Losing the Battle But Winning the War: The Federal Government's Attempts to Regulate Internet Gaming Through Utilization of the Wire Act and Other Means
I. Introduction
The topic of Internet gaming[1] elicits varying responses. These responses are as numerous and diverse as the people utilizing the very thing at issue. There are cries to completely legalize it[2] and also attempts to update existing legislation, which the federal government uses to combat it.[3] Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, there is no denying that Internet gaming has enjoyed a surge in popularity over the past decade. Internet gaming revenues have risen dramatically from $445 million in 1997[4] to more than $4 billion in 2003.[5] Americans account for the majority of this market,[6] despite the fact that the laws of each state currently prohibit any form of Internet gaming[7] and the federal government also takes the position that such activity is illegal.[8]
Because of the massive increase in Internet gaming, it is no surprise that the federal government has stepped in and tried to gain control of the situation. Historically in the United States, “whenever new communications arise, whether mail, radio, telephone, or a computer network, the federal government has perceived a threat of increased gambling and has passed or attempted to pass prohibiting legislation.”[9] This is the case despite the fact that gambling regulation is an area that has traditionally been left to the discretion of the states.[10] The reason for the departure from the traditional method of state-based regulation when dealing with new communications mediums stems from the interstate nature of such media.[11] The states have realized that they are unable to deal with the situation, and consequently have requested that the federal government get involved.[12]
Despite the aforementioned wishes of the states, federal legislation aimed at combating Internet gambling has failed to gain passage by Congress,[13] and therefore the present situation is “a stunning example of technology outpacing the law.”[14] The only way that the federal government has been able to attempt prosecution of Internet gambling operations is through application of decades old statutes,[15] specifically the Wire Act,[16] Travel Act,[17] Illegal Gambling Business Act[18] and the Wagering Paraphernalia Act.[19] These statutes, which were designed to help the government prosecute organized crime (which relied heavily on gambling), “were passed with a direct legislative intent that [they] be applied extraterritorially as demonstrated by the use of broad prohibiting words in each statute including `interstate or foreign commerce.'”[20]
Any of these statutes could provide a feasible option for the prosecution of those involved in the business of Internet gambling. “The Travel Act prohibits interstate or foreign travel or use of an interstate facility in furtherance of an unlawful business enterprise.”[21]
A conviction under the Illegal Gambling Business Act requires a showing that there is a gambling operation which (1) is in violation of state or local law; (2) involves five or more persons that either conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of the business; and (3) remains in substantially continuous operation for thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 on any given day.[22]
The Wagering Paraphernalia Act “criminalizes the interstate transportation, except by common carrier, of any record, writing, paraphernalia or device used, adapted or devised for use in bookmaking, sports wagering pools, policy, bolita or similar games.”[23] Despite the apparent feasibility of using the Travel, Illegal Gambling Business and Wagering Paraphernalia Acts to prosecute those involved in Internet gambling operations, the Wire Act has become the federal government's primary enforcement mechanism.[24]
II. Overview of the Wire Act
The Wire Act was passed in 1961 in an attempt, as was mentioned earlier, to combat organized crime. It was aimed at the increasing use of telephones and other communications facilities by illegal sports-betting operations.[25] The act prohibits:
[b]eing engaged in the business of betting or wagering [and] knowingly us[ing] 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.[26]
For liability to arise under the Wire Act, one must be more than just a casual gambler (“engaged in the business of betting of wagering”).[27] Satisfaction of the knowledge element (“knowingly”) has been interpreted by the courts to require only that the accused was aware that the acts proscribed by the statute were being committed, and not that the person understood the statute or even knew of its existence.[28]
In the context of the statute, a “wire communication facility” is defined as:
[A]ny and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.[29]
No liability exists under the Wire Act if the information being transmitted is for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests.[30] Additionally, there exists a “safe harbor” provision that is applicable to transmissions between locations in which such betting is legal and where the transmission is limited only to information that assists other in the placing of bets (the transmission may not include the bets themselves).[31]
III. Important Judicial Decision Addressing the Wire Act's Applicability to Internet Gambling
The federal government's efforts at prosecuting Internet gambling under the Wire Act have been met with mixed results. Few court decisions have resulted in a situation where the government believes the applicable law to be one way, Internet gambling advocates believe it to be another, and lingering judicial ambiguities mean that no one knows for sure.
