconfidence, complacency and the need to focus on other compliance and security issues, are among the possible reasons for the widespread PCI noncompliance.
About Cdiscount.comA pioneer in e-commerce, Cdiscount.com is a subsidiary of Casino and is the leading online retailer in France (euro 1 billion of net sales in 2010)[1]. The company has 1,100 employees.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Manne wrote:
2012 could be more of the same for Lindsay Lohan as a paparazzo is suing the actress over a car accident outside a Hollywood club two years ago.
According to court documents obtained by ET, Grigor Balyan claims that on January 10, 2010, he was taking pictures of Lohan while in the car when he was struck by the vehicle, causing the photographer personal injury, property damage and other losses.
Baylan is seeking monetary compensation for the incident. 😄
Lindsay Lohan is a big big Joke 😄
Join:
2007/02/24
Messages:
1205
Manne wrote:
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ recently released Global Gaming Outlook, the Asia Pacific Region will be the fastest growing in terms of the casino gaming industry over the next five years. The gaming revenue is said to increase from $34.3 billion US to a projected $79.3 billion US by 2015.
However, despite these numbers, the online casino industry is currently illegal in Singapore. Jonathan Galaviz, a gaming analyst said that the governments in the area should really try to seize this growing opportunity rather than push it away as there is huge growth in online gaming. The report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that there is a very strong argument right now in the area that as consumers continue to engage in websites offering illegal online gambling opportunities, it is much better to provide licenses and tax it, rather than allowing unlicensed operators to continue to amass large amounts of revenue.
Galaviz said that the Singapore government should do some serious research regarding the issue of online gambling and bring it up during policy discussions. However, not all gaming analysts have taken the same approach as Galaviz. Felix Ling, a senior partner and casino consultant at Platform Asia Management Services said that by legalizing online casinos in Singapore, it will create a devastating social impact. Derek da Cunha, the author of “Singapore Places its Bets,” agreed with Ling. He stated that if online gambling were to be legalized in Singapore, it would bring in new players who do not really know what online gambling is. The social consequences would be that people, rather than work, would be using their computers only for gambling purposes.
But the “social consequence” argument is not as strong as people would like to believe. If it was a strong argument, then how could it explain the opening of two brick-and-mortar casinos in Singapore in 2010? These casinos have amassed over $4.4 billion US in 2011. Think about what kind of revenue online gambling could bring in? It seems as though Singapore would like to think that online gambling is a much bigger evil than physical casinos.
Why not? :confused:
Join:
2007/02/24
Messages:
1205
Manne wrote:
Online gaming website Jackpotjoy has announced details of its latest winner. Mrs. Wendy R, a dab hand at online slots, scooped the jackpot of £3,433 on her favourite online slots game Diamond Bonanza, all for the price of a 25p game ticket.
Diamond Bonanza is one of Jackpotjoy's most popular games and a big draw in the world of online slots. A multi-line slot with massive jackpot payouts, players can increase their chances of winning by playing across five lines.
One of the most distinctive features of Diamond Bonanza is its chic 1920s art deco theme. With stunning graphics and great game play, it really does capture the glamour of the era; think Betty Boop in a swimsuit!
In Diamond Bonanza you can play for one of three different jackpots based on the coin denomination of your choice - 25p, 50p or £1 - so you're sure to find one that suits your pocket. The amount you then bet on each line is multiplied by the number of lines, so if you bet 25p per line and bet on 25 lines you'll be betting £6.25 on each spin.
The game also includes a useful Auto Spin feature, which allows you to pre-set the number of spins you want, while the Stop Button halts proceedings at any time. You can even customise the Auto Spin function so that it stops if a single win exceeds a fixed amount, or if the total account balance goes above or below a certain figure.
This is a great way for you to keep in charge of your winnings, and it certainly paid off for Wendy, who had this to say about her win "I'm delighted with my new win! Good time for it to come and good things to be done with them!"
Congratulations Wendy from everyone here at Jackpotjoy.
Congratulations wish it were me :dirol
Join:
2007/02/24
Messages:
1205
Gambling industry giants are raising the stakes at virtual casino tables. For Zynga investors, that's good news.
Late Thursday, slot machine company International Game Technology said it would pay $500 million over three years for Double Down Interactive, the developer behind a popular virtual casino on Facebook. The price looks high considering Double Down has just 4.7 million monthly active users according to AppData, although Facebook lists it as the third-largest social gambling app. Double Down has not disclosed its financial results.
