Frank to introduce bill.....

[PokerBob]

i'm sure it'll die, but i love him anyway. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/pl_nm/congress_gambling_internet_dc;_ylt=AnnjUo5QJz2vX_L zmHe3YtgjtBAF)

[TheProdigy]

Awesome,

Please please please let's have a miracle..

[pokerchap]

PARTY POKER COME HOME PLEAASEEEE

[Tarheel]

"Why anyone thinks it is any of my business why some adult wants to gamble is absolutely beyond me,' Frank told a community bankers group conference."

Amen to that!!

[LeapFrog]

Now is the time for action folks. Let's show some support for Frank's bill. Below is contact info from one of The Engineer's weekly action threads. Please write or call and try and convince family members/significant others/friends to do the same. Thanks again for your hard work Engineer /images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=3#Post9946416 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9946416&an=0&page=3#Post 9946416)

Contact Info:

House Committee on Financial Services

Majority (Democrats)
Rayburn House Office Building 2129
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-4247

Minority (Republicans)
Rayburn House Office Building B-371A
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-7502

----------------------------------------------

House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer
Credit

Majority (Democrats)
Rayburn House Office Building 2129D
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-4247 (same as parent committee)

Minority (Republicans)
Rayburn House Office Building B-301C
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-2258

---------------------------------------------

Congressman Barney Frank
2252 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5931


Congressman Ron Paul
203 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone Number: (202) 225-2831

[CraigNY]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm sure it'll die, but i love him anyway. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/pl_nm/congress_gambling_internet_dc;_ylt=AnnjUo5QJz2vX_L zmHe3YtgjtBAF)

[/ QUOTE ]
Another article, with some analysis of it's ability to pass. (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B4AF5B08B%2D7234%2D4B84%2D889D%2 D7BB98F36B13F%7D&dist=rss)

Relevant quote: Andrew Parmentier, a senior policy analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey, said he believes the bill will make headway.

"Absolutely there's a chance" for reform of the law, he said in a telephone interview.

In a research note on Tuesday, Parmentier said the bill could help boost gambling companies' shares.
"We believe this week's events, coupled with our belief that legislation will pass the House and receive serious considerations and bipartisan support in the Senate, are positive catalysts for content providers," he wrote.

Frank called the law, called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, "a great mistake."

"I spend a lot of my time trying to protect people from other people who are going to treat them unfairly," Frank said in a speech before the Independent Community Bankers of America. "I have no energy left for protecting people from themselves."

[MiltonFriedman]

Frank plans a news conference to discuss the bill, titled the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, at 10 a.m. Thursday

I was told the bill will be posted on the Financial Services website tomorrow at 10:00am Eastern.

www.financialservices.house.gov (http://financialservices.house.gov) (?)

[kickabuck]

Hey Berge, now that there is actually a bill put forth, any additional thoughts as to the substance of this bill and its reception on the Hill?

[jschaud]

could someone give me a quick best case scenario timeline on this?

Bill introduced in xx days.
bill passes house in xx days.
bill goes to senate in xx days.
bill goes to president in xx days.
i deposit monies to party poker in xx days.


sorry, im a total noob with this stuff and i hopeless optimist.

[Orlando Salazar]

Firstly, Frank was bribed and I love it. Rembember when he said he wouldn't go forward unless he felt there was strong support? I bet his swiss account is getting ALOT of support. As happy as I am, if this is successful, there will be many legal hurdles. If this passes, I am quite sure sites will have to apply for and go through a licensing process, much like that of FCC. Rakes maybe much higher and rakeback may be a thing of the past. I also think neteller will not come back.

[Inso0]

I will say this about these sort of things. PHONE CALLS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

If you don't think you can do anything, you're wrong. The ban on internet gambling was snuck in to a port security bill (wtf?) because that was the only way to get it passed. A standalone bill like this to lift the ban can succeed, but only if you call your representatives.

There really isn't a big lobbyist group AGAINST internet gambling, so phone calls of public outrage are the easiest way to get this thing on the fast track to law.


CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.



Congress: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


You guys are smart, I'm sure you can figure out how to call YOUR senator. Hell, call everyone elses too!

CALL CALL CALL CALL CALL!

[CraigNY]

I would wait until the bill is formally announced tomorrow to start calling, as you will then have a specific bill number to reference and the 10am press conference will have created the initial buzz.

But DEFINITELY CALL!

[jafeather]

This is undoubtedly the brightest glimmer of light in months. Once the bill is introduced, any one of you who does not contact your representative to show your support is a traitor.

[Inso0]

Well, I suppose that would be obvious... but a good point nonetheless.

Yes, please wait until tomorrow!

[spino1i]

I will be calling up all the representatives the instant this bill gets a number on it.

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I will be calling up all the representatives the instant this bill gets a number on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here.

Mods, once this is introduced, can we start a thread in several of the other forums (MSNL, MTT, etc) to push for people to make calls?

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]


Mods, once this is introduced, can we start a thread in several of the other forums (MSNL, MTT, etc) to push for people to make calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, please.

EDIT: It's pretty sad that the largest portion of the users of this site have yet to see TheEngineer's threads about an action plan.

[costanza_g]

Wouldnt we as a group have more of an impact if we donated money to some fundraiser or something.

It seems like by calling a rep., i will talk to a receptionist who "will pass the message along to my rep.". And im sure everytime a new bill is introduced they have to go through the same motions, so it wouldnt have as great an influence as you think.

I'd rather just ship my rep. a wad of cash.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Berge, now that there is actually a bill put forth, any additional thoughts as to the substance of this bill and its reception on the Hill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me actually read the bill and such when I get a copy.

I will say this--the timing is bad press wise b/c almost everything up here today/tomorrow/friday will likely be about the Iraq supplemental. Not that it would have made a huge splash anyway, but it's just going to get pushed lower on the chain.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]

Mods, once this is introduced, can we start a thread in several of the other forums (MSNL, MTT, etc) to push for people to make calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll leave that up to the mods of those respective forums. My guess is they won't have a problem.

[Orlando Salazar]

That could be a good thing. Maybe he'll attach it to the IRAQ bill. LOL!

[KotOD]

*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will be calling up all the representatives the instant this bill gets a number on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[billyjex]

I would go gay for Barney Frank.

[Sparta45]

Question. Let's say this bill passes. Can Bush just go ahead and veto it? If he can, would that be expected that he would take that action?

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
That could be a good thing. Maybe he'll attach it to the IRAQ bill. LOL!

[/ QUOTE ]No, we want it to pass. And that funding bill ain't getting past Bush as long as it has the withdrawal timetable in it.

[Barrin6]

[ QUOTE ]
Question. Let's say this bill passes. Can Bush just go ahead and veto it? If he can, would that be expected that he would take that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be suprise if he veteos it. I just hope this bill will get a rider.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question. Let's say this bill passes. Can Bush just go ahead and veto it? If he can, would that be expected that he would take that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be suprise if he veteos it. I just hope this bill will get a rider.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's only vetoed one thing in 6 years, why would he make THIS #2?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

why dont they piggyback this like frist did?

[spino1i]

this bill is no where near important enough for Bush to veto I would think..

Berge, what do you think?

[Eaglebauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would go gay for Barney Frank.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Case Closed]

Dear baby jesus,

I know we have not talked in a long time. But if you could just help me out one time here I would really appreciate it. If you help me out this time I promise I will let those kids out of my basement.

Yours truly,
caseclosed

[cking]

[ QUOTE ]
why dont they piggyback this like frist did?

[/ QUOTE ]

because thats a pretty important part of Franks attack. Saying "Telling people they cant gamble their own money is dumb" is one part the political part is "And the republicans slip it into an unrelated bill" It would look very bad for him to do the same thing, and by bashing what Frist did will gain him more support in his party for the bill to pass.

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will be calling up all the representatives the instant this bill gets a number on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here.

Mods, once this is introduced, can we start a thread in several of the other forums (MSNL, MTT, etc) to push for people to make calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. We need to spread the words makesure everyone support.

