So much for Barney Frank

[Grasshopp3r]

http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...peal_45559.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/us_internet_gambling_ban_to_be_repealed_if_public_ demands_repeal_45559.html)

Barney Frank told reporters today that he will be pursuing the repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement, but that he will not go full strength ahead unless there is a strong outcry from the public demanding such measures.

"I think a reconsideration among my colleagues is beginning but it's not far enough along yet," Frank said. "If the storm of public unhappiness is great enough then I will try to substantially revise that ban."

He also exclaimed to reporters that he will not try to gain an exception for online poker. Online poker lobbyists made their case to Frank, but Frank was not buying.

Frank did say that he will not repeal the entire bill, only the part that has to do with the issues in his committee.

"My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this," Frank said.

Frank said he will introduce his bill in a couple of weeks to see how much support it gets. If there is a great deal of support he will continue moving forward to gain a repeal on the Internet gambling ban.

It should be interesting to see how strongly the Internet gambling community responds to Frank's statements. Will they start to form online petitions? Will they come together and get people all over the country mailing their state representatives to let them know how strongly they oppose this ban? Or will the entire community go quietly into the night?

For a listing of all US congressmen please visit this site, then click on a congressman in your state and you can find the phone number and mailing address for them. Let them know of your disdain for the UIGEA and let Barney Frank know how interested the public is in repealing this ban.

Stay tuned to Casino Gambling Web for all updates to this story.

April 12, 2007
Posted By Larry Rutherford
Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com

[1p0kerboy]

[censored].

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
For a listing of all US congressmen please visit this site, then click on a congressman in your state and you can find the phone number and mailing address for them. Let them know of your disdain for the UIGEA and let Barney Frank know how interested the public is in repealing this ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

[crzylgs]

Read the whole AP story here:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OF5DCG2.htm

The OP story seemingly cherry-picked the most negative paras. Although this is a setback, and "full speed ahead" was what we were hoping for, he's still on our side, and still introducing legislation. The original headline is "Frank Attacks Online Gambling Ban", FWIW.

[TheProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

^

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
Read the whole AP story here:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OF5DCG2.htm

The OP story seemingly cherry-picked the most negative paras. Although this is a setback, and "full speed ahead" was what we were hoping for, he's still on our side, and still introducing legislation. The original headline is "Frank Attacks Online Gambling Ban", FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's also on reuters here which mean very big news. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1242054520070412?src=041207_1303_FEATURES_int ernet

I think we really need to gather and show support rather than sitback and wait. I hope PP also make strong push to support this.

[Grasshopp3r]

I did not realize that there was more to the story. There are always ways to spin anything, but it is disappointing that Frank does not seem to have the zeal for the issue that has been ascribed to him. This is the only shot that we have in the short term, so I urge everyone to act.

[BlackAndRed]

I just called his office and said that I consider him a "national leader" on this issue, and hope he continues his leadership. I encourage you all to do the same.

[questions]

Fine, then. Look to your Christian fundie representatives to speak out against the UIGEA. Ha!

Even if he's tempered his opposition from what was initially hoped, it's better than nothing. And he hasn't even ruled anything out - he says "if public support is there."

[counthomer]

Turning back the slow moving wheels of government was never going to be a short term solution - it is a necessary long term drive.

The solutions in the short run are always going to come from entrepreurial innovation. These are coming, but I expect things to get markedly worse before they get better.

However, we should all do everything we can to support Frank, the PPA and anyone else on our side. They may not be perfect, but they are the best bet for a starting point towards a stable future.

[autobet]

Reuters released a story today that Frank intends to introduce a bill to repeal the ban in a couple of weeks. This would be a good time for us to contact our congressmen.

BRUSSELS, April 12 (Reuters) - A bill to end a ban imposed last year on online gambling in the United States will be presented within two weeks but will likely need time to garner support, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said on Thursday.

[Skallagrim]

We have to remember that this issue is really a small blip on the national radar. But that fact was what allowed the UIGEA to get "passed" in the first place, and it can be used to get it undone too.

You really think its nothing if there is a bill passed that exempts credit cards from the UIGEA because "its too difficult for banks to enforce?" Hell, thats a MAJOR VICTORY.