Why the huge sum for a modestly sized developer of casino games that makes its money, not from gambling, but by selling virtual goods? IGT's Chief Executive Patti Hart argues that Double Down is a strategic asset. IGT's customers, which include gambling industry companies like Caesars Entertainment, MGM and Las Vegas Sands, are anxious to market themselves to the new crop of online gamers. Indeed, Caesars just completed an acquisition of Playtika, the developer behind slot machine game Slotomania, the second-largest social gambling app on Facebook.
It also puts IGT in a better position if more states, and perhaps the federal government, decide to legalize online gambling. That looks a stronger possibility after the Justice Department opened the door to online gambling last month.
If Double Down's less than five million users are worth more than $100 each, what of the 30 million users playing Zynga Poker? That is by far the most popular social gambling app on Facebook. While Zynga isn't likely to sell the game, surely those users represent an even richer marketing opportunity for casinos. Casinos have little choice but to reach out to these gamers. As online gambling gains steam in the wake of the Justice Department memo, casino revenues could be at risk as some gamblers decide to play poker or slots from the comfort of their living room. This could give Zynga a valuable trump card.
Late Thursday, slot machine company International Game Technology said it would pay $500 million over three years for Double Down Interactive, the developer behind a popular virtual casino on Facebook. The price looks high considering Double Down has just 4.7 million monthly active users according to AppData, although Facebook lists it as the third-largest social gambling app. Double Down has not disclosed its financial results.
Why the huge sum for a modestly sized developer of casino games that makes its money, not from gambling, but by selling virtual goods? IGT's Chief Executive Patti Hart argues that Double Down is a strategic asset. IGT's customers, which include gambling industry companies like Caesars Entertainment, MGM and Las Vegas Sands, are anxious to market themselves to the new crop of online gamers. Indeed, Caesars just completed an acquisition of Playtika, the developer behind slot machine game Slotomania, the second-largest social gambling app on Facebook.
It also puts IGT in a better position if more states, and perhaps the federal government, decide to legalize online gambling. That looks a stronger possibility after the Justice Department opened the door to online gambling last month.
If Double Down's less than five million users are worth more than $100 each, what of the 30 million users playing Zynga Poker? That is by far the most popular social gambling app on Facebook. While Zynga isn't likely to sell the game, surely those users represent an even richer marketing opportunity for casinos. Casinos have little choice but to reach out to these gamers. As online gambling gains steam in the wake of the Justice Department memo, casino revenues could be at risk as some gamblers decide to play poker or slots from the comfort of their living room. This could give Zynga a valuable trump card.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Most analysts are predicting that online gambling is set to explode in the Asian jurisdiction. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the potential in the global gaming industry jurisdictions were not made that clear. Singapore is mentioned as a possible candidate for the center of the Asian online gambling industry, with the news that Singapore could out pace even Las Vegas as a casino goldmine.
Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries such as Denmark so where better to have regulated and licensed online gambling. In a few short years Asian gaming revenue will climb to $79.3billion that includes online gaming. Should Singapore make a quick decision on the internet betting idea the country could be doing even better than it already is.
According to news sources Singapore attracts a lot of foreign direct investment mainly because of its location, corruption-free environment, skilled work force, low tax rates and advanced infrastructure. There are more than 7,000 multinational corporations from the United States, Japan, and Europe in Singapore. There are also 1,500 companies from China and another 1,500 from India based in Singapore. Foreign firms are found in almost all sectors of the economy. Singapore is also the second-largest foreign investor in India.
This country has a lot going for it, even the World Bank has praised Singapore as the easiest place in the world to do business. There is some opposition from various analysts who are saying the “social consequence” of allowing online gambling is a big issue because a lot of people aren’t aware the complications of online gambling and that there may be issues at work regarding productivity and the inappropriate use of computers while on the job.
Singapore is young demographically and has a large mobile phone penetration rate that is extremely high at 1,400 mobile phone subscribers per 1000 people. What potential for Singapore it will be interesting to watch how the cards are dealt.
Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, along with New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries such as Denmark so where better to have regulated and licensed online gambling. In a few short years Asian gaming revenue will climb to $79.3billion that includes online gaming. Should Singapore make a quick decision on the internet betting idea the country could be doing even better than it already is.
According to news sources Singapore attracts a lot of foreign direct investment mainly because of its location, corruption-free environment, skilled work force, low tax rates and advanced infrastructure. There are more than 7,000 multinational corporations from the United States, Japan, and Europe in Singapore. There are also 1,500 companies from China and another 1,500 from India based in Singapore. Foreign firms are found in almost all sectors of the economy. Singapore is also the second-largest foreign investor in India.