[eviljeff]

is this at all attributable to the PPA?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Now is the time for action folks. Let's show some support for Frank's bill. Below is contact info from one of The Engineer's weekly action threads. Please write or call and try and convince family members/significant others/friends to do the same. Thanks again for your hard work Engineer /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

Everyone: In addition, please contact YOUR represenative and ask him or her to cosponsor this important legislation, even if your representative is firmly against us. The ones against us need to understand there is a price to pay. Thanks.

[AP0CALYP5E]

I was under teh impression that the PPA was concentrating on a Poker Exemption.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: It's pretty sad that the largest portion of the users of this site have yet to see TheEngineer's threads about an action plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably true. I've posted links on every forum at one time or another, but we've only been able to generate limited interest. Maybe now that there's action we'll get a lot more participation.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
is this at all attributable to the PPA?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is independent of the PPA.

[Barrin6]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question. Let's say this bill passes. Can Bush just go ahead and veto it? If he can, would that be expected that he would take that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be suprise if he veteos it. I just hope this bill will get a rider.

[/ QUOTE ]



He's only vetoed one thing in 6 years, why would he make THIS #2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, if he doesn't veteo it, imagine how bad his publicly would be. Imagine a head line on the newspaper the next morning titled " BUSH LEGALIZES ONLINE GAMING" . I can never see that happening, nor would Bush want to either.

[Colm]

i think this type of thing should be stickied at the top of all forums to get lots of calls made.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
i think this type of thing should be stickied at the top of all forums to get lots of calls made.


[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Call. Then call again. Have your sister call. Have your neighbor's dog call.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and a bit delusional if

a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

b) you think what i say on 2p2 influences anyone.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
this bill is no where near important enough for Bush to veto I would think..

Berge, what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

The importance of piece of legislation really has no bearing on if the President will veto it.

He will likely veto this bill if it came to him alone given his stance on gambling and the perception (or otherwise) that this measure would encourage and increase that practive. Sure, he may play poker now and again--but that's got nothing to do with how he perceives this one IMO.

Veto pending if it clears the House/Senate on its own (which is a heavy lift in and of itself)

[Inso0]

You people need to stop saying that phone calls mean nothing to these guys.

If their office is shut down because the phone won't stop ringing with "poker degenerates" calling them telling them to vote YES for this bill, you can bet your ass that they'll do it.

It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible.


PHONE CALLS MATTER! You just have to make lots of them! Ask to be put into voice mail if you can't actually speak to them. If it really matters to you, then you'll make the effort.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't a big lobbyist group AGAINST internet gambling, so phone calls of public outrage are the easiest way to get this thing on the fast track to law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point. Defenders of the 2nd amendment are much more vigilant than gun control supporters, which is why the NRA usually gets its way. I think there is a chance the PPA could have the same effect. I will be calling my 3 Congress reps tomorrow.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question. Let's say this bill passes. Can Bush just go ahead and veto it? If he can, would that be expected that he would take that action?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be suprise if he veteos it. I just hope this bill will get a rider.

[/ QUOTE ]



He's only vetoed one thing in 6 years, why would he make THIS #2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, if he doesn't veteo it, imagine how bad his publicly would be. Imagine a head line on the newspaper the next morning titled " BUSH LEGALIZES ONLINE GAMING" . I can never see that happening, nor would Bush want to either.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can go lower?

Headline of page 27b?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't a big lobbyist group AGAINST internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ]


*you are ignoring these political system users* (http://www.ncalg.org/internet%20gambling.htm)

[KreellKeiser]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather just ship my rep. a wad of cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing gets a Congressman's attention like a donation. If a bunch of poker players started saying they'd give contributions if they felt their interests were being protected, then there would be a lot more support.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and a bit delusional if

a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

b) you think what i say on 2p2 influences anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we shouldn't vote, protest or have a political opinion. It's not going to matter anyway.

Wallowing in your own apathy is fine, but please cover your mouth when you cough -- such is contagious.

[rothko]

http://www.miami.edu/news/ev_images/candle_vigil.jpg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and a bit delusional if

a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

b) you think what i say on 2p2 influences anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Let's all just give up and do nothing. That should be more successful.

Thanks so much for the helpful advice.

Where else would that advice work? Hmmm....
- big guy punches me in the face and I don't think I can take him. If I'm Victor I guess I either run away or stand there and get my ass beat without punching back. After all, I can't take him so why be a man and try? Right?

- After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it looked like we'd have our hands full without the ships that were sunk during the attack. I guess Victor would have bought us Japanese dictionaries.

Anyway, what are you, some religious-right [censored] here to unmotivate us? We're Americans and we should tell our congressmen how we feel. How the [censored] do we benefit by NOT writing? [censored] [censored] [censored].

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and a bit delusional if

a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

b) you think what i say on 2p2 influences anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask Jim [censored] Leach if he noticed us. Or Bill [censored] Frist, who once had presidential aspirations (that wasn't all us, but we certainly helped). Barney Frank cared that we called and wrote. I know that because, rather than sitting on my [censored] ass, I [censored] called his [censored] office and talked with his [censored] staff! They told me they've been hearing plenty from us, and NOW THEY'RE [censored] DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!

Forty years ago pussies like you let the Wire Act pass without a fight. If they stood their ground, they'd have had a chance at least of improving the overall climate for gambling such that no one would pass new legislation. When we stand our ground, at the bare minimum we make the passage of more restrictions less likely.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*SIGH*

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10118841&page=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and a bit delusional if

a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

b) you think what i say on 2p2 influences anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Let's all just give up and do nothing. That should be more successful.

Thanks so much for the helpful advice.

Where else would that advice work? Hmmm....
- big guy punches me in the face and I don't think I can take him. If I'm Victor I guess I either run away or stand there and get my ass beat without punching back. After all, I can't take him so why be a man and try? Right?

- After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it looked like we'd have our hands full without the ships that were sunk during the attack. I guess Victor would have bought us Japanese dictionaries.

Anyway, what are you, some religious-right [censored] here to unmotivate us? We're Americans and we should tell our congressmen how we feel. How the [censored] do we benefit by NOT writing? [censored] [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. 99% of what anyone does doesn't really affect the universe at large. Such a dull and obvious fact is not an excuse for inaction. It's been well proven that enough noise and money does move mountains.

[Victor]

hey retards, im not saying not to do anything. do whatever you want jesus.

have you ever rooted for a sports team? i rooted for osu against florida in the ncaa finals and i said before the game, "i doubt osu wins." this is the same thing.

you guys are way too sensitive and self-righteous.

lastly "
It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible."

lmao at this analogy. EVERYONE wants to pay less for gas. griping about gas is as american as apple pie. as for poker large sections either dont care or think gambling is evil incarnate.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

you guys are way too sensitive and self-righteous.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are surprised that people get pissed off when you crap in a thread?

[Redgrape]

someone had the idea that no one should be able to view 2p2 tommorrow until they email their congressman IMO great idea.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
someone had the idea that no one should be able to view 2p2 tommorrow until they email their congressman IMO great idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this idea, but I really don't think we should force people to do anything. It's against the whole spirit of the thing, IMO.

EDIT: Forgot commentary after quote.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]


lastly "
It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible."

lmao at this analogy. EVERYONE wants to pay less for gas. griping about gas is as american as apple pie. as for poker large sections either dont care or think gambling is evil incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. The gas tax didn't fail because lots of people called in. It failed because nobody wants to pay more for gas and thus voted it down.

That said, I'm still going to do my part and call/write my representatives. It won't do any good since they are Georgia Republicans, but I might as well try.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There really isn't a big lobbyist group AGAINST internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh?????
The following groups will fight this legislation.