In United States v. Cohen, the defendant was charged with conspiracy and substantive offenses in violation of the Wire Act.[32] These allegations stemmed from Cohen's running of the World Sports Exchange (WSE), an offshore Internet sports book.[33] FBI agents in New York were able to contact the WSE by both telephone and the internet and were able to open accounts and place bets with WSE through these communications media.[34] The conspiracy count and five of the seven substantive counts, that Cohen faced alleged violation of all three prohibitive clauses of the Wire Act.[35] In the other two substantive counts, “he was charged only with transmitting `information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.'”[36] Cohen was convicted on all counts on February 28, 2000.[37]
As opposed to that in Cohen, the court in In re Mastercard International (“Mastercard”) was dealing with alleged Wire Act liability based not on Internet sports gambling but on Internet casino type gaming.[38] The plaintiffs in this case consisted of several gamblers who were suing various credit card companies and the banks issuing the cards for interacting with Internet casinos in a way that allegedly violated state and federal law.[39] Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the “defendants' actions constitute[d] a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act” (RICO).[40] In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, the District Court spoke at length about why the Wire Act failed to cover Internet gambling on anything other than sporting events. Initially, they noted that “a plain reading of the statutory language clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest.”[41] Further, they asserted that a reading of the case law dealing with the Wire Act leads to the same conclusion.[42] Even though the court saw no reason to examine the legislative history of the statute due to their drawing of a clear conclusion based on its wording and case law history, they took a “summary glance” and reinforced their position with the findings. There had been recent attempts to amend the Wire Act to encompass “contest[s] of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of [the bettor].”[43] Also, as to the legislative intent at the time of passage, the “House Judiciary Committed [sic] Chairman explained that `this particular bill involves the transmission of wagers or bets and layoffs on horse racing and other sporting events.'”[44]
About all that can be drawn from these cases for certain is that “the Wire Act clearly prohibits the use of the Internet for transmission of sports bets or wagers or information assisting in the placement of such bets or wagers, unless transmission falls within one of the two exceptions . . . .”[45] The Cohen court did not examine the issue of non-sports related Internet gambling and it is possible that they would have decided that the Wire Act applies to it, but such gambling is obviously not prohibited, at least by the Wire Act, in the Fifth Circuit under Mastercard.
IV. Enforcement Problems
As has already been stated, the Wire Act's applicability to a large percentage of Internet gambling (that which is non-sports related) is doubtful. Even if the Act was determined to apply to all Internet gambling, the federal government would still have multiple problems in confronting such gambling by using it.[46]
The first of these problems is due to the location of the Internet gambling operations that the government seeks to prosecute. There are an estimated 1,800 Internet gambling operations in existence, and virtually all are based outside of the United States.[47] Since the Wire Act is only applicable to those “engaged in the business of betting or wagering,” the only people that can be prosecuted under the statute are located abroad. This could render the jurisdiction question tricky in some cases.
In Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. . . . the court adopted an approach [to Internet-based jurisdiction analysis] under which “the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet.” . . . [J]urisdiction would depend on examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the website. . . . [A situation] involving the most uncertainty . . . as to personal jurisdiction would be [the] mere exchange of information by a user and a host.[48]
Transmission of information assisting in the placements of bets or wagers is enough for criminal liability under the Wire Act, and this is a level of interaction that would put the jurisdictional issue onto “uncertain” grounds under the ruling in Zippo. Additionally, a successful prosecution of any person located internationally would depend on the other country's cooperation in the proceeding. Many of the countries where Internet gambling operations are based have not criminalized the practice and some even rely on it as a major part of their economies.[49] For example, it is estimated that online casinos employ 3,000 of Antigua's 67,000 residents.[50] For obvious reasons, any help towards the prosecution of those involved in Internet gaming from a country such as this is unthinkable. The result is that operators of Internet gambling enterprises need only remain outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States in order to avoid prosecution by the federal government.
