Jim Sensenbrenner – a U.S. representative from Wisconsin – has asked the DOJ to get involved with sports betting, as he doesn’t believe that individual states have the ‘intelligence’ to make their own sports-betting related decisions.
Last week he sent a letter to the U.S. Deputy Attorney Rod Rothstein, in which he said: “It’s Congress had work to do to endure the public is protected, and any potential for exploitation is minimized in this post-PASPA era.” He also hinted towards a “legislative response.” The letter goes on to request the DOJ states where it stands on sports gambling – and, in particular, the Wire Act.
Sensenbrenner is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. The committee had started to conduct an official federal hearing back in September, but they appeared to be unable to complete the investigation required, and while they had invented the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling to testify at the hearing, the direction soon went towards the Wire Act (and the subsequent decision by the DOJ 7 years ago that lead to state-regulated poker and certain online gambling forms.)
Under the Wire Act, sports betting is prohibited – however, because individual states only want to regulate intrastate sports gambling, the Wire Act is irelevant.
What Is The Wire Act?
The Wire Act is a (draconian) piece of legislation, that begins by saying:
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
It’s caused great controversy throughout the United States, and it continues to be fought by libertarian and pro-gambling groups.
Interestingly, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has, in the past, ruled that the Wire Act only prohibits the wagering of sports betting – and does not apply to other forms online gambling online gambling.
In his letter to Rothstein, Sensenbrenner has also hinted that he wants to know what “guidance”, if any, the Department of Justice is giving to states that do decide to go down the legalization of sports betting.
He says: “Such wagering — combined with the issuance of an opinion by the previous administration’s Office of Legal Counsel reinterpreting the Wire Act — will allow for exploitation of Internet gambling by criminal and terrorist organizations to obtain funds, launder money, and engage in identity theft and other cybercrimes.”
Of course, his point of view is not one that’s shared by many – and he appears to be putting his OWN interests in mind, rather than that of his constituents. For example, where Sensenbrenner argues that money-laundering and identity theft are “problematic” areas of online gambling, he fails to account for that fact that both of these have similarly been shown to be problems within the land-based casino area. There are also a number of additional measures that can be implemented online to ensure that players aren’t laundering money or using someone else’s identity – something that we’ve seen successfully utilized by the United Kingdom’s Gambling Commission and the Maltese Gaming Authority.
It remains to be seen as to whether or not the DOJ steps in – but given the positives in the U.S. over the last few months, when it comes to online gambling, punters have their fingers crossed that the law continues to move in the right direction.