This country has a lot going for it, even the World Bank has praised Singapore as the easiest place in the world to do business. There is some opposition from various analysts who are saying the “social consequence” of allowing online gambling is a big issue because a lot of people aren’t aware the complications of online gambling and that there may be issues at work regarding productivity and the inappropriate use of computers while on the job.
Singapore is young demographically and has a large mobile phone penetration rate that is extremely high at 1,400 mobile phone subscribers per 1000 people. What potential for Singapore it will be interesting to watch how the cards are dealt.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Hopes for this being the year that federal legislation passes to license and regulate Internet poker received a boost last week when James Murren, chairman and CEO of MGM Resorts International, spoke confidently about the prospects on CNBC.
Asked about the Justice Department's recent conclusion that the Wire Act applies only to wire communications related to sports betting, Murren responded: "It means Internet gaming is going to pass here in 2012 in the United States."
Murren didn't preface his comment with "I think" or "hopefully." He just flat out stated that 2012 will be the year.
He did backtrack a bit by saying that he's not sure whether it will be done on the federal level or state by state. Nevada is expected to get its own intrastate poker network up and running later this year. If 2012 is only the start of online poker going state by state, it is still going to be a long process.
"It should be at the federal level, because that's where we can best regulate, prevent fraud, prevent underage gambling and get rid of the illegal gaming sites that still exist today with one uniform regulatory framework," Murren said. "If the federal government fails to act, state after state after state will approve Internet poker and it will proliferate on that basis."
Murren's thinking seems to back up the sentiment that the DOJ's new interpretation of the Wire Act will put pressure on Capitol Hill to get going on establishing an overall framework for Internet poker or watch the states do it. Because the Wire Act doesn't apply to online poker, states will be able to combine poker networks across state lines.
It's nice to get a major Las Vegas casino chairman talking positively about poker after Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson recently made vocal his opposition.
In October, MGM reached an agreement to join forces with Bwin.Party once Internet poker is officially legalized in the United States.
"It will be a multi-billion dollar business," Murren said. "It will be hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to us as a company, billions to the industry, and it will happen this year."
Asked about the Justice Department's recent conclusion that the Wire Act applies only to wire communications related to sports betting, Murren responded: "It means Internet gaming is going to pass here in 2012 in the United States."
Murren didn't preface his comment with "I think" or "hopefully." He just flat out stated that 2012 will be the year.
He did backtrack a bit by saying that he's not sure whether it will be done on the federal level or state by state. Nevada is expected to get its own intrastate poker network up and running later this year. If 2012 is only the start of online poker going state by state, it is still going to be a long process.
"It should be at the federal level, because that's where we can best regulate, prevent fraud, prevent underage gambling and get rid of the illegal gaming sites that still exist today with one uniform regulatory framework," Murren said. "If the federal government fails to act, state after state after state will approve Internet poker and it will proliferate on that basis."
Murren's thinking seems to back up the sentiment that the DOJ's new interpretation of the Wire Act will put pressure on Capitol Hill to get going on establishing an overall framework for Internet poker or watch the states do it. Because the Wire Act doesn't apply to online poker, states will be able to combine poker networks across state lines.
It's nice to get a major Las Vegas casino chairman talking positively about poker after Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson recently made vocal his opposition.
In October, MGM reached an agreement to join forces with Bwin.Party once Internet poker is officially legalized in the United States.
"It will be a multi-billion dollar business," Murren said. "It will be hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to us as a company, billions to the industry, and it will happen this year."
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Yesterday Reuters interviewed Jack Abramoff, the former Republican lobbyist and convicted felon who defrauded American Indian nations of more than $82 million, about his opinion and projections of current efforts to legalize online gambling in the United States.
Abramoff—who pled guilty in 2006 to charges of tax evasion, mail fraud and conspiracy—shared his side of the story and how he accomplished the fraud in his memoir Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist, which was released November 14, 2011.
Abramoff shared with Reuters that he was “instrumental in stopping Congress from making it definitively illegal to gamble on the Internet” in 2003.
Reuters asked the former lobbyist for his advice: “Whose palms have to be greased to get this fast-tracked through Congressional committees?”
Abramoff essentially explained lobbyists were tasked with the challenge of converting the conservatives and religious right. They would need to show the “benefits it can bring to society, how it would be regulated and bring in tax revenue.”