Besides the problems associated with the locations of those able to be prosecuted under the Wire Act, additional difficulty comes from the fact that technology may soon outpace the Wire Act's relevancy altogether. “Integral to the Act's definition of `wire communication' is a “`wire, cable, or [any] other like connection.'”[51] Because of the advent of wireless Internet capabilities, the “wire communication” required for the Act to apply may soon be non-existent in Internet communications.[52]
A further blow to United States' attempts to prosecute Internet gaming operators came recently when the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the United States' prohibitions on Americans placing bets in offshore Internet casino's were an unfair trade barrier and violated trade agreements that had been reached as part of the WTO agreement.[53] The ruling is seen by some in the Internet gaming industry as the last push needed for the federal government to change their tune and begin a plan of regulation and taxation rather than prosecution.[54] In truth, the ruling will likely not have such an immediate effect. The government has vowed to appeal, and even if that fails, the WTO does not have any real enforcement mechanism.[55] Even if the verdict does not have the influence that some in the Internet gaming industry hope that it will, it still serves as a reminder of how the United States' policy towards Internet gaming is diametrically opposed to that of many other counties.[56] Due to all of the problems associated with the Wire Act's use against Internet gambling operations, and also the inability of Congress to pass legislation that would clear up some of the statutory ambiguities within the act, it seems doubtful that the federal government will ever be able to effectively control Internet gambling through utilization of the Wire Act.
V. If Not the Wire Act, Then What?
Considering the hardships associated with the federal government's use of the Wire Act to prosecute those engaged in the business of Internet gambling, it is easy to draw the conclusion that such gambling will continue unimpeded within the United States. In actuality, this is not the case. The federal government is using other methods besides prosecution under the Wire Act to bring the problem (as they see it) under control.
First, they are threatening aiding and abetting liability against anyone who performs services for Internet gambling operations, such as banks or advertisers.[57] This has proven to be a very effective step.
[I]t is obvious that, in order for an Internet or related telephonic gambling operation to be commercially viable, money must flow from bettors to the operator and presumably in the opposite direction as well. The mechanisms for these transfers are the financial service providers, i.e. credit card companies, banks, and other entities that provide the means for funds transfers. Control of such financial service providers can therefore constitute a very potent and effective means of enforcing—albeit indirectly—a prohibition against illegal gambling activity.[58]
Some of the largest banks are now refusing to let customers use their cards in connection with online gambling.[59] Further, even more daring financial institutions have begun to follow their larger, more conservative counterparts and are declining to process these transactions.[60] Since the banks and credit card companies were reaping large sums from the processing of such these transactions, why would they so quickly cease doing so? The main reason is that “[c]redit card executives have a real fear that what they are doing may be illegal,” and that they may be subject to RICO liability if they continue.[61] It is not worth it to them to take a large risk for a reward that represents a small fraction of the transactions that their companies do.[62] With regard to advertisers, in a move strikingly similar to what occurred with credit card companies, many have quickly dropped their advertisements for Internet gambling, likely in response to federal pressure.[63] The position of members of the Justice Department is that because Internet gambling is illegal throughout the United States, carrying advertisements relating to it is equivalent to carrying advertisements for illegal drugs of prostitution.[64]
VI. The Future of Internet Gambling
in the United States
It is unlikely that they federal government will change its position regarding Internet gaming in the near future. They maintain their belief that the Wire Act applies to all types of Internet gambling, despite the fact that the Mastercard interpretation is likely to be the one adopted in other circuits when they have the chance to consider the issue.[65] Additionally, their resolve does not seem to have wavered subsequent to the WTO verdict. This is not surprising, as Internet gambling presents additional problems not associated with traditional casino gambling. It also lacks many of the benefits that contribute to the willingness of federal and state governments to tolerate it when it is in the form of brick and mortar casinos.
