Looks like our legislators can move quickly when they want to:
Quote
Tallahassee | A House panel overwhelmingly passed legislation Friday doing away with the type of gaming centers at the heart of a federal investigation that earlier this week led to the arrest of nearly 60 people.
The investigation also forced Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll to resign. Allied Veterans, a company she did consulting work for, is the target of the probe.
The company purported to use the proceeds from its casino-style games to help veterans, but investigators say only 2 percent of the money made it to charities.
The issue has changed the gaming debate in Tallahassee.
“It has brought a lot of attention to the issue,†said state Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, the bill’s sponsor.
Gaming committees in both the House and Senate had originally planned to pass no legislation this year, but they are now prepared to expeditiously pass legislation eliminating gaming centers. House Speaker Will Weatherfod, R-Wesley Chapel, said he hopes to vote on the House version of the bill gets a floor vote as soon as next week.
The House Select Committee on Gaming passed the bill 15-1.
“If the allegations are true…than many in the City of Jacksonville were deceived,†said state Rep. Charles McBurney, R-Jacksonville.
Authorities shuttered 58 of Allied Veterans gaming centers, but it’s estimated that more than 900 still operate across the state. Because the state does not regulate the gaming centers, it’s not possible to pinpoint exactly how many are in operation.
While there was an overwhelming sentiment in favor of the bill, some questioned if the committee was moving too fast. State Rep. Jim Waldman, the only “no†vote, said arrests don’t usually prompt the Legislature to quickly act.
“We don’t usually change the law three days later,†said the Coconut Creek Democrat, who said he did not think the bill was ready for a floor vote
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-03-15/story/house-panel-passes-bill-making-gaming-centers-illegal#ixzz2NdmZYeto
Well, not exactly - the bill has just cleared a committee ... and it looks like there is some skepticism in the full chamber.
Correct Charles! Thanks for making this clear. Several evening news programs also said the bill was passed and the law changed when indeed it seems to be a bill passing a committee waiting to become law.
I hate it whenever cynics (on the news) ask dumb questions like questioning the Sheriff... "Why did JSO's investigation with this Allied Veterans scandal take so long?" Oh yeah, like they really didn't wanna get all of the big fish within this very complex illegal enterprise. Just arrest the first lower level guy on site, and tip all of the other wrongdoers off. There will always be that crazy conspiracy theorist element out there.
I believe that it was going to be hard to ban these places because they created jobs. Before this week, it would have been bad optics for Tallahassee politicians to pass legislation that would kill jobs... IMHO...
Illegal gambling and ripping off veterans isn't a 'job'
Agreed, but that is how they played the game in Tallahassee.. That is why it took so long to ban these parlors...
When they have bingo night at the church it becomes a gambling parlor. When you have friends over for nickel/dime poker night your home becomes a gambling parlor. The only problem with Allied Veterans is they defrauded the IRS and people who believed they were helping a legitimate charity. As long as gambling is a peaceful, consentual and fraud-free activity between adults it should be legal.
The thing is, these were "sweepstakes" centers. People thought they were gambling. Looks like a slot machine, acts like a slot machine to the eye but it's not. There's no regulation and they operated on winning tiers- maybe one jackpot per week, maybe only 2 or 3 small winnings and a finite number of dinky payouts. Once those were exhausted, that's it. These places were depressing as hell- old people going in and blowing all their (very limited) income on some BS machine with basically no real chance of winning. Yes, it's stupid but it's still sad. The fact that they operated in the name of charity makes it even more disgusting. Further south of us, you had sweepstakes centers operating with names like "Children's Cancer Co-Operative" and things like that. These people are scum and I was thrilled to see them get taken out. Hopefully the state ban will pass.
Hmmm. A gambling organization operating in the name of charity? Sounds like the FL Lottery. I see no problem with that as long as they're not committing fraud.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 17, 2013, 09:35:34 AM
Hmmm. A gambling organization operating in the name of charity? Sounds like the FL Lottery. I see no problem with that as long as they're not committing fraud.
Which is at least part of the point for Allied Veterans - they claimed to be a charity for veterans, but only 2% of their income went to veterans organizations - the rest went into the pockets of the crooks at the top.
My point is that if you have the same internet cafes and say 70% goes to charity, no prob.
My understanding is there are two issues with these places. First, Allied Veterans is accused of committing fraud. Additionally, at least some of the cafes are accused of engaging in gambling beyond what they're allowed to do. Various kinds of gambling are legal in Florida, they're just regulated, and these places aren't allowed to do anything beyond a "sweepstakes" like the McDonalds Monopoly game. They say their games are a sweepstakes, critics say it's gambling. This bill would just clarify that these games are gambling and are thus not legal.
As it stands Kelly Mathis is facing 250 counts, many of them at the Federal level. A good number of the charges come with a maximum sentence of 30 years. Mathis is 47. If found guilty on more than one of the most serious charges and the sentences were 30 years to run concurrently, he faces spending the rest of his life in Jail.