Read more about Jack’s memoir, efforts to resuscitate his image, and why a Blackfeet tribal member and Indian Country advocate and lobbyist Tom Rodgers can never forgive his transgressions.
Abramoff—who pled guilty in 2006 to charges of tax evasion, mail fraud and conspiracy—shared his side of the story and how he accomplished the fraud in his memoir Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist, which was released November 14, 2011.
Abramoff shared with Reuters that he was “instrumental in stopping Congress from making it definitively illegal to gamble on the Internet” in 2003.
Reuters asked the former lobbyist for his advice: “Whose palms have to be greased to get this fast-tracked through Congressional committees?”
Abramoff essentially explained lobbyists were tasked with the challenge of converting the conservatives and religious right. They would need to show the “benefits it can bring to society, how it would be regulated and bring in tax revenue.”
Read more about Jack’s memoir, efforts to resuscitate his image, and why a Blackfeet tribal member and Indian Country advocate and lobbyist Tom Rodgers can never forgive his transgressions.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
In the past Malta’s Lotteries & Gaming Authority logo has been misused and the Authority has responded fast and decisively. The Authority has once again made it known that the web site 21KBet is unauthorized and is in contravention of the fair play rules and should be avoided.
It has been reported by SportsBookReview.com that 21KBet has 19 players with as much as €20k on deposit. These individuals are complaining that there have been issues regarding the payout of winnings. 21KBet is not taking responsibility but is shifting the onus on Moneybookers for the problems. Moneybookers has denied that 21KBet is an authorized merchant.
Malta’s LGA issued a statement regarding the rogue web site, ‘The Lotteries and Gaming Authority (the ‘Authority’) would like to inform the public that the website 21kbet.com has no connection whatsoever with the Authority and therefore any reference to the Authority and, or license issued by the Authority on the mentioned website is false and misleading. The Authority advises the public to play responsibly with operators licensed by jurisdictions that have sound remote gaming regulations.’
Regulators from Alderney, Gibraltar and Jersey got together recently in London to discuss online gambling with a UK parliamentary select committee. This is in preparation of the U.K.’s restructuring of the Gambling Act of 2005. These other regulated environments are looking to circumvent issues posed by the rogue gambling web sites. In retrospect the Full Tilt fiasco is still having repercussions for the regulating bodies. Hard questions are being presented to the regulating bodies forcing the Authorities to examine their strengths and weaknesses.
Alderney Gambling Control Commission executive director Andre Wilsenach, has called for a system that would “create a very careful risk profile of operators depending on which jurisdictions they do business in, what payment processors they use and so forth … if it requires that you audit their statements and financials on a quarterly basis, and if they have to pay for it, then so be it. That would be the requirement of operators who fall into that risk profile.”
It has been reported by SportsBookReview.com that 21KBet has 19 players with as much as €20k on deposit. These individuals are complaining that there have been issues regarding the payout of winnings. 21KBet is not taking responsibility but is shifting the onus on Moneybookers for the problems. Moneybookers has denied that 21KBet is an authorized merchant.
Malta’s LGA issued a statement regarding the rogue web site, ‘The Lotteries and Gaming Authority (the ‘Authority’) would like to inform the public that the website 21kbet.com has no connection whatsoever with the Authority and therefore any reference to the Authority and, or license issued by the Authority on the mentioned website is false and misleading. The Authority advises the public to play responsibly with operators licensed by jurisdictions that have sound remote gaming regulations.’
Regulators from Alderney, Gibraltar and Jersey got together recently in London to discuss online gambling with a UK parliamentary select committee. This is in preparation of the U.K.’s restructuring of the Gambling Act of 2005. These other regulated environments are looking to circumvent issues posed by the rogue gambling web sites. In retrospect the Full Tilt fiasco is still having repercussions for the regulating bodies. Hard questions are being presented to the regulating bodies forcing the Authorities to examine their strengths and weaknesses.
Alderney Gambling Control Commission executive director Andre Wilsenach, has called for a system that would “create a very careful risk profile of operators depending on which jurisdictions they do business in, what payment processors they use and so forth … if it requires that you audit their statements and financials on a quarterly basis, and if they have to pay for it, then so be it. That would be the requirement of operators who fall into that risk profile.”
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
I've written my fair share of compulsive gambling stories over the years, about people who commit suicide because of gambling debts or steal tens of thousands of dollars from employers so they can spend endless hours losing the money at poker tables or feeding it into slot machines.
And yet I think the casino industry makes a fair argument when it suggests that you shouldn't outlaw bars because there are alcoholics.