Internet gambling is far more accessible to minors than is the gaming that takes place in a traditional casino setting.[66] All that a minor has to do is gain access to a credit card number, and typically they can from that set up an account and begin gambling.[67] Second, the development of casinos is believed by many to create jobs and stimulate the economy in those cities where they are located.[68] Indeed, many of the poorest communities in America have received new economic hope in the form of local casino gambling.[69] Internet gambling, in contrast, does not create any jobs or stimulate economic activity in any city (at least within the United States). American citizens lose millions of dollars yearly to enterprises that create a return to them and their country of next to nothing. When these negatives associated with the availability of Internet gambling domestically are considered, it is easy to understand why the state and federal governments have taken such a strong stand against it.
It is the federal government's willingness to continue fighting Internet gaming, even after the short-comings of the Wire Act as a vehicle for doing so became evident, that will be the reason for its decline in the United States in the coming years. The difficulty in obtaining ways to conduct the transaction, as well as the declining availability of advertising for these enterprises, will hinder their ability to market towards or do business with the American public. The federal government is beginning to turn the tide in its war on Internet gambling, even if use of the Wire Act was not the method that enabled it to do so.
C. Jeremy Pope*
[1] In the context of this paper, both “gaming” and “gambling,” when used in relation to the Internet, should be regarded as interchangeable and both are to be interpreted to refer to any way in which the elements of consideration, chance, and prize are made available to a player by way of Internet usage.
[2] Tom W. Bell, Director of Telecommunications and Technology Studies at the Cato Institute, Testimony before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (May 21, 1998), at http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tb052198.html (asserting that “[p]rohibiting Internet gambling will not make it inaccessible, whereas legalizing it will put the benefits of increased competition within the rule of law”).
[3] See Benjamin Spillman, Law Seeks to Outlaw Internet Gambling, The Desert Sun, Oct. 9, 2000, available at LEXIS, News Library.
[4] Tony Batt, Internet Gaming Back in Forefront, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Apr. 2, 2004, available at http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Apr-02-Fri-2004/business/23573242.html.
[5] Gregory Manter, The Pending Determination of the Legality of Internet Gambling in the United States, 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 16, ¶ 1 (2003), at www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0016.html.
[7] Jonathan Gottfried, The Federal Framework for Internet Gambling, 10 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 26 (2004), at http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/vloi3/article26.pdf. The author notes that the Nevada legislature has passed a bill which would allow the Nevada Gaming Commission to permit Internet gambling if such gambling could be made to conform with federal law. Id. at n.7. This is of no consequence at present because it is the federal government's position that federal law prohibits all gambling over the Internet. Thus, it would be impossible for Nevada to create a conforming system. See Antonia Z. Cowan, The Global Gambling Village: Interstate and Transnational Gambling, 7 Gaming L. Rev. 251, 269-270 app. B (2003) (citing letter from Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General, to Peter Bernhard, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission (Aug. 23, 2002)).
[10] See Gottfried, supra note 7, ¶ 2. Although the federal efforts represent an intrusion into an area of regulation typically left to the states, it is doubtful that the states have any complaints regarding such efforts, since they requested them. See infra note 12 and accompanying text.
[11] See, e.g., Internet Gambling: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (1999) (statement of Senator Jon Kyl), available at http://www.techlawjournal. com/cong106/gambling/19990323kyl.htm.
Not every problem that is national is also necessarily federal. Internet gambling is a national problem AND a federal problem. The Internet is, of course, interstate in nature. States cannot protect their citizens from Internet gambling if anyone can transmit it into their states.
Id. (emphasis in original).