1. Religious Right.
2. Horse and Dog Racing Industry.
3. State Lotteries.
4. Brick and mortar Casinos.
5. Indian Casinos.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
hey retards, im not saying not to do anything. do whatever you want jesus.

have you ever rooted for a sports team? i rooted for osu against florida in the ncaa finals and i said before the game, "i doubt osu wins." this is the same thing.

you guys are way too sensitive and self-righteous.

lastly "
It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible."

lmao at this analogy. EVERYONE wants to pay less for gas. griping about gas is as american as apple pie. as for poker large sections either dont care or think gambling is evil incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read your first post, I thought you may be a douchebag. Now I'm sure.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey retards, im not saying not to do anything. do whatever you want jesus.

have you ever rooted for a sports team? i rooted for osu against florida in the ncaa finals and i said before the game, "i doubt osu wins." this is the same thing.

you guys are way too sensitive and self-righteous.

lastly "
It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible."

lmao at this analogy. EVERYONE wants to pay less for gas. griping about gas is as american as apple pie. as for poker large sections either dont care or think gambling is evil incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read your first post, I thought you may be a douchebag. Now I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's just being honest with himself. The actions of this forum did little, if any good in the fall. You'd be hard pressed to generate that type of interest again, and you need 100X as much.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

He's just being honest with himself. The actions of this forum did little, if any good in the fall. You'd be hard pressed to generate that type of interest again, and you need 100X as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many people expected the bill to become law in the fall. Certainly the market was taken by surprise. People are probably a little more motivated now, especially with a glimmer of hope however faint.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
He's just being honest with himself. The actions of this forum did little, if any good in the fall. You'd be hard pressed to generate that type of interest again, and you need 100X as much.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can be honest with himself without discouraging others from fighting back. Honestly...who goes to the Legislation forum specifically to tell people not to fight back? As for effort, we weren't doing enough in the fall, really. Besides that, the environment has changed significantly since then.

Here's what happened since UIGEA:

- Frist is gone, as is Leach
- Barney Frank (D-MA, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee) has publicly taken our side. He'll introduce legislation tomorrow to repeal UIGEA. I think our support may have helped this, at least a little.
- Ron Paul (R-TX) sent several of us emails (even those of us not in his district) specifically stating he'll support Barney Frank's efforts. Coincidentally, that's EXACTLY what we asked him for in one of our weekly action items.
- Shelley Berkley (D-NV) and Jon Porter (R-NV) have proposed legislation to study legalized and regulated online gambling. Again, one of our action items hit the mark. While they likely would have done this anyway, our support gave them some additional ammo to proceed forward.
- The WTO ruled in favor of Antigua over the U.S. in the issue of the U.S. banning online gaming.
- Banks are bitching about being the UIGEA's enforcers.
- Al D'Amato joined PPA (great news overall, I think...folks concerned about the focus of PPA should join for free and tell PPA that they wish PPA to fight for all online gaming).

Now, on the very eve of a bill to repeal UIGEA, someone posts to discourage us from fighting back. Wow.

[Victor]

engineer and others,

i respect and appreciate the work you are doing. while i hope the cavs win the championship i dont think its likely.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


lastly "
It worked here in Wisconsin to repeal our automatic increase on our gas tax. A local radio talk show host spent an enormous amount of his on-air time explaining why people should call in. And Lord did they call. They brought the entire phone system in our capital to its knees and the legislation passed with numbers that no one thought possible."

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao at this analogy. EVERYONE wants to pay less for gas. griping about gas is as american as apple pie. as for poker large sections either dont care or think gambling is evil incarnate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree. The gas tax didn't fail because lots of people called in. It failed because nobody wants to pay more for gas and thus voted it down.

That said, I'm still going to do my part and call/write my representatives. It won't do any good since they are Georgia Republicans, but I might as well try.

[/ QUOTE ]


Apparently you don't know jack shit about Wisconsin then. We're already a tax hell, and the [censored] that got re-elected as governor managed to still find almost $2,000,000,000.00 more [censored] to spend money on in our upcoming budget.

And it wasn't a new tax that got voted down. It was a bill that had failed SEVERAL TIMES to repeal the automatic increase in our gas tax that we've had for the past few decades. This bill finally passed (and with OVERWHELMING numbers) because someone decided to organize the masses and get them to call their representatives!


So stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Banks are bitching about being the UIGEA's enforcers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect everything you've had to say about UIGEA, and am very much on your side. But has there been any public reports to support the statement above?

I ask because I think the banks are our best chance. Having them "bitch" to someone important would be a huge score for us.

[Victor]

"He can be honest with himself without discouraging others from fighting back. Honestly...who goes to the Legislation forum specifically to tell people not to fight back?"

see this is where it shows that you should have paid more attention in english comprehension class.

[LeapFrog]

this seemed like a good stopping point

[ QUOTE ]

engineer and others,

i respect and appreciate the work you are doing. while i hope the cavs win the championship i dont think its likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now trolling?
[ QUOTE ]

see this is where it shows that you should have paid more attention in english comprehension class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we please just drop this crap and focus on the issue at hand?

[Victor]

leapfrog, i just have a problem when ppl mistate my intentions, put words in my mouth and completely insult me. i didnt call anyone out or insult anyone. i simply stated my opinion. i certainly did not dissuade anyone from contacting reps.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
i certainly did not dissuade anyone from contacting reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the effects of calling in are fairly negligible esp on this bill. "

One of these kids is doing his own thing.

[Victor]

so you call me a douche but you write [censored] like this

"Forty years ago pussies like you"

and

"Good point. Let's all just give up and do nothing. That should be more successful.

Thanks so much for the helpful advice.

Where else would that advice work? Hmmm....
- big guy punches me in the face and I don't think I can take him. If I'm Victor I guess I either run away or stand there and get my ass beat without punching back. After all, I can't take him so why be a man and try? Right?

- After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it looked like we'd have our hands full without the ships that were sunk during the attack. I guess Victor would have bought us Japanese dictionaries.

Anyway, what are you, some religious-right [censored] here to unmotivate us? We're Americans and we should tell our congressmen how we feel. How the [censored] do we benefit by NOT writing? [censored] [censored] [censored]."

bc i state my opinion (despite making no recommendations) which happens to not jive with yours, you feel completely correct in insulting me.

you are blinded by your own self-righteousness.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt call anyone out or insult anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You called us "retards" for disagreeing with your post. So, you know, go [censored] yourself.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for assuming everyone is the same age as you.
Young people tend to do this.

I'm 40 years old and I'm sure I'm among countless others in their middle age who are also deeply concerned over this issue.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

hey retards


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

i didnt call anyone out or insult anyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

????

I don't think your tone earlier in the thread was great and yes, even in legislation you are going to get flamed for 'crapping' (your posts can be perceived in this fashion and people are obv a bit high strung about this) in a thread discussing one if not the most important issues at hand for online players.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i certainly did not dissuade anyone from contacting reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the effects of calling in are fairly negligible esp on this bill. "

One of these kids is doing his own thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is obv a statement of opinion. please brush up on your english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Imperative)

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didnt call anyone out or insult anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You called us "retards" for disagreeing with your post. So, you know, go [censored] yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

no i called you retards for putting words in my mouth. i stated my opinion of the whole thing. i never told anyone to do or not do anything.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i certainly did not dissuade anyone from contacting reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the effects of calling in are fairly negligible esp on this bill. "

One of these kids is doing his own thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is obv a statement of opinion. please brush up on your english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Imperative)

[/ QUOTE ]

Victor, I have in the past suffered from 'having to get the last word in' syndrome so I know what you are going through. But can you please [censored] drop this.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a) you think congressmen give a [censored] what a bunch of degenerate young gamblers think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for assuming everyone is the same age as you.
Young people tend to do this.

I'm 40 years old and I'm sure I'm among countless others in their middle age who are also deeply concerned over this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am restraining myself here. the great majority of those on this forum are youngsters. would you feel better if i said "70% 20yr olds, 20% middle agers, 5% teens and 5% geriatrics"?

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i certainly did not dissuade anyone from contacting reps.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the effects of calling in are fairly negligible esp on this bill. "

One of these kids is doing his own thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is obv a statement of opinion. please brush up on your english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Imperative)

[/ QUOTE ]

Victor, I have in the past suffered from 'having to get the last word in' syndrome so I know what you are going through. But can you please [censored] drop this.