Still, I worry what will happen when endless gambling is just a click away.
At least now, to do any serious betting, you have to stub out the cigarette, get out of your jammies and drive either to a local convenience store for a scratch-off ticket or to a casino, which at least offers the pretense of other entertainment.
Anyone with any compulsive inclinations at all will almost certainly get sucked into easy, online, stay-at-home gambling, especially if it is run aggressively by the big American gambling companies.
A recent federal ruling appeared to open the door to legal Internet gambling, and already plans are under way in New Jersey to make it a reality there. The governor says he will sign a bill that is being worked on in the legislature.
Other states are closing in fast, too.
Here in Connecticut, where Gov. Dannel Malloy never saw a new tax he didn't like, it appears things are going to happen soon.
Not only has Malloy been making happy Internet gambling noises, but both Connecticut Indian gaming tribes have signaled they may be working on rolling something out.
Mohegan Tribal Chairman Bruce "Two Dogs" Bozsum told Politico earlier this month that the tribe has been preparing an online gaming scheme for years. He disclosed that he also met recently with Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman to pitch online poker.
"This is already happening. It just needs some regulation," he said. "Let's get things in place and catch up to the rest of the world as far as Internet gambling goes."
This reminded me of the surprise announcement, back in January 1993, from Connecticut Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. that he had signed a deal with the Mashantuckets allowing them the exclusive use of slot machines in the state, at their then tables-only casino, in exchange for 25 percent of the revenues.
That was the first weaving of a complex tapestry of legal agreements that has kept gambling in Connecticut the exclusive right of the two tribes, except for the lottery.
Adding to it, or unraveling it, would seem to be the next order of business, if Internet gambling is at the door.
Do the tribes still get exclusivity? Can the state put its lottery online? Will the tribes still pay only on slots or will they pay, too, on new online games? If an outside gaming company is allowed in, would the tribes argue that breaks their exclusivity deal?
I'd bet a lot, online or not, that these are the subjects of talks between tribal officials and Wyman and other Malloy delegates.
I think maybe Malloy is right to be poised to make sure the state is out front on this issue, as Internet gambling starts to roar out of the cage.
He rightly noted that the Internet knows no state boundaries and that Connecticut - and a gambling business here that contributes a lot to the economy and to state coffers - easily could be left behind.
On the other hand, cooler heads might prevail all around the country. The federal government could look more closely at the dangers that soon could be unleashed.
And as some here in Connecticut are already warning, letting gambling from the state migrate online could harm all the jobs in the brick and mortar gambling houses, mostly here in eastern Connecticut.
Changes in the law since Weicker's surprise deal with the Mashantuckets make a surprise Malloy deal with the tribes on Internet gambling unlikely. The legislature will need to be cut in.
Malloy, no stranger to the so-called sin taxes, is already pushing for Sunday sales of liquor, and he seems to like the idea of online gambling.
If only he could tax online pornography, maybe he woudn't raise income and sales taxes again.
This is the opinion of David Collins.
And yet I think the casino industry makes a fair argument when it suggests that you shouldn't outlaw bars because there are alcoholics.
Still, I worry what will happen when endless gambling is just a click away.
At least now, to do any serious betting, you have to stub out the cigarette, get out of your jammies and drive either to a local convenience store for a scratch-off ticket or to a casino, which at least offers the pretense of other entertainment.
Anyone with any compulsive inclinations at all will almost certainly get sucked into easy, online, stay-at-home gambling, especially if it is run aggressively by the big American gambling companies.
A recent federal ruling appeared to open the door to legal Internet gambling, and already plans are under way in New Jersey to make it a reality there. The governor says he will sign a bill that is being worked on in the legislature.
Other states are closing in fast, too.
Here in Connecticut, where Gov. Dannel Malloy never saw a new tax he didn't like, it appears things are going to happen soon.
Not only has Malloy been making happy Internet gambling noises, but both Connecticut Indian gaming tribes have signaled they may be working on rolling something out.
Mohegan Tribal Chairman Bruce "Two Dogs" Bozsum told Politico earlier this month that the tribe has been preparing an online gaming scheme for years. He disclosed that he also met recently with Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman to pitch online poker.
"This is already happening. It just needs some regulation," he said. "Let's get things in place and catch up to the rest of the world as far as Internet gambling goes."
This reminded me of the surprise announcement, back in January 1993, from Connecticut Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. that he had signed a deal with the Mashantuckets allowing them the exclusive use of slot machines in the state, at their then tables-only casino, in exchange for 25 percent of the revenues.