[T]he State Attorneys General asked for federal legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee members, the Chairs of the Association's Internet Working Group stressed the need for federal involvement: “[M]ore than any other area of the law, gambling has traditionally been regulated on a state-by-state basis, with little uniformity and minimal federal oversight. The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, threatens to disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public welfare and fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state and national boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.”
Id. (emphasis added) (alteration in original).
[13] See Craig Lang, Notes & Comments, Internet Gambling: Nevada Logs In, 22 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 525, 534-36 (2002) (listing multiple Congressional attempts to pass legislation aimed at combating Internet gambling and the failure of each), available at http://elr.lls.edu/issues/v22-issue2/lang.pdf.
[14] Lawrence G. Walters, The Law of Online Gambling in the United States—A Safe Bet, or Risky Business?, 7 Gaming L. Rev. 445, 445 (2003).
[15] See, e.g., United States v. Cohen, 260 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussed further infra); In re Mastercard Int'l Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D. La. 2001), aff'd, 313 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2002) (discussed further infra); United States v. Kaczowski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 143 (W.D.N.Y. 2000); People ex rel. Vacco v. World Interactive Gaming Corp., 714 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999).
[22] Jeffrey R. Rodefer, Internet Gambling in Nevada: Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466, 6 Gaming L. Rev. 393, 396 (2002).
[26] 18 U.S.C. § 1084 (1961). Upon conviction, one may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of up to two years. Id.
[27] Id. See Rodefer, supra note 22, at 398 (“[C]asual bettors . . . fall outside the prosecutorial reach of the statute.”).
[29] Rodefer, supra note 22, at 398 (quoting in part from 18 U.S.C. § 1081 (1961)) (alterations in original).
[30] 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b) (1961) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate of foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests . . . .”).
[31] Id. (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission ¼ of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal.”) (emphasis added); see also Cohen, 260 F.3d at 73.
[35] Id. The three prohibitive clauses are “(1) transmission in interstate of foreign commerce of bets or wagers, (2) transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, (3) information assisting in the placement of bets or wagers.” Id.
[41] Mastercard, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 480. The court went on to note that “[b]oth the rule and the exception to the rule expressly qualify the nature of the gambling activity as that related to a `sporting event or contest.'” Id. Although the Mastercard court was confident in its belief that the language of the Wire Act clearly limited its application to Internet gambling on sporting events, other have not been so certain. See Robin Gareiss & John Soat, Sure, Gambling Seems Like a Perfect Business Model for the Web. But Is It Legal?, Information Week, July 8, 2002, available at http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020703S0019 (noting that “sporting” is considered by some to modify only “event and not “contest,” which could effectively expand the Wire Act to apply to all Internet gambling); see also Rodefer, supra note 22, at 399 (“[D]iffering interpretations have arisen over the construction of the phrase `any sporting event or contest,' and over whether the 40 year old Wire Act prohibits Internet gambling.”).
[43] Id. (alterations in original). See supra note 13; see also Walters, supra note 14, at 449 (“The court relied upon the unsuccessful attempts to amend the Wire Act to encompass betting on games of chance as opposed to sporting events on the Internet.”).
[45] Rodefer, supra note 22, at 399 (footnote omitted). But see David B. McGinty, The Near-Regulation of Online Sports Wagering by United States v. Cohen, 7 Gaming L. Rev. 205, 210 (2003) (“Although it seems that the Cohen court felt the [Wire Act] included Internet transactions, it failed to effectively express so in the case opinion.”).
[46] The problems discussed in this section, with the exception of the one relating to the Wire Act's definition of “wire communication,” are also reasons why the use of the other statutes mentioned earlier (Travel Act, Illegal Gambling Business Act, Wagering Paraphernalia Act) would do little to aid the government in its fight against Internet gambling.
[47] Jonathan Fowler, WTO Ban on Offshore Gaming, Miami Herald, Nov. 11, 2004, available at 2004 WLNR 9708834.