And more is possible, even the poker carve out is not dead as things progress and develop.

Also, a little bit of this is Frank working with other politicians who have an interest in gaming law, specifically those Reps from Nevada. They want a big study and then a big law that taxes and regulates internet gaming. They also want to insure that their consitutients (the casinos) can get a piece of the pie. A free-foreign gaming market is not what they think is good for them. So a little roll back to appease us players while they figure a way to have openly legal US online gaming companies is whats most likely to happen now.

It still moves us in the right direction.

And it still means we should all make our opinions known to our representatives, one way or another.

Skallagrim

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think its nothing if there is a bill passed that exempts credit cards from the UIGEA because "its too difficult for banks to enforce?" Hell, thats a MAJOR VICTORY.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do Credit Cards have to do with UIGEA??? (note: if you are going to passionately attempt to make a point, at least know what you are talking about) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Skallagrim]

From the original post:

"Frank did say that he will not repeal the entire bill, only the part that has to do with the issues in his committee.

"My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this," Frank said."

From the UIGEA : OK - I have misplaced my link to the UIGEA, but my recollection is clear that credit card transactions were one of things that the UIGEA mandated banks monitor and block for gaming sites.

Yes I know that the DOJ convinced all the big credit card companies to stop gaming transactions a few years ago. But a few still get through. And maybe even some of the big ones would drop the "ban" if the UIGEA specifically exempted them from this "responsibility."

Please refrain in the future from suggesting I dont know what I am talking about. I make mistakes, sure, and am occasionally flat out wrong, but I dont post about things I know little about. Perhaps you should have read the OP a little closer before suggesting otherwise?

[Petomane]

All Barney Frank is saying that he's going to need a lot of support on this. If there's 23 million online poker players in the U.S., now's the time for them to be heard.

Seeking a carve out for poker is just plain stupid and defeatist and should not be pursued. That means you're acknowledging that UIGEA is a wonderful thing, but poker should be exempt. Barney Frank says the whole bill is preposterous and that he has no jurisdiction over the Internet.

I've said it many times - this is an issue of the freedom of the Internet. China and other totalitarian regimes restrict access to their citizens and now America is doing the same thing. Barney Frank says that adults should be allowed to do what they like on the Internet and it's not for the government to tell them otherwise. It's the only sensible course of action.

[Skallagrim]

Playing Devil's advocate to Petomane:

Oh so people should be allowed to purchase drugs, child pornography, and stolen government security secrets over the internet? If we can make that illegal, why not gambling? Are you really saying everything is OK, or at least shouldnt be illegal, just because it is on the internet?

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
All Barney Frank is saying that he's going to need a lot of support on this. If there's 23 million online poker players in the U.S., now's the time for them to be heard.


[/ QUOTE ]

That number has never been substantiated in any way, shape, or form. There are no where *near* that number of US players actually playing for money online.

[Coy_Roy]

If the credit card restrictions are lifted, is this going to be enough to persuade the big players like Party to return to the US market?

I don't think so.

[mungpo]

Skall, all the things you pointed out are illegal as you said. The point is, people still do all of these over the internet regardless of its legality and that will always be the case.

[mungpo]

[ QUOTE ]
If the credit card restrictions are lifted, is this going to be enough for the big players like Party to return to the US market?

I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party would be back in the US market if that were the case since people can still use their credit cards to deposit.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the credit card restrictions are lifted, is this going to be enough for the big players like Party to return to the US market?

I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party would be back in the US market if that were the case since people can still use their credit cards to deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so.

I'm not sure that will convince the stockholders that it's safe again to return.

[autobet]

Of course we need to draw the line somewhere.

Some form of gambling is legal in most states ( I think only Hawaii and Utah are the only states prohibiting all forms of gambling), and most states have a home game exemption allowing you to play for money in your home as long as no one is raking the game.

Purchasing meth and child pornography are illegal everywhere anytime.

[Skallagrim]

We have debated the overall legal status of online poker a dozen times. So this point is limited to just this issue: suppose Frank's new law dissappoints us and merely says Banks are exempt from prosecution if their customers use their credit cards for gaming and banks do not have to monitor such transactions....