[/ QUOTE ]

only if all you guys admit you were wrong, i was right, im infinitely superior to you and engineer apologizes for insulting me.

none of that will happen so im gonna continue.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]


this is obv a statement of opinion. please brush up on your english (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood#Imperative)

[/ QUOTE ]

"the effects of calling in are fairly negligible esp on this bill."

marginalize
A verb
1 marginalize, marginalise
relegate to a lower or outer edge,



Dissuade
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: dis·suad·ed, dis·suad·ing, dis·suades
To deter (a person) from a course of action or a purpose by persuasion or exhortation

English, mother [censored], do you speak it?

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]

Huh?????
The following groups will fight this legislation.

1. Religious Right.
2. Horse and Dog Racing Industry.
3. State Lotteries.
4. Brick and mortar Casinos.
5. Indian Casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

State Lotteries. Heheheheheehee. Yeah. It does suck when the government runs private businesses and thus has an even bigger stake in writing rules to benefit said business.

I believe it's morally bankrupt for any representative who's ever come out in favor of government run lotteries, or carve outs for other types of gambling, to support rules against internet gambling in any way. Of course, 85% percent of the reps ARE unethical.

Even if Washington comes to their senses (Republicans maybe realize that having their noses stuck so far up my arse checking out my business isn't really a small government and freedom type of idea... Democrats realize this is just as important an civil liberties type issue as most...) and allows internet gambling, they still will panic and think that tax revenues from the other gambling businesses will be reduced (they won't, by much) so they'll stick a monstrous tax on.

The money will be for good heartwarming stuff like education and treatment of course, and will certainly not go into the general budget to be wasted.

[jafeather]

Point of topic lost amongst meaningless childish fighting.

/thread

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]

The money will be for good heartwarming stuff like education and treatment of course, and will certainly not go into the general budget to be wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it should be earmarked to help women, children and minorities in some way. They are always hardest hit by everything, according to the media. Allow us to let poker lift them from their perpetual state of persecution.

[Victor]

kotd your post proves you are far too stupid to associate with.

[DerekJCEX]

[ QUOTE ]
I would go gay for Barney Frank.

[/ QUOTE ]

aaaahhhhahahah

[DerekJCEX]

the engineer i love you. great work all around. keep it up

[Emperor]

Democrats,

Please remove the time tables for leaving Iraq in the military funding bill, and add in language making online gambling legal forever.

Thank You

Your Lord and Master Foamy

[The Bryce]

Victor, there are days where I think I rag on you too much, and then you go on a tangent like this. GTFO.

[Nicok7]

Guys please ignore each other from now on. This thread started good and this discussion is now sterile.

Go frank.

[jschaud]

can we get a little back on track. also, could one of you in the know please make it super simple for everyone and make a post with the phone numbers of all the main players for us to call, the bill number, and then a link for everyone to find their own representative's phone numbers. Make it super easy for everyone to make a phone call. I will be calling/emailing everyone that I know to ask them to make a phone call, send an email, or send a letter.

i live in SC so the odds of my efforts affecting my bible thumping representatives is slim. But, I would rather waste an hour fighting this and failing than doing nothing and just getting steamrolled by the bureaucracy machine. To everyone, please make a call. It will take 5 minutes of your life and you never know if it will matter or not.

[cking]

[ QUOTE ]
can we get a little back on track. also, could one of you in the know please make it super simple for everyone and make a post with the phone numbers of all the main players for us to call, the bill number, and then a link for everyone to find their own representative's phone numbers. Make it super easy for everyone to make a phone call. I will be calling/emailing everyone that I know to ask them to make a phone call, send an email, or send a letter.

i live in SC so the odds of my efforts affecting my bible thumping representatives is slim. But, I would rather waste an hour fighting this and failing than doing nothing and just getting steamrolled by the bureaucracy machine. To everyone, please make a call. It will take 5 minutes of your life and you never know if it will matter or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know atleast 3 other guys that will be calling in columbia/irmo tomorrow too, so now we got atleast 5!

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Victor, there are days where I think I rag on you too much, and then you go on a tangent like this. GTFO.

[/ QUOTE ]

gee what will i ever do without your approval.

[IanB000]

Anyone know if this will be on TV/internet this morning?

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

Apparently you don't know jack shit about Wisconsin then. We're already a tax hell, and the [censored] that got re-elected as governor managed to still find almost $2,000,000,000.00 more [censored] to spend money on in our upcoming budget.

And it wasn't a new tax that got voted down. It was a bill that had failed SEVERAL TIMES to repeal the automatic increase in our gas tax that we've had for the past few decades. This bill finally passed (and with OVERWHELMING numbers) because someone decided to organize the masses and get them to call their representatives!


So stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for being so civil.

A couple points:

a) "voted down a tax increase" vs. "voted for a repeal of a tax increase" is semantics. Sorry I didn't word it properly.

b) I grew up in Wisconsin, my parents still live there, and I read the Journal-Sentinel almost regularly. So yeah, I think I know something about Wisconsin. Thanks for your concern, though.

Seriously, try being a little more calm in your posts. I know this is the internet and all, but you'll get along much better with people if you don't hurl swears and insults. I wasn't rude to you, so I would appreciate some common courtesy.

[stillers]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/25/barney_frank_uigea_repeal/

Legislation to be introduced at 10am. A step in the right direction...

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
so you call me a douche but you write [censored] like this

"Forty years ago pussies like you"

and

"Good point. Let's all just give up and do nothing. That should be more successful.

Thanks so much for the helpful advice.

Where else would that advice work? Hmmm....
- big guy punches me in the face and I don't think I can take him. If I'm Victor I guess I either run away or stand there and get my ass beat without punching back. After all, I can't take him so why be a man and try? Right?

- After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it looked like we'd have our hands full without the ships that were sunk during the attack. I guess Victor would have bought us Japanese dictionaries.

Anyway, what are you, some religious-right [censored] here to unmotivate us? We're Americans and we should tell our congressmen how we feel. How the [censored] do we benefit by NOT writing? [censored] [censored] [censored]."

bc i state my opinion (despite making no recommendations) which happens to not jive with yours, you feel completely correct in insulting me.

you are blinded by your own self-righteousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep calling us "self-righteous"? We're simply willing to take a stand for what we believe. Why do you keep disparaging that?

You keep saying we're wasting our time writing. Do you have proof of this? Any data? If not, it seems you could have at least stated that your opinions were just that....your opinions.

As for my earlier post, I stand by it. I've personally spent a lot of time and effort encouraging an effort to fight back, and many here have spent a lot of time fighting for online gambling in response (or independently of my effort). While it's an uphill struggle, we get more from fighting back than we do from doing nothing (as you propose). As you chose to disparage our effort, I chose to disparage your opinion (the one you stated as a fact).

Why do you even post at Legislation?

[Robin Foolz]

anyone know if the coverage of this bill/legislation/whateva gonna be on cspan online

[gutter]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone know if the coverage of this bill/legislation/whateva gonna be on cspan online

[/ QUOTE ]

[IanB000]

hopefully...will just turn the tv on in 50 min

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Berge, now that there is actually a bill put forth, any additional thoughts as to the substance of this bill and its reception on the Hill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me actually read the bill and such when I get a copy.

I will say this--the timing is bad press wise b/c almost everything up here today/tomorrow/friday will likely be about the Iraq supplemental. Not that it would have made a huge splash anyway, but it's just going to get pushed lower on the chain.

[/ QUOTE ]


As far as the "bad press": Does anyone think it would be a good idea to compile a list of news shows and magazine shows so we can call and maybe get some coverage?

[Artsemis]

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

[IanB000]

"The Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Can Internet gambling be regulated to protect consumers and the payments system?” at a date to be determined in June, 2007."

Will we basically not know anything until that date?

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
hopefully...will just turn the tv on in 50 min

[/ QUOTE ]At 10:09 EDT, CSPAN2 has Brownback going on about Iraq. With the House passing the Iraq funding bill from the committee, I doubt there'll be much else up for debate today in the Senate.