The documentation being used by investigators is filled with the name of Mathis who is mentioned over and over again. Cuba and most of the others arrested with the exception of Bass is not mentioned nearly as much. While the attorneys representing many of those arrested are talking tough about their "innocence", they have a long road ahead of them. I think some of the folks will walk away, but don't see that happening for the big guys. The investigation took 6 years for a reason and that was to cross the "T's" and dot the "I's".
It will be very interesting to see what the next round of arrests brings us. It won't be pretty.
Quote
Over the opposition of some who say a ban would impact local communities, a Senate panel unanimously passed a bill Monday aimed at outlawing gaming centers at the heart of a federal money-laundering investigation.
The vote marks the second legislative panel to give a green light to a ban on the centers, which feature casino-style electronic games. A House panel overwhelmingly passed a similar measure Friday and it could go before the full chamber as early as Tuesday
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2013-03-18/story/senate-committe-unanimous-ban-gaming-centers
What is the "post-administrative costs" contribution to the stated cause of the organization for some of the other charities. Let's compare the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, etc to Allied Veterans. Do any of them contribute 60-70% of their take?
I think if you want to compare the donations of other organizations against Allied Veterans it is important to know if the other organizations claimed to be giving 70% of the proceeds to charity. The beef here I believe is that Allied Veterans of the World claimed to be contributing 70% while donating a paltry 2% to veteran's needs., I don't know if the other organizations you mentioned made the same claim.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
I think if you want to compare the donations of other organizations against Allied Veterans it is important to know if the other organizations claimed to be giving 70% of the proceeds to charity. The beef here I believe is that Allied Veterans of the World claimed to be contributing 70% while donating a paltry 2% to veteran's needs., I don't know if the other organizations you mentioned made the same claim.
Very good point, Diane!
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 19, 2013, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
I think if you want to compare the donations of other organizations against Allied Veterans it is important to know if the other organizations claimed to be giving 70% of the proceeds to charity. The beef here I believe is that Allied Veterans of the World claimed to be contributing 70% while donating a paltry 2% to veteran's needs., I don't know if the other organizations you mentioned made the same claim.
Very good point, Diane!
So, if they simple had not said a percentage and still only gave 2%, it would be OK?
Frankly, the best way to give to any charity is to give to one that is local and close to home. Giving to Preservation SOS for a Make it Happen in Springfield for instance. You give, and you can go see how your donation was used and what kind of difference it made. Nothing goes to "Admin". But, of course, that is different than this type of charitable "giving". The patrons of the parlors didn't go to help the veterans, they went for the socializing and the chance to win. They went for a good time. 99.9% of them probably couldn't care less if 2% or 70% went to the Veterans when they walked through that door. Ask them today and yes, I bet they say differently, but the reality has changed, hasn't it?
Quote from: strider on March 19, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 19, 2013, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
I think if you want to compare the donations of other organizations against Allied Veterans it is important to know if the other organizations claimed to be giving 70% of the proceeds to charity. The beef here I believe is that Allied Veterans of the World claimed to be contributing 70% while donating a paltry 2% to veteran's needs., I don't know if the other organizations you mentioned made the same claim.
Very good point, Diane!
So, if they simple had not said a percentage and still only gave 2%, it would be OK?
Frankly, the best way to give to any charity is to give to one that is local and close to home. Giving to Preservation SOS for a Make it Happen in Springfield for instance. You give, and you can go see how your donation was used and what kind of difference it made. Nothing goes to "Admin". But, of course, that is different than this type of charitable "giving". The patrons of the parlors didn't go to help the veterans, they went for the socializing and the chance to win. They went for a good time. 99.9% of them probably couldn't care less if 2% or 70% went to the Veterans when they walked through that door. Ask them today and yes, I bet they say differently, but the reality has changed, hasn't it?
The point here is not whether or not the 2% would be okay. It is the fact that this organization sold itself to the public with the 70% claim and by doing so defrauded them. I think most caring people would think 2% completely unacceptable and rather disgusting. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2013, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: strider on March 19, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 19, 2013, 05:15:38 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on March 19, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
I think if you want to compare the donations of other organizations against Allied Veterans it is important to know if the other organizations claimed to be giving 70% of the proceeds to charity. The beef here I believe is that Allied Veterans of the World claimed to be contributing 70% while donating a paltry 2% to veteran's needs., I don't know if the other organizations you mentioned made the same claim.
Very good point, Diane!
So, if they simple had not said a percentage and still only gave 2%, it would be OK?
Frankly, the best way to give to any charity is to give to one that is local and close to home. Giving to Preservation SOS for a Make it Happen in Springfield for instance. You give, and you can go see how your donation was used and what kind of difference it made. Nothing goes to "Admin". But, of course, that is different than this type of charitable "giving". The patrons of the parlors didn't go to help the veterans, they went for the socializing and the chance to win. They went for a good time. 99.9% of them probably couldn't care less if 2% or 70% went to the Veterans when they walked through that door. Ask them today and yes, I bet they say differently, but the reality has changed, hasn't it?
The point here is not whether or not the 2% would be okay. It is the fact that this organization sold itself to the public with the 70% claim and by doing so defrauded them. I think most caring people would think 2% completely unacceptable and rather disgusting. :)
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-19/choosing-efficient-and-effective-charities