This may not bring Party back in to the market, but in a heart beat a 1/2 dozen credit cards will be offered that you can use "anywhere hint, hint" and the loss of neteller at sites still taking US players will be forgotten.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
We have debated the overall legal status of online poker a dozen times. So this point is limited to just this issue: suppose Frank's new law dissappoints us and merely says Banks are exempt from prosecution if their customers use their credit cards for gaming and banks do not have to monitor such transactions....

This may not bring Party back in to the market, but in a heart beat a 1/2 dozen credit cards will be offered that you can use "anywhere hint, hint" and the loss of neteller at sites still taking US players will be forgotten.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a good place to start and stop the bleeding for now. I agree that there would be new funding sources popping up soon after. That is a good thing.

I couldn't see getting a UIGEA repeal right now, anyway. Don't be fooled and too disappointed in Barney. He does not like this law, but he's not a fool and knows repeal would be near impossible. He also knows that having banking/credit cards available for onling gaming is still a victory, albeit a smaller one.

[Sniper]

Frank said..."My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this,"

Skallagrim said... "You really think its nothing if there is a bill passed that exempts credit cards from the UIGEA because "its too difficult for banks to enforce?" Hell, thats a MAJOR VICTORY. "

Sniper said... "What do Credit Cards have to do with UIGEA?"


Skallagrim said... "Yes I know that the DOJ convinced all the big credit card companies to stop gaming transactions a few years ago. But a few still get through. And maybe even some of the big ones would drop the "ban" if the UIGEA specifically exempted them from this "responsibility."


My question was a serious one, and remains unanswered... you are calling something a major victory, without even uderstanding what his statement means... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[mbpoker]

If Frank will be able to weaken the UIGEA regulations to the point that credit card transactions to online gaming sites won't be banned that would be a major victory.

What so difficut or wrong in this statement?

[LeapFrog]

Sniper I suggest you beat around the bush for a few more posts rather then directly addressing the issue /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
If Frank will be able to weaken the UIGEA regulations to the point that credit card transactions to online gaming sites won't be banned that would be a major victory.

What so difficut or wrong in this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with any statement, except it doesn't make sense /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Can you show me in the UIGEA where "credit card transactions to online gaming sites are banned"?


We are in the realm of major wrong guessing going on again... can anyone explain what Frank meant (without guessing)?

[LeapFrog]

now we are getting somewhere

edit: while the text of the UIGEA itself may not reference credit cards I would assume that the regulations will. That would be my guess as to what Frank is referring to.

[LeapFrog]

Ok, so I was looking for a link to the UIGEA text. I am generally clueless and occasionally incompetent so this may not be it. I'm pasting from the wizard of odds link because the other contains crazy markups. Anyways, assuming this is it, credit cards are mentioned...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4954

http://wizardofodds.com/general/hr4954text.html#titleviii

[ QUOTE ]

`(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

`(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PROVIDER- The term `financial transaction provider' means a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local payment network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, or money transmitting service, or a participant in such network, or other participant in a designated payment system.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

Thank you leapfrog /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Right now the credit card "problem" at most sites is that the card issuer wont authorize the transaction. They did this because the Feds told them they might be violating the wire act. The weakness of this opinion is now well known (Courts have ruled the wire act applies only to sportsbetting).

But next comes the UIGEA....while it too is open to legal interpertation, 'Financial Service Providers' being legally REQUIRED to monitor and block tranactions is part of the law (the actual method to be in the regulations to come).

Removing that requirement as to CCs removes a financial service provider's legal risk for poker site transfers and casino transfers made with credit cards. There will be CCs issued that will do this, the profit is too much to be ignored.

And US players having problems funding accounts will be a thing of the past.

IF thats what actually happens. - If being the key word here sniper, I never said Frank would defintely do this, I responded to the OP's implication that this is "only" what he would propose.

And if it does. expect Rep. S. Berkely from Nevada to propose a bill to study how to create regulated and taxed American online poker. Which somehow will then make it possible for Harrahs to corner the US poker market.