[Orlando Salazar]

it's up, its good!
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042507b.shtml

[IanB000]

lmao this 808 year old guy on cspan 2 ownz

[mr_hanky]

link here

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
link here

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

5 posts up

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
it's up, its good!
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042507b.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good... if you're interested in foreclosures.

[fnord_too]

I just skimmed this thread because it seemed to have a high crap factor. Here are some thoughts though:

1. Letters and faxes do have an impact on elected officials. While they won't get them to change their stance on an issue that is important to them or their party, they do take note of letters and faxes because if someone is motivated enough to write, it is an important issue to them and may very well impact the way they vote.

2. Republicans may not all be against this. I don't know if this legislation would change things such that we came into compliance with the WTO ruling, but politicians on both sides of the ailse realize being at odds with the WTO has a negative impact.

3. Even if the bill fails, it lays the groundwork for a future bill. The current administration will be replaced in 20 months. If congress remains roughly the same, it seems like similar legislation could move through both houses with much less effort as the major details will have already been worked out and negotiated to the point where both houses could accept it. (This is pure speculation as I am not familiar with congressional history enough to know if this sort of thing is common, but I don't see why it shouldn't be).

This is a very positive turn of events in any case.

[mr_hanky]

why did partygaming just drop so much?

[Berge20]

I missed out on a lot of the personal attacks and trolling that snowballed out of control in this thread.

Please keep things on topic. Don't troll and don't start going back-n-forth over some "grievance" you have against another poster.

[Victor]

"Why do you keep calling us "self-righteous"?"

bc you continuously, insult me, put me words in my mouth and mistate what i actually said IMHO.

"You keep saying we're wasting our time writing. Do you have proof of this? Any data? If not, it seems you could have at least stated that your opinions were just that....your opinions."

this should have been implicit IMHO.

" While it's an uphill struggle, we get more from fighting back than we do from doing nothing (as you propose)."

see, you still dont get it, i never proposed anything. i made a seemingly IMHO innocuous remark about our chances and you decided to jump on your high horse and deride me for treason against the high and mighty gambling stalwarts.

"As you chose to disparage our effort"

perhaps you missed this post: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10126781&an=&page=0& vc=1) im not disparaging anything.

"Why do you even post at Legislation? "

notice i didnt post here until yall started bashing me. for some reason i like to fight with idiots on the internet. its gives pleasure in a perverse fashion like banging my head into the wall.

IMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIMHOIM HOIMHOIMHOIMHO

[Artsemis]

Good timing Victor.

[tautomer]

The bill mentions that those receiving a license would be subject to US jurisdiction and required to pay taxes. I'm not so sure Party is coming back. And I'm wondering what happens to Stars and Full Tilt if this passes.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
The bill mentions that those receiving a license would be subject to US jurisdiction and required to pay taxes. I'm not so sure Party is coming back. And I'm wondering what happens to Stars and Full Tilt if this passes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw come on. Do you really think that these companies would purposefully avoid the largest market on earth because of taxes? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
The bill mentions that those receiving a license would be subject to US jurisdiction and required to pay taxes. I'm not so sure Party is coming back. And I'm wondering what happens to Stars and Full Tilt if this passes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party (Sexton) has said in the past they would gladly pay taxes to be fully accepted in the US.

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]

The bill mentions that those receiving a license would be subject to US jurisdiction and required to pay taxes. I'm not so sure Party is coming back. And I'm wondering what happens to Stars and Full Tilt if this passes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt Party and Co. would avoid us because of taxes. That's the business equivalent of not picking up a 100 dollar bill because it's locked in a newspaper box and will cost you fifty cents to get to.

[joeker]

These companies will happily pay taxes to be legally allowed in the US market

[Coy_Roy]

Sports bettors will not be happy with this bill.

Under the proposed legislation, all licensed Internet gambling operators would be prohibited from accepting bets or wagers on sports leagues or associations that have opted-out.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Sports bettors will not be happy with this bill.

Under the proposed legislation, all licensed Internet gambling operators would be prohibited from accepting bets or wagers on sports leagues or associations that have opted-out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see the NCAA boisterously opting out, but I see the NFL quietly staying in.

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bill mentions that those receiving a license would be subject to US jurisdiction and required to pay taxes. I'm not so sure Party is coming back. And I'm wondering what happens to Stars and Full Tilt if this passes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party (Sexton) has said in the past they would gladly pay taxes to be fully accepted in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

(assuming online poker becomes regulated and taxed in the states) since the customers always foot the bill, i'm curious how high the sites will raise the rake to offset usa regulative taxes. it will royally suck if everyone finally gets what they want only to have to endure ridiculous rake.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
but I see the NFL quietly staying in

[/ QUOTE ]

No way.

[Tarheel]

It sounds like this really opens the door for US operations to come in. If this bill is passed, would it alone allow US companies (i.e. Harrah's) into the market?

Can anybody speak for the purpose of the state limitations and state opt out?

Would states have the right to say that gambling sites cannot provide service to any of it's state population? Or could they only choose to restrict the licensee from being a functioning business registered in that state?

[Little_Luck]

All major professional sports leagues will opt-out. That kind of sucks, but not enough to not make me happy about the possibility of everything else becoming legal.

My one worry is this bill makes too much sense and therefore the other reps voting on it won't be able to understand it.

[Uglyowl]

Sports betting will remain "underground" as it is now.

[halsted]

Good question tarheel.

Where can we look at this bill?

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Good question tarheel.

Where can we look at this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the bottom of the press release at house.gov there's a link to view the full text of the bill.

[Zele]

Forgive my ignorance, but when does this bill get a number (it just says H.R. ____ now)? I'd like to have something to repeat three times when I call people.

[Dunkman]

It's H.R. 2046

[halsted]

How do you think states will react if passed? Will states, like Illinois (which is one of the states where online gaming is illegal), even look at this bill? Or just keep what they have going, i .e no internet betting?

[JPFisher55]

Two thoughts on Rep. Franks bill.
1. How much are the taxes? The bill doesn't state the taxes. The rate would determine how many foreign operators decide to obtain the license. The regulations are reasonable, but will the taxes be reasonable or unreasonable like the recent UK tax announcement. Strangely, Rep. Frank left out a RNG certificate requirement, but the regulations could require it.

2. In practice, a person could transfer money, receive money and play at unlicensed sites much easier than present. Neteller type companies would be able to access the US financial system without prosecution or impingment. Even better a person would know whether the site was licensed by the US or not. Of course, an unlicensed operator better not enter the US.

[joeker]

They have to allow the states exemption or the bill would be unconstitutional. The sports opt-out is a smart move also, it shouldn't generate that much opposition from major sports leagues who whole-heartedly supported the UIGEA

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
They have to allow the states exemption or the bill would be unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure if that is true, but I like the state exemption because a state must clearly tell the federal regulators what online gaming is not permitted in it. No more guessing about the interpretation of very old laws or skill v. chance. I doubt that most states will actually pass laws specifically banning most forms of online gaming. Taxation may be a problem.

[Elijah Bailey]

I guess we will all be playing on Harrah's poker software if this becomes reality.

[RonFezBuddy]

What are the chances that a specific state will opt-out. Or to ask my question in a more selfish manner, if this passes will NY ban online gaming anyway?

[Tarheel]

Looks like i found the answer to one of my questions...

Is it possible for restrictions to be enforced if individual states decide to “opt-out” from permitting persons in their states from Internet gambling?

Yes. When using the Internet, a customer’s IP address is broadcast to the operator and can then be used to identify the state in which a customer resides with a 99 percent level of accuracy. This information is also made available and compared to the customer’s registration information. In the event the information differs, the transaction would not be approved and the customer would be prevented from engaging in Internet gambling.


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[halsted]

[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[gurgeh]

This is fantastic. Better than fantastic, even. The naysayers be damned- this is the best thing to happen to online poker since I don't know when, and I'm not going to sit back and just watch while a golden opportunity slips through our fingers.