That was the first weaving of a complex tapestry of legal agreements that has kept gambling in Connecticut the exclusive right of the two tribes, except for the lottery.
Adding to it, or unraveling it, would seem to be the next order of business, if Internet gambling is at the door.
Do the tribes still get exclusivity? Can the state put its lottery online? Will the tribes still pay only on slots or will they pay, too, on new online games? If an outside gaming company is allowed in, would the tribes argue that breaks their exclusivity deal?
I'd bet a lot, online or not, that these are the subjects of talks between tribal officials and Wyman and other Malloy delegates.
I think maybe Malloy is right to be poised to make sure the state is out front on this issue, as Internet gambling starts to roar out of the cage.
He rightly noted that the Internet knows no state boundaries and that Connecticut - and a gambling business here that contributes a lot to the economy and to state coffers - easily could be left behind.
On the other hand, cooler heads might prevail all around the country. The federal government could look more closely at the dangers that soon could be unleashed.
And as some here in Connecticut are already warning, letting gambling from the state migrate online could harm all the jobs in the brick and mortar gambling houses, mostly here in eastern Connecticut.
Changes in the law since Weicker's surprise deal with the Mashantuckets make a surprise Malloy deal with the tribes on Internet gambling unlikely. The legislature will need to be cut in.
Malloy, no stranger to the so-called sin taxes, is already pushing for Sunday sales of liquor, and he seems to like the idea of online gambling.
If only he could tax online pornography, maybe he woudn't raise income and sales taxes again.
This is the opinion of David Collins.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
.jpg?v=1.014689161)
.png?v=1.014689161)
That's how much money went to political parties and nearly 40 committees run by top legislators in a six-month stretch ending Dec. 31, new reports show.
Unlike candidates' campaign accounts, which are limited by $500 contribution limits, special committees and party can receive unlimited donations.
The big winner: the Republican Party of Florida, which received $7.5 million in the final three months 2011 alone — its biggest off-year quarter in the past 15 years. The Florida Democratic Party received $1.8 million in the same period.
"The Republican Senate majority has been more successful at attracting support than at any period in our history," said Senate President-designate Don Gaetz, R-Niceville.
The biggest donor overall was health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida. Its companies gave more than $1.5 million to the lawmakers' funds and parties over the final six months of last year, including $660,000 to the Republican Party of Florida in the final three months of 2011. The insurance company contributed $50,000 to the Florida Democratic Party.
"Donations to political candidates and organizations are designed to support our public policy positions to offer protection to as many Floridians as possible and promote our commitment to the public good," company spokesman John Herbkersman said in an email.
From Oct. 1-Dec. 31, top donors to the Republican Party included Progess Energy ($220,000), casino interest Genting ($200,000) and Walt Disney World ($165,000). The Seminole Tribe, another gaming interest, gave $175,000.
The big givers to the Democratic Party were Disney ($155,000), the Seminole Tribe ($105,00) and Genting ($103,000). Those three groups are involved in a fight to bring three resort-style casinos to the state.
A committee affiliated with Republican Gov. Rick Scott, Let's Get to Work, raised $437,000 in the last half of 2011, including $100,000 from the Florida Retail Federation.
Gambling money was a theme throughout most of the fundraising reports.
One of the most vociferous opponents to the casino proposal, Walt Disney World companies, donated $672,000 to the parties and lawmaker committees in the second half of 2011. Florida Jobs PAC, a committee affiliated with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, another casino critic, donated $370,000.
But supporter Genting brought its checkbook, contributing $509,000, too.
Another big donor was Automated Healthcare Solutions, which furnished $470,000. The Miramar firm sought tighter reporting requirements for prescription drug monitoring. It makes software used by workers compensation doctors who dispense drugs in-house.
The largesse of cash reflects the tensions and uncertainty of a redistricting year and the pressures to keep the Republican majorities, said lobbyist Ron Book.
"Do I hope that a phone call gets returned? Do I hope I get an appointment when I want? I sure hope so," said Book, a veteran lobbyist who gave more than $120,000 in latter half of 2011. "But there is no quid pro quo."
Recipients hope the money can rub off, too.
For example, Sen. Jack Latvala, who wants to become Senate president in 2015, has ties to three committees that took in more than $368,000 for the last half of 2011.
His rival for the Senate presidency, Andy Gardiner of Orlando took in more than $500,000 through two committees.
"Obviously, I use that to help people who think the way I think up here,"said Latvala, R-Clearwater.