Election Results impact on gambling ban?

[primetime32]

Is it possible that the election results may limit the strength behind the gambling bill? Considering the banks are not eager to enfroce the new rules, do you think its possible that without the weight of congress behind the bill that those in charge of enforcing it will be less inclined to force it down the banks throats.

I know the election resuilts won't change the actual language or rules and in theory should not make a difference in how it is executed.

[Jooka]

now that it is law, its not up to congress to enforce, I dont think. Wouldnt it fall on the justice department to enforce? I have no real clue but it doesnt seem that the new congress will have much of a say unless they undo the law with a new one.

[ubercuber]

I would think it is a more favorable climate for regulation. Might be some motivation to undo the shammockery of Frist.

[The Velour Fog]

how do you go about changing/undoing a law in USA anyways?

/clueless european

[Zele]

a/ Passing another law in the opposite direction

b/ The law being overturned in court

[c/ Not really enforcing the law. Congress paints with broad strokes. The nitty-gritty is left to regulators, in UIGEA's case the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Justice Departments . Even after the regulations are written, they may or may not be enforced aggressively. Of course, even if they are not, they may still be complied with by banks and other institutions that matter.]

For the forseeable future, c/ is by far our best hope.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
how do you go about changing/undoing a law in USA anyways?

/clueless european

[/ QUOTE ]

You pass another law, have it ruled unconstitutional in the courts, or overthrow the government.

I doubt this will have much effect. Couldn't hurt though.

[Uglyowl]

What about the drafting of bank regulations now that most likely it will all be Democrat controlled?

[BluffTHIS!]

The Justice Dept is 100% repub controlled.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
a/ Passing another law in the opposite direction

b/ The law being overturned in court

[c/ Not really enforcing the law. Congress paints with broad strokes. The nitty-gritty is left to regulators, in UIGEA's case the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Justice Departments . Even after the regulations are written, they may or may not be enforced aggressively. Of course, even if they are not, they may still be complied with by banks and other institutions that matter.]

For the forseeable future, c/ is by far our best hope.

[/ QUOTE ]


sorry to tell you, c is not realistic. Compliance is practically guaranteed, which means enforcement is moot.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
The Justice Dept is 100% repub controlled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it the Justice Dept that drafts the bank regs?

[primetime32]

Lets also remember that this bill was put forth to help these republicans win re-election and support. Now that the election is over and it clearly failed there is a chance the dems may drop this issue going forward. Again, i am not sure how this will effect the enforcement of the current legislation, but it certainly will not help.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
how do you go about changing/undoing a law in USA anyways?

/clueless european

[/ QUOTE ]

Caveat - I have not really followed this issue, so this could be entirely off.

In this case, I think the tact would be to pass laws regulating on line gambling thus making it legal and the UIGEA completely non applicable. I don't see that happenening in the near future, but I also don't see the issue being championed by either side, which means I think internet poker will fade almost entirely from the political radar and hopefully no or ineffectual banking regulations will be put in place.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a/ Passing another law in the opposite direction

b/ The law being overturned in court

[c/ Not really enforcing the law. Congress paints with broad strokes. The nitty-gritty is left to regulators, in UIGEA's case the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Justice Departments . Even after the regulations are written, they may or may not be enforced aggressively. Of course, even if they are not, they may still be complied with by banks and other institutions that matter.]

For the forseeable future, c/ is by far our best hope.

[/ QUOTE ]


sorry to tell you, c is not realistic. Compliance is practically guaranteed, which means enforcement is moot.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Compliance from whom, the banks, neteller, poker sites? If so why haven't banks already banned neteller, or neteller and all the poker sites already dropped US customers? As far as I understand it, nothing in this bill says banks can't send money to and from a foreign bank like neteller. Somebody's gonna have to rattle some kind of sabre for that to happen.

Another enforcement issue is whether or not the justice dept will go above and beyond the call of duty to indict poker site executives on shaky legal grounds and just try to scare the crap out of them.

The Justice Dept basically dropped their suit against Microsoft the day Bush appointed Ashcroft. Obviously the JD will still be Republican controlled. But my point is, if the will isn't there, c) can certainly happen. This bill seems to be Frist's thing, not the exectutive branch.

[Petomane]

The UIGEA bill was a way for Bill Frist to raise huge money from special interests, not only from the NFL and gambling corporations, but from the anti-gambling Christian coalition.