I'm calling Barney Frank's office to thank him. Or writing a snail mail letter if his office can't take it. I already followed up with my state rep. I realize that certain people in this thread believe these actions are pointless, but those people are wrong. The only way your voice has an impact is if it's heard, and the only way it's heard is if you make it so.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess we will all be playing on Harrah's poker software if this becomes reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered if places like the Bellagio and the Wynn already have software and servers in an advanced state, ready to go ASAP should such an opportunity arise.

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]

There are at least two really obvious workarounds as long as it's legal in at least one state. Despite UIGEA's brazen trampling of states' rights, Frank really had no choice but to insert this provision.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]


One interesting issue with state level opt-out though, is that such still might not conform to WTO rulings, as the WTO views the U.S. as an integral whole. So as long as remote wagering for horse racing and lotteries is allowed anywhere in the states, the U.S. would likely not be compliant as foreign companies were being shut out of part of the U.S. market. However of course such a foreign company agreeing to the terms of licensing requirements might make that point moot, as such agreement would seem to remove their ability to have their national government make a complaint to the WTO on that score.

The second interesting issue is whether the Commerce Clause of the constitution even allows such state opt-outs.

[Eaglebauer]

Edited

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess we will all be playing on Harrah's poker software if this becomes reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered if places like the Bellagio and the Wynn already have software and servers in an advanced state, ready to go ASAP should such an opportunity arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should know from Party Poker that software and servers have nothing to do with becoming the most successful internet gambling site.

[Jay Cohen]

This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[joeker]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like i found the answer to one of my questions...

Is it possible for restrictions to be enforced if individual states decide to “opt-out” from permitting persons in their states from Internet gambling?

Yes. When using the Internet, a customer’s IP address is broadcast to the operator and can then be used to identify the state in which a customer resides with a 99 percent level of accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm....I'd take issue with 99%, I'd say 80% at best, the way some major ISPs route their network, can make it look like you're from a state you're not it

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances that a specific state will opt-out. Or to ask my question in a more selfish manner, if this passes will NY ban online gaming anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill would regulate, but does not create, "lawful internet gambling".

States will opt out of unlawful offerings - NY included. If this somehow passed, could it lead to states changing laws? That is the real battlefront.

[Sinister_Kane]

The bill is out there, can someone give me a time line of what happens next?

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if it did resolve the WTO problem, then that would be one more selling point it would have in its favor.

Also, I have a question: could Antigua and the US come to some sort of out-of-court settlement using this proposed law as a foundation? Maybe, some kind of compromise on the sports betting issue and the States' issue could be worked out even if this bill may never fully comply with the WTO ruling.

[Dunkman]

Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess we will all be playing on Harrah's poker software if this becomes reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've often wondered if places like the Bellagio and the Wynn already have software and servers in an advanced state, ready to go ASAP should such an opportunity arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should know from Party Poker that software and servers have nothing to do with becoming the most successful internet gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think Pacific Poker was the poster child for how bad all that can be and still rake in the bucks. But that is neither here nor there. Software and servers mean you're ready to go, to sign people up and get some traffic. More important to have a wide net to cast when the sea is rich, especially for places with name recognition. Improvements can be made later.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if it did resolve the WTO problem, then that would be one more selling point it would have in its favor.

Also, I have a question: could Antigua and the US come to some sort of out-of-court settlement using this proposed law as a foundation? Maybe, some kind of compromise on the sports betting issue and the States' issue could be worked out even if this bill may never fully comply with the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antigua would love to reach a negotiated settlement with the US. It could involve all of the protection in the first part of Frank's bill, and a limited number of licensees.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[Little_Luck]

The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But, state's rights have been part of the foundation of this country and it's not going to change. We fought a Civil War over state's rights already, and it is the single most important provision in our constitution. I'm pretty sure the Congress really doesn't give a [censored] what the WTO thinks about it. Besides, I think they're probably questioning what the WTO can do to the US anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "State's rights" side of the Civil War lost. and what provision of the constitution are you talking about?

States rights are important and have had somewhat of a resurgence of support in recent years, but they are no where near as important as they used to be.

[Tarheel]

[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fed law is 'above' state law. the point of the opt-out is that gambling is an area of the law that is traditionally governed by each state individually (like family law, most criminal...), so the Act would allow each state to maintain that ability.

The Act doesn't say that every American has a federal right to gamble online. if it said that, then arguably the opt-out wouldn't work.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fed law is 'above' state law. the point of the opt-out is that gambling is an area of the law that is traditionally governed by each state individually (like family law, most criminal...), so the Act would allow each state to maintain that ability.

The Act doesn't say that every American has a federal right to gamble online. if it said that, then arguably the opt-out wouldn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems though that in areas that deal with foreing policy and treaties, which this does, they may not be able to allow that opt-out. But that will be a question for the courts if we are fortunate enough to have this bill pass. It would be really neat to see it pass because of the opt-out portion then have that exact portion ruled unconstitutional, but I'm a dreamer.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[Tarheel]

Jay, Coke -

My understanding was that the level of availability of certain markets to foreign suppliers was very sector dependent. That's why i was wondering what provisions were made for "internet gambling".

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But doesn't the constitution provide that only the federal goventment can enter and withdraw from treaties? So one could possibly argue that the opt-out portion could not be applied to on line gambling that fell under the auspices of a treaty, since they would then be unconstitutionally withdrawing from a treaty.

[BradleyT]

THe PPA guy is on cnbc right now

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
THe PPA guy is on cnbc right now

[/ QUOTE ]

Which PPA guy?

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay, Coke -

My understanding was that the level of availability of certain markets to foreign suppliers was very sector dependent. That's why i was wondering what provisions were made for "internet gambling".

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO panels found that the US made commitments for remote gambling under section 10d of its schedule. They placed no limits on it.

[schwza]

i am a man with a phone. direct me. i live in mass, but not in franks's district (somerville).

also, is there a chance this is going to pass?

[dougmanct]

I predict that this bill will absolutely pass both houses of Congress.

I base this prediction on one metric - but this one metric is so amazing to me, unprecedented in its result - that I HAVE to think it will reflect the mood and response both parties will hear regarding this bill.

I've always held that the most dyed-in-the-wool, completely psycho, overthetop batshit insane crazy right-wing fundamentalists in the entire universe all read and post to freerepublic.com. These sort of lunatics would be the LAST PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSE you would expect to EVER support the idea of "regulated online gambling".

Yet, if one does a search on their forum for the recent discussion of Barney's Bill, you tend to jaw-drop at the OVERWHELMING amount of SUPPORTIVE response this bill receieved - at the MECCA of ultra-psycho-right-wing-world! These are the people who literally believe Barney Frank is demonic and should burn in hell...yet dozens of the "freeper" faithful are openly admitting that they, as much as it pains them, AGREE with Barney Frank!

Anyone that doesn't think today's congressfolks and senators don't look at the sentiments of the blogosphere if for no other reason than curiousity is nuts.

If the most hardcore of the fundies think this bill is the right way to go, I HAVE to think that the overwhelming majority of feedback every legislator is going to hear about this is going to be positive - and just like a TV show battling for survival, I think bills tend to pass when they experience an "unexpected" surge in voter interest.

Cliffs Notes: I predict legislators will not expect to hear anything from the people about this bill, and be shocked at the volume of correspondence they get - and it will be almost all positive. This bill passes both houses in this session of congress.

I refuse to predict how the President will act, however.

[beaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what would suck...this bill passes and then 39 of the 50 states can now play poker online legally. The other 11 get shut out, including sites they can play on now. (I'm in NY and can play at FTP, Stars, UB, Absolute).

Although other than Prima saying online gambling is illegal in NY, I can't find any laws saying as much. I think it might have to do with some cases in 2002 or 2003 where (now Governor) Spitzer went after operations based in NY but had servers in Antigua. I'm hoping Prima is just being hyper-cautious.

[gurgeh]

I predict that it will pass if we act on it. I just called Barney Frank's DC office at (202) 225-5931 and spoke to one of his aides. He said that what they will need next is cosponsors, plain and simple. Call your representatives, people.