[50] Id.; see also Cowan, supra note 7, at 267. Sir Ronald Sanders, Chief Foreign Affairs Minister of Antigua and Barbuda has stated that some of the anti-Internet gambling legislation proposed in Congress (specifically, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act) could result in 800 lost jobs and the elimination of $2.2 million dollars in annual internet casino licensing fees. Caroline Bissett, All Bets Are Off(Line): Antigua's Trouble In Virtual Paradise, 35 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 367, 372-373 (2003).
[52] Gottfried, supra note 7, ¶ 47. “With the advent of wireless Internet communications, Internet gaming operators will be able to bypass `wire communication' all together.” Id.
[54] David Stratton, Online Gamers Boosted by WTO Ruling, Off Shore Gaming Association, at http://www.osga.com/artman/publish/article_1602.shtml (last visited May 19, 2004).
[56] See generally Theo. C. Ling & Arlan Gates, The Law of Online Gambling: Canada in the Global Context, 7 Cyberspace Law (2003) (discussing different ways in which countries have chosen to handle the Internet gambling issue).
[57] See U.S. Govt. Puts the Squeeze on Online Gambling, Online Casino News, Mar. 15, 2004, at http://www.onlinecasinonews.com/ocnv2_1/article/Article .asp?id=5012. This is a method in which use of the Travel, Illegal Gambling Business, and Wagering Paraphernalia Acts could benefit the government. The government may be able to establish aiding and abetting liability against third parties where they otherwise would not be able to if the Internet gambling businesses which they are helping are violating one of these three statutes, but not the Wire Act.
[58] Thomas N. Auriemma & Gary A. Ehrlick, Proactive State Enforcement of Internet Gambling Prohibitions: Worth the Effort or a Waste of Time, 6 Gaming L. Rev. 507, 513 (2002).
[61] Id. For an example of credit card companies being sued for RICO liability in connection with processing credit card transactions connected with Internet gambling see supra notes 38-40 and accompanying text.
[62] See Rose, supra note 59, at 244 (explaining that people do not go through all the steps it takes to obtain a high position in the financial world to risk it for a small payback).
[63] Matt Richtel, Web Engines Plan to End Online Ads for Gambling, N.Y. Times, Apr. 5, 2004, availoable at LEXIS, News Library, N.Y. Times File. Advertisers that have ceased carrying advertisements for Internet gambling include Yahoo!, Google, Clear Channel, Discovery Network, and Infinity Broadcasting. Id. It is also worth noting that pressure on advertisers has not come only from the federal level. See Kelly B. Kramer, A New Front in the Battle Against Internet Gaming?, 6 Gaming L. Rev. 21, 21 (2002).
New Jersey's Attorney General seems intent on depriving these offshore gaming sites of the services provided by domestic third parties, such as telephone companies, billboard operators, media outlets, Internet companies, and software providers.
. . . [T]he billboard companies leasing space to Internet casinos were contacted first. . . . Although it is not clear what the[y] were told, the offending billboard advertisements were speedily removed.
Id.
[65] This is the case due to the wording of the Wire Act and the unambiguous language of the legislative history associate with its passage.
[66] Proposals to Regulate Illegal Internet Gambling: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 108th Cong. 5 (2003) (statement of Senator Chris Dodd). Although it is common sense that a minor would have an easier time gambling on the Internet than he or she would gaining access to a casino, these remarks by Senator Dodd show that this reality is a primary reason for the government's position of increased legislation and prosecution towards Internet gambling.
[68] Although this belief is generally true, not every casino development is a success and a city must proceed with some degree of caution. See Thomas A. Garrett, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Casino Gambling in America and Its Economic Impacts 25 (Aug. 2003) (“While the evidence here suggests that counties that adopt casino gambling as a major industry are likely to see large employment gains, this is not to suggest that every county can become like Tunica, Mississippi.”).