Unable to accept that the United States is currently moving towards a whole different phase in its gambling sphere, yet another politician is making desperate attempts to breath life into the Wire Act. Wisconsin Representative Jim Sensenbrenner wrote a letter to the US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein listing reasons why he believes the 1961 Wire Act, a Federal law prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting, should be restored. In 2011, the US Department of Justice issued a formal legal opinion that the Wire Act only applied to sports betting and not other types of online gambling. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court ruled an end to a statewide sports betting ban (PASPA) and allowed states to decide on whether to legalize this activity within their borders.
Rep. Sensenbrenner currently serves as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. In his letter, he asked the Deputy AG whether the Wire Act still bears legal weight. He listed once again all the arguments that have been by online gambling opponents for so long in their attempts to stop the industry, including fears of terrorism funding.
According to Sensenbrenner, Congress was obliged to take the steps to ensure that “the public is protected, and any potential for exploitation by criminals is minimized in this post-PASPA era.”
Sensenbrenner is completely opposed to the current trend that individual states make up their own mind about legal sports betting and online gambling and said that if Congress does nothing about taking responsibility, this would be the “worst option”. He called for the adoption of uniform practices towards online gambling in the United States, as well as a re-enactment of the Wire Act.
According to the lawmaker, online betting would “allow for exploitation of internet gambling by criminal and terrorist organizations to obtain funds, launder money, and engage in identity theft and other cybercrimes.”
Sensenbrenner suggests that the Department of Justice issues guidance to states regarding the interpretation of current laws. He said that it was imperative in order to “protect the American public”.