[Bilgefisher]

Yes there is an exception to allow states to ban online gambling, but even if 11 states block it, 39 states have allowed it. Thats a monumental step in the right direction. Eventually other states will see the cash flow generated and be all to eager to follow suit.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
i am a man with a phone. direct me. i live in mass, but not in franks's district (somerville).



[/ QUOTE ]

actually this should probably be a new thread. if somebody knowledgable wanted to start one, that'd be awesome.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually other states will see the cash flow generated and be all to eager to follow suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big "IF" is if the states get it or the feds.

Edit - and also Indian tribes will have the ability to ban Internet gambling in their areas so being in Milwaukee (A) Wisconsin B) a local Indian casino) I'm prolly worse off than I am now if this passes.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
The bill is out there, can someone give me a time line of what happens next?

[/ QUOTE ]

[jschaud]

Write your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

call your representative:
http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I actually think this is an incredibly well designed bill. Something like this has much more chance of passing than a straight attempt to repeal the UIGEA or a poker carveout. Also, the protections for states' rights and sporting leagues are intelligent. Ultimately, if we have regulated and licensed online gambling in the United States, it's going to come under a vehicle that looks very much like this bill. In certain ways, this bill is ahead of its time.

With that said, I suspect it's too far ahead of its time, and probably unlikely to go to a floor vote in both chambers, get approved by both chambers, and avoid a White House veto. But we need to remember that this is a long-term process. The UIGEA was floating around in various iterations for years and years -- it took some fortuitous circumstances but it eventually got passed. This is a great way to get the ball rolling on our behalf; we just need to be patient.

[JuntMonkey]

If I call Peter King's (R who let it get on the Port Security bill in the first place) office do I say he should cosponsor or is that too ridiculous?

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]


Hmmmm....I'd take issue with 99%, I'd say 80% at best, the way some major ISPs route their network, can make it look like you're from a state you're not it

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you say that. I just switched ISP's a couple weeks ago and the new one gave me a static IP address for free. Now, to the outside world, I look like I'm in Florida, but I am most certainly not.

[RonFezBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
If I call Peter King's (R who let it get on the Port Security bill in the first place) office do I say he should cosponsor or is that too ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I just wrote to to my congressman. Turns out that his name is Peter King. Did not realize he was the one who let it on to the bill. Oh well.

[LotsOfOuts69]

oooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Pahty Poka,.......... Pahty Poka

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
If I call Peter King's (R who let it get on the Port Security bill in the first place) office do I say he should cosponsor or is that too ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

No sir.

Dear Representative xxxxxx,

Today, Representative Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. This act would legalize and regulate internet gambling at the Federal level. I urge you to not only support, but co-sponsor this resolution as Rep. Frank introduces this to committee.

I'm a Software Services Manager with a leading software company and after a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion. I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side rather than driving long hours to Buffalo, Detroit or Atlantic City to play in a smoky casino. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

Co-sponsoring Rep. Frank's resolution would help to bring Poker out from a murky legal stance and bring clarity to the government's position on the game - a game which most members of Congress play regularly! It would also allow the government to regulate providing sites to protect U. S. players and collect tax revenues from the operators, tax revenues that can go a long way in funding necessary programs like Veteran's benefits and Walter Reed Hospital.

This resolution would show the current administration that Congress is first and foremost tasked with protecting the rights of the people of the United States, something that the administration is seemingly directly opposed to.

I hope that you will take the time to consider H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, and hope that you will help Rep. Frank make this a reality by co-sponsoring the bill.

Thank you for your time,


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[RonFezBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I call Peter King's (R who let it get on the Port Security bill in the first place) office do I say he should cosponsor or is that too ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

No sir.

Dear Representative xxxxxx,

Today, Representative Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. This act would legalize and regulate internet gambling at the Federal level. I urge you to not only support, but co-sponsor this resolution as Rep. Frank introduces this to committee.

I'm a Software Services Manager with a leading software company and after a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion. I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side rather than driving long hours to Buffalo, Detroit or Atlantic City to play in a smoky casino. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

Co-sponsoring Rep. Frank's resolution would help to bring Poker out from a murky legal stance and bring clarity to the government's position on the game - a game which most members of Congress play regularly! It would also allow the government to regulate providing sites to protect U. S. players and collect tax revenues from the operators, tax revenues that can go a long way in funding necessary programs like Veteran's benefits and Walter Reed Hospital.

This resolution would show the current administration that Congress is first and foremost tasked with protecting the rights of the people of the United States, something that the administration is seemingly directly opposed to.

I hope that you will take the time to consider H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, and hope that you will help Rep. Frank make this a reality by co-sponsoring the bill.

Thank you for your time,


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nicely written. His office number is 516-541-4225. I just spoke to one of his people and they took my comment.

Now, I am not naive and I know that there is a lot of politics to be played here in order for this to be passed. However it does feel good to voice my opinion and let him know that as a constituent in his district, I have opinions on the way he votes that will affect my decision at election time. I urge you to call as well.

[KotOD]

Please make sure that you write Rep. Ron Paul, who has already expressed to many people on these forums that he would support a bill like this. He's on the financial services committee that Rep. Frank chairs and he's a Republican. He gladly takes emails from outside of his district.

http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

This new bill seems to provide both foreign and domestic online gambling providers the same rights under US and state laws. If a state does not permit online gaming, then this would apply to both domestic and foreign providers. Thus, it seems to comply with the WTO ruling.
The one exception might be horseracing pari-mutual betting. A state could ban online gambling, but allow off track online pari-mutual betting on horse racing because the bill exempts the Interstate Horse Racing Act from its provisions. If this actually occurred then the US would not be in compliance with the WTO.

OTOH, if most states permit online gaming by licensed operators, then no financial institution could block transactions from any ewallet serving licensed operators, even if the ewallet serves foreign unlicensed operators. So depositing, withdrawing and playing at unlicensed operators will be easy like before the UIGEA.

[jafeather]

E-mail sent, phone call made, snail mail ready with a stamp on it.

Please everybody, get to showing your support!!!

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

This new bill seems to provide both foreign and domestic online gambling providers the same rights under US and state laws. If a state does not permit online gaming, then this would apply to both domestic and foreign providers. Thus, it seems to comply with the WTO ruling.
The one exception might be horseracing pari-mutual betting. A state could ban online gambling, but allow off track online pari-mutual betting on horse racing because the bill exempts the Interstate Horse Racing Act from its provisions. If this actually occurred then the US would not be in compliance with the WTO.

OTOH, if most states permit online gaming by licensed operators, then no financial institution could block transactions from any ewallet serving licensed operators, even if the ewallet serves foreign unlicensed operators. So depositing, withdrawing and playing at unlicensed operators will be easy like before the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not compliant. Like I said, it's one country. The WTO ruled that the US should allow Antiguan operations unfettered access to the US market. The US tried to hang its argument on a moral defense. It failed. Any new offerings by any state without allowing Antiguan operators unfettered access to the US market will bring them further out of compliance.

[Jay Cohen]

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-489.html

April-26-2007,
Barney Frank's Proposal is A Big Letdown...By Hartley Henderson

Read the whole thing, but here is the last paragraph:

When voting against the UIGEA, Frank said that it was "one of the stupidest laws ever passed." If that's true, then get rid of it. Otherwise you end up with one of the stupidest laws ever passed with a few small revisions. Frank's original plan was to repeal the whole law. He should continue down that road and create a betting environment like in the UK where regulations are in place to prevent underage gambling, fraud, compulsive gambling and money laundering, but doesn't have glaring exclusions into what types of bets are allowed. Plus, the government takes reasonable taxes and fees for businesses located within their own borders. With the political wind blowing the way it is, there is a good chance he could have the whole law scrapped if he provided the right arguments. It was a nice start Barney, but you need to go further.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-489.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasted 5 mins - that guy is a moron.

[BluffTHIS!]

All,

Jay is highly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the WTO situation, and his comments here should be given respect. However let's also note that the agenda of himself and others, like the majorwager site, is primarily oriented towards sports betting, whereas that of most of us is oriented towards poker.

