Land-based casinos are changing their wagering methods to non-cash systems. This will ensure a safer environment, and faster paced wagers. This seems like a great idea, but is there a double standard here?

Cash Systems, Inc. now has a new payment method called Powercash. Casino clientele must register for the casino player’s club card with the Cash System cashclub feature. That player can then transfer funds from their credit cards, or their credit cards and checking accounts to their casino players club card. All this can be done without ever having to leave the gaming machine they are playing at. When the transaction is complete, the player can choose the amount they wish to wager. The selected funds are then deposited directly into the credit meter. The first casino to have the Powercash option was Fantasy Springs Casino and resort on November 9, 2007.

Other payment systems include Cashclub, eCash checking, and Tablecash. Cashclub allows players to draw funds from the ATM with their casino club cards. eCash checking allows players to cash checks in less than 8 seconds without having to deposit it first. Tablecash is a handheld device through which players can transfer funds from their credit or debit cards to purchase chips.

Our land casinos can use wireless wagering systems and other methods for gambling without the use of hard cash. However, if a U.S. citizen attempts to gamble online, credit card companies and other financial institutions must deny them by law. Why is it any different for a land-based casino to offer such methods?

We all have heard the arguments against online gambling time and again. It doesn’t matter how many excuses we hear, or how often we hear them…it never adds up. The U.S. allows one company’s service after making it illegal for a large number of other companies to offer virtually the same services.

Other than this legal contradiction, I think these payment methods are (for the most part) positive additions to a casino’s atmosphere. Carrying a large amount of cash can feel threatening, as there is always a chance of it being lost or stolen. You may lose your cash club card, but your funds cannot be accessed without a pin number.

Another positive element of these payment methods is the potential raise in a casino’s profits. The clientele will actually be carrying around more money than if they were carrying hard cash. On the negative side, this feature may be more dangerous for some of the players. Gamblers will have to be more careful with their funds. They will be in a fun and intense gambling atmosphere, and will probably be more inclined to be irresponsible with their accounts.

There are pros and cons to just about everything in life. No matter what these are, everyone should have the opportunity to participate.

By Victoria Maro

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to address the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The hearing took place on November 14 as a result of lobbyist efforts from the Poker Players Alliance. The purpose was to discuss methods of regulation vs. prohibition and to define what is legal and what is not.

Since the bill passed, there has been confusion among citizens, enforcers and even the lawmakers themselves as to how to interpret the legislation. It’s frustrating that a law could be so wishy-washy. Even the lawmakers didn’t want to deal with it after signing it into legislation, so they threw it into the hands of financial institutions to interpret and enforce. And it can’t be ignored that there are pending lawsuits about its legality toward international trade laws. There is something very wrong here.

The hearing on November 14 was supposed to shed some light on the UIGEA bill, but it seems that it only accomplished more contradictions. Present at this hearing was Catherine Hanaway, an attorney for the Department of Justice. She said that it was illegal for any online gambling company to accept bets from U.S. citizens, but that it was not illegal for a U.S. citizen to gamble online because there is no current legislation to prohibit it (What?). How can so much incompetence exist within positions of power? If this is how the country’s governing system works, they might as well just throw in the towel.

Also discussed was internet sports betting, which was the only item prohibited by the Wire Act of 1961. Hanaway did not know how to reply when horse betting and fantasy sports was brought forward. She did, however, report that BetonSports had horse betting that was illegal. Why is it only illegal for this company and allowed for others? Never mind. She probably doesn’t know that either.

Is there anyone in Congress that understands this bill? Perhaps they do and are purposefully trying to keep everyone confused and wondering. Could it be an easy way out for them? If you did something wrong, the simplest resolve is to pretend ignorance. Or perhaps they have an agenda that would be easiest accomplished by keeping it out of the reach of their opponents. It’s more difficult to contest something you don’t know or understand.

Two excuses they have riddled us with time and again are issues of morality and terrorism. Who do they think they’re fooling? Not many people still believe the war is about terrorism. If that were true, Bush would be more concerned with Bin Laden instead of trying to create a democracy for a country that doesn’t want it. And if gambling can fund terrorism, so can anything else. If the morality issue was of real concern, they would do away with land casinos and state lotteries. So what is their “real” agenda?

Obviously, if their reason for this bill were an honest one, there would be no confusion. It is very possible that their plan is to monopolize the gambling industry. In the United States, monopolies are taking over everything. Fast food restaurants, grocery stores, etc. These large companies and super stores are continuously smothering out the middleman and are already well on their way to ruling the country’s economy. And yes, “monopolies” have even taken over politics (both federal and local). Considering this, it only makes sense that this is their true agenda. By eliminating online casinos, only the richest people who are granted permission can own and operate such a business. And the government has the final say and the ultimate control.

By Victoria Maro