DiGregory cited exemptions in the bill for horse racing, dog racing and jai alai, which are not consistent with the heart and soul of this bill. He stated the bill would allow gamblers to place horse racing bets on the Internet but they cannot place them over the phone. President Clinton's staff has virtually gone on record to imply that they would VETO this bill, if it is even passed. Of course, Goodlatte, R-Va., the sponsor of the House bill, retorted that his bill would not expand gambling, and that the exemptions would merely apply to betting that already is permitted. Goodlatte continued by stating the bill is necessary to stop the mushrooming of Internet casino sites, which have grown from about 30 to more than 700 since his bill was introduced.
Horse racing is a small percentage of Internet gambling.
Those against this bill also also criticized the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Football League, both of which support the Internet gambling ban. Family Research Council expressed its support, saying something must be done to stunt the growth of Internet gambling. Hoever, the Traditional Values Coalition complained that the exemptions would allow gambling to flourish, believing that this bill is hypocritical in so many ways. As more and more information about this bill keeps coming our way on a daily basis, the outcome is becoming less murky. It now appears that this bill has as much of a chance as passing as one which would prohibit alcohol or cigarettes.