Hey, its just as likely as any of gaboonvipers predictions /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[meleader2]

I don't see why Frank wasn't persuaded by the people he talked to regarding repealing the UIGEA. All they had to tell Frank was that by banning the use of credit card/payment instruments all that's going to happen is what they tried to prevent: rogue sites that steal $ from americans.

[JPFisher55]

Since alot of congressmen viewed the UIGEA as outlawing the use of credit cards for internet gambling, I think that Rep. Franks is talking about repealing the UIGEA, but stating that his committee cannot repeal the Wire Act, Travel Act and Unlawful Gambling Act that the WTO found violates GATT.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

Thank you leapfrog


[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, no problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Since alot of congressmen viewed the UIGEA as outlawing the use of credit cards for internet gambling, I think that Rep. Franks is talking about repealing the UIGEA, but stating that his committee cannot repeal the Wire Act, Travel Act and Unlawful Gambling Act that the WTO found violates GATT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was rereading the AP article and am growing more confused as to what Frank is actually talking about.

[ QUOTE ]

The U.S. Congress House Financial Services Committee alone could not do more than lift a ban on using credit cards to pay for Internet gambling, he said.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a separate issue then say a bill to repeal the UIGEA? Some action regarding credit cards that the Financial Services Committee could take on its own? Sadly I know little about the inner workings of my own government.

[Zele]

It's worth recalling that in the days leading up to UIGEA, a lot of the media were reporting that Frist was seeking to ban the use of "credit cards". I know that in this case "credit cards" comes from a direct quote, but Frank may not have felt like listing every type of transaction his bill would cover, and used "credit cards" as a catchall for the funding aspects of UIGEA.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
BARNEY FRANK: "...if the storm of public unhappiness is great enough, I will try to substantially revise that ban."

[/ QUOTE ]
TRANSLATION: "Thank you for all your calls. Your money will now be accepted as well."

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth recalling that in the days leading up to UIGEA, a lot of the media were reporting that Frist was seeking to ban the use of "credit cards". I know that in this case "credit cards" comes from a direct quote, but Frank may not have felt like listing every type of transaction his bill would cover, and used "credit cards" as a catchall for the funding aspects of UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my read too (unable to state it so well though /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now the credit card "problem" at most sites is that the card issuer wont authorize the transaction. They did this because the Feds told them they might be violating the wire act. The weakness of this opinion is now well known (Courts have ruled the wire act applies only to sportsbetting).

[/ QUOTE ]

But, this was the case, before the UIGEA... /images/graemlins/blush.gif


[ QUOTE ]
But next comes the UIGEA....while it too is open to legal interpertation, 'Financial Service Providers' being legally REQUIRED to monitor and block tranactions is part of the law (the actual method to be in the regulations to come). Removing that requirement as to CCs removes a financial service provider's legal risk for poker site transfers and casino transfers made with credit cards. There will be CCs issued that will do this, the profit is too much to be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

No regulations (stemming from the UIGEA) exist yet, they haven't even been drafted, yet you are speaking to what would change with regard to them??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
And US players having problems funding accounts will be a thing of the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY??? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


[ QUOTE ]
IF thats what actually happens. - If being the key word here sniper, I never said Frank would defintely do this, I responded to the OP's implication that this is "only" what he would propose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpret my comments... I am seriously asking for someone to factually analyze what he is talking about.. not make unfounded guesses. What did Frank mean?... its a simple question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Surely someone must know the answer...

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpret my comments... I am seriously asking for someone to factually analyze what he is talking about.. not make unfounded guesses. What did Frank mean?... its a simple question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Surely someone must know the answer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no one is stepping up, or at least no one has responded yet. So what do you think Frank was talking about?

[Nathan_2]

This won't get fixed, if it ever is, by normal legislative processes but via the same means the UGIEA was passed, as a rider on a must pass bill developed during an end of session 2am Turkish bazaar.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpret my comments... I am seriously asking for someone to factually analyze what he is talking about.. not make unfounded guesses. What did Frank mean?... its a simple question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Surely someone must know the answer...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no one is stepping up, or at least no one has responded yet. So what do you think Frank was talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Leap, if I had an informed answer, I wouldn't have asked the question, this time /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Surely, someone must be talking to Frank (or his staff) and can provide information on what he's actually doing...

