More on the US online gaming ban

Jacob Sullum looks into the actual provisions of the latest attempt by the US federal government to ban online gambling:

Contrary to early press reports, Congress has not banned online gambling. Instead it has opted to maintain an uncertain legal environment in which businesses that cater to Americans' taste for betting run the risk of harassment and prosecution by overzealous Justice Department officials who twist the law to fit their moral views.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was tacked onto a bill dealing with port security right before Congress adjourned for the elections, makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to receive a payment in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling." It also mandates regulations requiring financial institutions to block such payments.

But the act defines "unlawful Internet gambling" as online wagering that is already prohibited by state or federal law. It explicitly does not expand the category of forbidden gambling.

So, if Sullum's reading is correct, the bill is nothing more than a last-minute election ploy, rather than a considered, deliberate attempt to kill a thriving online business. Cynical as hell, yes, but not actually much more in the way of government interference.

Update: Radley Balko has more:

In the wee hours of the last night of the last session of Congress, Majority Leader Bill Frist attached a ban on Internet gambling to a port security bill.

It was a dubious maneuver, which not only prevented any real floor debate over the ban, but also attached an intrusive, unnecessary, big government measure to a bill that addressed important national security concerns. This meant that any senator who held the position that what Americans do with their own money in their own homes on their own time is none of the government's business couldn't vote against the gambling ban, lest they risk being smacked about the head with the "soft on national security" cudgel.

If Frist's move was underhanded, it was also wholly appropriate, given the way the GOP has handled this issue. The debate — to the extent that there has actually been one — has been marred by misdirection, red herrings, and a certain obliviousness among the bill's supporters to, well, reality.

That's a legislative mechanism I always forget about . . . but it seems that the very worst laws are passed by being attached to other bills and being voted on with the bill they're "riding". It always seems to be the worst examples of new restrictions on individuals' and corporations' economic freedoms, bans of consensual interactions, and criminalization of otherwise harmless activities that come into law using this mechanism.

You might well be able to make a case that the "rider" is one of the least democratic ways of making laws: because they're attached to bills that get the vast majority of the scrutiny of the legislators, they often appear to be passed unread by the legislature.