Well, it backfired. With the Republicans out of power, I doubt the UIGEA is high on anyone's agenda. Let's hope things stay the way they are - it's not in anyone's interest to pursue this thing aggressively.

Donald Rumsfeld got fired hours after the election (do I sense panic?) and I'm sure many Republicans, Bill Frist included, are busy shredding documents today. Frist is already under investigation - the Democrats will go after him, because now they can.

If Frist gets indicted, the UIGEA will be buried, forgotten and altogether ignored. Online poker will be like marijuana, officially illegal but available everywhere.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA bill was a way for Bill Frist to raise huge money from special interests, not only from the NFL and gambling corporations, but from the anti-gambling Christian coalition.

Well, it backfired. With the Republicans out of power, I doubt the UIGEA is high on anyone's agenda. Let's hope things stay the way they are - it's not in anyone's interest to pursue this thing aggressively.

Donald Rumsfeld got fired hours after the election (do I sense panic?) and I'm sure many Republicans, Bill Frist included, are busy shredding documents today. Frist is already under investigation - the Democrats will go after him, because now they can.

If Frist gets indicted, the UIGEA will be buried, forgotten and altogether ignored. Online poker will be like marijuana, officially illegal but available everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know you're asking for trouble getting my hopes up like that, don't you? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
If Frist gets indicted, the UIGEA will be buried, forgotten and altogether ignored. Online poker will be like marijuana, officially illegal but available everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people keep writing these things? Online poker is NOT "officially illegal." This legislation has nothing to do with the legality of online poker.

Also, the future of the UIGEA is in no way impacted by what happens to Frist. I hope he burns, but the damage is done regardless. It's not going to just magically disappear.

[cowboyhat]

i think by looking at the way the corporate media has been covering the UIGEA, it's clear that certain corporations would like to see gaming regulated within the United States. if the democrats win the senate, Harry Reid from Nevada will become the House Majority Leader (i'm almost sure) which should be a positive sign. Bill Frist basically shoved this into law, why wouldn't Reid be able to pass regulation legislation in a similar fashion?
also, if democrats take control of the Senate, which seems fairly likely, they will be in charge of the committees. next year, they will have the power to appropriate $ however they want, and if they decide not to fund $ for the purpose of enforcing the UIGEA then the bill will have no real significance... right?

[NorthDakota]

The Election changes nothing...

The Only positive Change is Leach out and Kyl now in the Minority... And having Harry Reid(Nevada) as Senate Majority Leader may end up being a plus because of MGM and Harrah's Entertainment...

The Democrats will not act to reverse because Poker is completely off the Radar and will always be unless Money or influence flows in that direction...

Here are the ways the Legislation can be reversed

1. Poker Players banding together to form a Powerful PAC or Voting Block... (hard to do without resources and PASSION for the issue)

2. A judge or Court overturns the legislation on some Constituational Basis (possible but someone has to fight it and it would take awhile)

3. Harrahs or MGM get into Online Poker and use their Powerful Political influence... (Very Likely... Read the News... MGM and Harrah are already sniffing around 888 for a possible purchase... That's the White Knight... They Buy in and then online poker will be regulated and Licensed in the United States... you can bet on it...)

As for Poker Players against Kyl... Yeah, Kyl got re-elected and we knew it was coming but everyone should take pride in their donations and effort... I seriously suggest using this has a starting point... Leach is gone but Goodlatte is still out there and will be up for election in two years... And Frist will be running for President in 2008... There are other targets and this time we can get a running start... I still like addictontilt's Poker Tourney idea for Fundraising... We have two years to get a solid PAC running... I think the game officially begins NOW...

[suzzer99]

Ok, so if this changes nothing, what *is* going to happen? Who's going to write regs? What will they say? What will be done after that in regards to compliance/enforcement? You're saying there's no variability in any of these things based on the influence/strength-of-will coming from Congress?

[ADS]

Well...while not technically changing anything, the fact that there will not likely be much "pressure" from congress to make the regs stringent, to go along with Bernanke stance on additional banking regulation, it is possible that the regs will be reletively watered down when they come.

[Uglyowl]

How much of a role will Barney Frank have now that he will be the head of the House committee on financial services?

[MiltonFriedman]

Keep in mind the following:

1. DOJ does NOT write the Regs. Treasury and the Fed will do so, I think.

2. The Banking industry does not want an unfunded regulatory burden and possible penalties for failure. Fortunately, the Bill's real Safe Harbor is that Banks need only comply with whatever Regs are written, however loosely or weakly. The Bill gives VERY wide latitude for writing weak regs.