[Skallagrim]

Sniper until Mr. Frank actually makes public his proposed bill, guessing what it will say is the only option. But I see nothing wrong with discussing what it MAY say, and the implications of that, based on what Frank has said so far.

As I understand it then, your "question" will be answered sometime in the next 2 weeks when Frank actually puts out his proposed legislation.

And if it looks like what we have been guessing we will be ahead of the curve. If its quite different, a new discussion may commence.

[Grasshopp3r]

I doubt that this will be a stand alone bill. The ninja stealth technique of amending it into another bill is the only way that this gets done.

I am pleased that there is substantive discussion, but lets all remember to keep it civil.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

Leap, if I had an informed answer, I wouldn't have asked the question, this time /images/graemlins/wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
That was funny /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I was trying to point out (there is a reason I'm not a communications major) that if it was really a simple question, we would have had an answer already. Unless we hear from an insider (paging Berge) or there more press info available, we are, as Skallagrim pointed out, probably just going to have to wait a couple of weeks for a definitive answer.

I was also curious what your thoughts on the matter were.

[Berge20]

I'm not one for guessing, particularly b/c what he can do is so broad. Until you see actual language, it's impossible to answer some of these questions.

I will say this. He clearly wants to keep whatever bill within his jurisdiction. Legislatively, that is smart b/c it helps increase the chances of it moving (and not getting into a fight with Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers who isn't exactly an ally)

At the end of the day, it may be enough (or not) for online poker. We will just have to see.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I am seriously asking for someone to factually analyze what he is talking about.. not make unfounded guesses. What did Frank mean?... its a simple question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize you're asking for the impossible. Unless someone on this forum is Barney Frank himself or very close to his legislative team, everything will be an "unfounded guess" until more is in the press. I think Zele's suggestion (which is my read as well) that Frank said "credit cards" meaning all funding aspects since most people probably think UIGEA only covers credit cards because of prior press reports is a reasonable analysis of Frank's statement (how's that for a run-on sentence? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[spatne]

He's dislikes gambling, but Conyers did oppose UIGEA for other reasons. (Linky (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/23/93949/1875) to a diary he wrote on dailykos last year.) For the tl;dr crowd, the last section sums it up nicely. For those who bother to read the whole thing, he hits many of the points that we've been harping on for months. He may not initiate action, but I doubt he'd stand in Frank's way.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am seriously asking for someone to factually analyze what he is talking about.. not make unfounded guesses. What did Frank mean?... its a simple question! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize you're asking for the impossible. Unless someone on this forum is Barney Frank himself or very close to his legislative team, everything will be an "unfounded guess" until more is in the press. I think Zele's suggestion (which is my read as well) that Frank said "credit cards" meaning all funding aspects since most people probably think UIGEA only covers credit cards because of prior press reports is a reasonable analysis of Frank's statement (how's that for a run-on sentence? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[/ QUOTE ]

Whang, its not "impossible"... its just a little early, unless someone is talking to Frank's team... and I presume someone here, has or will, shortly...

[Berge20]

Nice find on the Conyers blog regarding it.

After reading it, I'm still not convinced he's inclined to move something at this point that would help Internet poker w/o combining that with regulation (ie going back to what things were prior to SAFE Ports Act). That, of course, would take a lot more effort than some narrow stuff.

[Berge20]

Sniper - Clear out your PMs

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Frank did say that he will not repeal the entire bill, only the part that has to do with the issues in his committee.



"My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this," Frank said.


[/ QUOTE ]

I took this to mean his bill would address Sec. 5364 only. It would stop or affect the promised financial enforcement "regulations". Payment systems wouldn't be required to block transactions.

His committee (and his bill) would not address the prohibition in Sec. 5363; or Sec. 5365 which is more enforcement of the 5363 prohibition.

This partial repeal might be an easier sell to some members of Congress.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Sniper - Clear out your PMs

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm averaging clearing about 25/day... at this rate I should be able to receive Pms again sometime during the summer. Shoot me an email...