UIGEA does more harm than good, study says

[The Buzz]

According to a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act's unintended consequences do much more harm than their intended consequences (stopping Internet gambling), which the law doesn't really do anyway.

“The Act is unlikely to stop Internet gambling and could even threaten the stable, smooth operation of America’s banking system,” said Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer and author of the study Time to Fold the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act . “UIGEA and its currently proposed enabling regulations will undermine the financial privacy of all Americans and reduce the security of their bank accounts. In short, it makes almost no financial, social, or economic sense.”

Some members of Congress are at least aware of the problems with gambling ban. On April 2nd, the House Committee on Financial Services is scheduled to hold a hearing titled “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?” to detail what has gone wrong with its implementation and how to fix it. Ideally, however, they would go much farther.

“Even before it considers proposals for the regulation of online gambling, Congress should consider an outright repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” said Lehrer. “The law has very little to do with gambling and serves as a poorly thought-out banking regulation fraught with potentially perverse incentives. Quite simply, it is a bad law. Repealing it makes sense.”

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/032802.html

[vinism]

Nice find Buzzy. Just so people can better evaluate this, I'm going to offer a bit of background on the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which published this paper. CEI is a think tank that is a big believer that free market and enterprise principles are critical components of sound public policy. In addition, the Institute tends to favor limited government. Given that world view, it's not surprising that the CEI is against the UIGEA regulations. But also understand that this is the same organization that disputes the science behind global warming and sees no reason to address the issue. So in the minds of many Democratic policy makers, there is a credibility gap.