3. The House Financial Services Committee, which can take oversight on the Act and Regs, is going to be chaired by BARNEY FRANK, who has never been shy about his dislike for the Act.

Now, we need to work as hard again as in the week before the Act passed.

[NorthDakota]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so if this changes nothing, what *is* going to happen? Who's going to write regs? What will they say? What will be done after that in regards to compliance/enforcement? You're saying there's no variability in any of these things based on the influence/strength-of-will coming from Congress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Federal Regulators have 270 days to write the new regs... What will they Say??? I don't know... Do you know anyone who is in such a position??? If you do... Chances are they don't know either since they have 270 days... The DOJ will decide how they will pursue any transgressions after the regulations have been crafted... How will they pursue... I don't know... Tune in at 11 to find out...

The legislation has been passed... There ya go... There is no reason to hope the new elected officials will help in any way at this time...

The House would have to write contrary legislation to make things right and IMO they will not do that without influence and right now they have no reason to consider it... So therefore, The reasons I listed in my previous post are the way that positive winds of change will blow...

As for the Regulations... The Storm is coming... Light Rain or all Hell Breaking loose is anyone's guess but the new Senate or House will not be in the position to effect it... The Legislation has been passed... It's out of Frist's grubby little hands now...

The Legislation has been passed... We have to take it unless we have a power position with MGM... Decide to fight it in court... Or Band Together to form a PAC... and at the very least... VOTE against those that put us in this position...

[suzzer99]

You think Congress has no ongoing influence on the process, now that the bill is passed? And you think the agencies charged with reg crafting and enforcement will pursue their job with 100% vigor--even if Congress is no longer behind the bill at all? Everything I know about bureaucracies, large organizations, and people would suggest otherwise. People don't generally insist on creating extra hassle for themselves in their jobs. I'm not going to work my ass off to do a super-thorough job on something my boss considers a low priority.

[ubercuber]

The WTO ruling may provide an impetus for getting the ball rolling in our direction. We need a PAC with a poker star connection and one volunteer for every casino in the US so we can spread the word. We need fundrasier tourneys. We need a champion for our cause in the Senate and in the House. McCaskill may be our senate hero. We need someone with time and knowlegdge to get this going. We need support from PPA because they have 100k+ members and at $10 each we will get some attention. This would have been better in list form but I didn't forsee it getting to list length when I got started.

Is there a reputable, knowledgable poster here who could take charge of starting such a huge undertaking? Someone who thinks they could get a few thing form that list going in a professional manner and will at least have good support from 2+2 posters?

Nominations?

[suzzer99]

Commodus?

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
Commodus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, should probably be a US citizen, and alive.

[addictontilt]

This is already somewhat in the works - I have been trying to get Full tilt to answer on the poker tourney and i am still needing help settin up the 527 (easier to set up than PAC) This hinges on a site allowing us to do the tourney though, and so far Full tilt and stars have not responded back - i am hoping to hear something by the end of the week.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
This hinges on a site allowing us to do the tourney though, and so far Full tilt and stars have not responded back - i am hoping to hear something by the end of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Stars doesn't answer by the end of the week, you may be able to call out Lee in a new thread? He's always quick to respond.

[MagCFO]

here's Barney Franks thoughts on the gambling bill.

http://www.house.gov/frank/internetgamblingjuly2006.html

[You're No Daisy]

[ QUOTE ]
now that it is law, its not up to congress to enforce, I dont think. Wouldnt it fall on the justice department to enforce? I have no real clue but it doesnt seem that the new congress will have much of a say unless they undo the law with a new one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. Congress doesn't enforce the laws. It would be the administrative agencies of our government. H.R. 4411 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7230&sequence=0)

"...H.R. 4411 would direct financial regulatory agencies to enforce the regulations on illegal Internet gambling as they apply to financial institutions, including Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Reserve, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)...."

AC

[suzzer99]

Can we get NateTheGreat in this thread, or one of those other guys who actually knows stuff?

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
This is already somewhat in the works - I have been trying to get Full tilt to answer on the poker tourney and i am still needing help settin up the 527 (easier to set up than PAC) This hinges on a site allowing us to do the tourney though, and so far Full tilt and stars have not responded back - i am hoping to hear something by the end of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Is there a thread for this? An organized thread/sticky with progress updates and some of the well connected, highly knowldegable posters here (Berge20, Nate, Mr K et al), participating would go a long way.

This could really turn into something but (and forgive me for not knowing), if you don't have the confidence of 2+2 (widely respected poster), I fear it is not going to go anywhere. It may be well supported already and I just am late to the table, that would be great! (And somewhat standard I might add. /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

Success here. (Reputable poster)
Success across forums. (Recognizable/likable poker face.)
Support of PPA. (?)
Support of Pelosi. (?...$$)

If we can get to here we are in good shape. Frist twist is still fresh and it would be nice to hit 1/1/07 with momentum and a sense of urgency that gets $conveyed$ to those who can initiate change or derail the current course. The attachment was not popular and there might be some motivation to correct.

Just my thoughts. If there is something I can do to help PM me, althought i am generally useless so I can't imagine what I could do, but feel free to ask!

Mad props for getting it going!

[SlapPappy]

From Frank's website:

"By the way, credit card abuse among students is a more serious problem, I believe, than gambling. Maybe gambling will catch up. But we have heard many, many stories about young people who have credit cards that they abuse. Do we ban credit cards for them?"

OMG. Barney Frank is my <font color="green"> HERO, </font> /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so if this changes nothing, what *is* going to happen? Who's going to write regs? What will they say? What will be done after that in regards to compliance/enforcement? You're saying there's no variability in any of these things based on the influence/strength-of-will coming from Congress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there is no variability at all. Yes Republicans sponsored the bill, that is because Republicans controlled Congress. For people to say "Democrats would have never pushed this bill" is basically just something to say when you already know the outcome. Democrats have banned online gambling in Washington state, Nevada, Illinois, etc.

Yes Frist was a jerk by adding this to a port security bill. But Democrat leaning types ( i did not say operatives) on this site are trying to make it sound like he could not have passed a strait up anti-online gambling bill in the Senate. This is simply untrue. We all know this issue was a low priority considering the issues of the day, Frist did it quickly because he was retiring and wanted to score points with evangelicals in Iowa for his presidential bid. He was simply running out of time to do it.

Bet on Sports just pulled out of the USA today...........after the election, becuase they know this crazy law will stand. I really really hope it will be repealed or at least made moot by future funding options and a desire by both parties to let people spend their own money as they wish.

[cmattos]

I would think a more likely scenario is for the Dems to introduce a bill for a new government program to be funded by tax revenue from DOMESTIC online gambline sites, similar in concept to many state lotteries being used to fund educational programs.

[cowboyzfan]

well i will skip the politics about the trick of raising taxes for wonderfull sounding things like "kid's lunches" Key question, why did they not pay for that with the tax money we already gave them?

All I have to say is call me when it happens. And of course the taxes can't be so high that the rake is unbeatable.

[cmattos]

[ QUOTE ]
well i will skip the politics about the trick of raising taxes for wonderfull sounding things like "kid's lunches" Key question, why did they not pay for that with the tax money we already gave them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that is what Dems do...they raise taxes. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously, any gov't program is going to cost money, and that money comes from taxes. Whether they increase the income tax, charge you more for that pack of cigarettes, or start taxing toilet paper, you're going to pay for it one way or another. I am sure there is a Dem out there who is looking to make his mark (perhaps for a future Presidential run) by starting some great new program for the needy.

[cowboyzfan]

your'r no daisy at all /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get NateTheGreat in this thread, or one of those other guys who actually knows stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

The immediate positive of Democrats winning is that they'll have control of the committees that are connected with the drafting of the UIGEA regulations. However, I know nowhere near enough about the regulatory process to know how important this is.

Beyond that, the way to look at this is as a good opportunity. I've said this before, but the first step for us common folk is to make sure that the study bill passes in the 110th Congress.

[suzzer99]

study bill?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
study bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Introduced by Rep. Porter of Nevada (who survived his re-election bid, albeit barely) in the last Congress. Never voted on.

http://porter.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=645&amp;ParentID=3&amp;SectionID=19&amp;Se ctionTree=3,19&amp;lnk=b&amp;ItemID=643

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
The immediate positive of Democrats winning is that they'll have control of the committees that are connected with the drafting of the UIGEA regulations. However, I know nowhere near enough about the regulatory process to know how important this is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, maybe you know something that I don't... but aren't the Regs supposed to be drafted by the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Attorney General?... what does that have to do with congrressional commitees?