Now I personally think all forms of fair gambling should be legal. But as I have noted many times before in other threads, opposition to sports betting is *FAR* stronger than that to poker, and we *CANNOT* allow the fortunes of poker to be tied to sports betting, or our cause will be *DOOMED*.

Let's face it. The only reason we care about the WTO proceedings is because of its potential, however small, to positively affect our cause. But if Rep. Franks' bill were to pass, a longshot as it is, we wouldn't give a rat's ass if the U.S. were otherwise non-compliant with WTO decisions as long as we could play poker, nor should we.

The bottom line is that if we hitch our poker wagon to the "all forms of gambling including sports must be legalized or nothing" cart, we will be taken for a ride off a cliff. Sure the issue doesn't have to be posed as only two alternatives, but that's effectively the way it's going to be because of the political and institutional (NFL) opposition to sports betting.

Again I'm not saying we should actively oppose sports betting or other non-poker forms of gambling, but just that we cannot allow our cause to be tied to the fate of those forms.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

What are the chances of this bill passing? Voting along Party lines would have it passing, correct?

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Jay is highly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the WTO situation, and his comments here should be given respect. However let's also note that the agenda of himself and others, like the majorwager site, is primarily oriented towards sports betting, whereas that of most of us is oriented towards poker.

Now I personally think all forms of fair gambling should be legal. But as I have noted many times before in other threads, opposition to sports betting is *FAR* stronger than that to poker, and we *CANNOT* allow the fortunes of poker to be tied to sports betting, or our cause will be *DOOMED*.

Let's face it. The only reason we care about the WTO proceedings is because of its potential, however small, to positively affect our cause. But if Rep. Franks' bill were to pass, a longshot as it is, we wouldn't give a rat's ass if the U.S. were otherwise non-compliant with WTO decisions as long as we could play poker, nor should we.

The bottom line is that if we hitch our poker wagon to the "all forms of gambling including sports must be legalized or nothing" cart, we will be taken for a ride off a cliff. Sure the issue doesn't have to be posed as only two alternatives, but that's effectively the way it's going to be because of the political and institutional (NFL) opposition to sports betting.

Again I'm not saying we should actively oppose sports betting or other non-poker forms of gambling, but just that we cannot allow our cause to be tied to the fate of those forms.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree 100% with everything you just said.

I also wish Jay the best of luck with his cause.

[Dunkman]

Unfortunately I don't think it's necessarily a partisan issue, so voting down party lines doesn't seem particularly applicable.

Also, of the arguments to be made to allow online poker, I think pointing out that it's a game of skill is way down the list (it's more of a "sneak it into a bill when no one's looking because no one will really care" thing than a cause someone is going to champion.) Much more effective are 1) it's taking away freedoms from people and 2) regulation is a more effective method of stopping the problems with online gambling than prohibition, which only stops law abiding players, which weren't ever posing a problem in the first place. I may be wrong, but I just don't think going for a poker exception has much of a chance, at least not nearly as much as some other tacts. If the others fail, of course we should try for a poker exception, but that seems like a long-shot to me.

As for the WTO stuff, the point I was trying to make earlier, and didn't make very well, is that, honestly, the Congress really doesn't care whether or not the WTO approves of how they handle this issue. The problem with international bodies like this is enforcement (especially against large nations), and there's only so much they can do to the U.S. in this matter. It's unfortunate, but being the world's largest economy, the U.S. can afford to call it's own shots and not have repercussions.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

"Unfortunately I don't think it's necessarily a partisan issue, so voting down party lines doesn't seem particularly applicable."

After having the republicans run [censored] for god knows how long you'd hope the dems could atleast stick together.

[BluffTHIS!]

KKF,

Most dems would have voted for the IUGEA if it had come up for a straight vote. Our best hopes, now or in the future, to get something like this passed, is to make it a non-partisan issue of consumers who should be able to spend their money as they please, just like all the luxury shoppers out there, and at the same time tout the financial benefits to gov't of taxing (note I don't say "regulating becuase we want *minimal* regulation so they don't micromanage limits, etc.).

[Dunkman]

There was strong bipartisan support for the UIGEA. The best bet seems to be convincing people that although maybe a ban was better than the status quo, regulation is better than either of them. I think it's a big mistake to attack Frank for introducing this bill. Mr. Henderson can want a repeal of the UIGEA all he wants, that [censored] isn't gonna happen, it had a ton of support, and if not for the horse-racing lobby it would have passed the Senate last summer out in the open rather than being changed and tacked onto a bill.

[Kodfish]

First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum. I also appreciate BluffTHIS for his level headedness (where is skallagrim? /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Secondly, EVERYONE CONTACT YOUR REPS. Snail mail, email AND phone calls. ALL OF THE ABOVE. See if you can motivate ANYONE in your family or circle of friends to do the same...even if its writing out a generic letter for them to mail. We must all get behind this...we dropped the ball last fall, let's not do it again.

[PartyGirlUK]

Anybody want to offer some %s that the UIGEA gets overturned?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

We all know what to do now. Write and call, then write and call some more. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DONKTARDO]

[ QUOTE ]
Please make sure that you write Rep. Ron Paul, who has already expressed to many people on these forums that he would support a bill like this. He's on the financial services committee that Rep. Frank chairs and he's a Republican. He gladly takes emails from outside of his district.

http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

"First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum. I also appreciate BluffTHIS for his level headedness (where is skallagrim? /images/graemlins/smile.gif )"

Sorry Kodfish, I do have a day job ...

This is a great step forward for all of us and everyone should contact their representatives.

A couple of points for the doomsayers, sportsbetters, and apathetic/pessimistic.

1) There are certainly just as many (probably more) poker players in the US as there are anti-gambling fanatics. While it is true most of the US does not see internet poker or gambling as a big issue, that didnt stop the UIGEA from passing did it? Nor will it mean the repeal wont pass.

2) I am not sure the WTO would rule against individual state differences, and I see Frank's intelligence in including that provision (softens the opposition). If some states were open to all and others were not, that is not really different from some countries being open and some not. So long as the rules are the same for the offshore and the US companies, I think the WTO would allow it.

3) It is legal under the commerce clause for the congress to explicitly allow states to have individual laws for certain commerce, and this is clearly explicit.

4) Dont forget we have some powerful allies here (banks).

5) I really sympathize with the sports bettors, but the NFL is a really powerful foe - I like that Frank does not seperate different gaming in the bill, but allows for it (if I am reading it right) because, as a poker player, while I support the rights of sports betters, I am not so supportive as to insist on losing with them if given a chance to seperately win.

6) The skill argument is not unimportant. Part of getting any bill passed is going to be to convince the (mostly democratic) nanny-staters that all hell WILL NOT break loose if we legalize online gaming. Treating poker like golf because it is more like golf than slot machines may become an important point as the bill is debated and amended (poker being the vast majority of current online gaming). A skill game is less threatening to the nanny-staters. We shall have to see how the votes line up, but if it comes to be that poker can get the votes while slots cant, so be it.

Observe that nobody talks about total drug legalization because "all hell would break loose." Marijauna alone, however, is getting closer to that point as the years roll by not because the individual rights and "its better to regulate' arguments are gaining more ground, but because most folks realize marijuana is not that dangerous.

I really think the chances of passing this bill (either as written or slightly amended) are pretty good. It just requires getting the ducks all lined up (banks with us, NFL pacified, highly religious states able to opt out, and the prospect of more government pork, er I mean revenue, for the safe seat politicians and NRA style single issue voting to worry the non-safe seat politicians - remember Leach).

Our point in that line is to let the representatives know which side we want them to be on. WRITE NOW!

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Washington, DC - Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators , allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

The Act establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals in the U.S., to the extent permitted by individual states , Indian tribes and sport leagues.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is this progress?

Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

A states "properly licensed operator" is already exempted from "the ban".

It says along with your state regulation, you get a new level of Federal regulation.


Something similar to this may be needed once a few states allow online gambling and want to pool customers, so maybe that's the point.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this progress? Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. E-wallets will be legal again.
2. The fish will feel more secure with poker being expressly legal (and being able to get money on the sites).
3. We'll have more than the couple of sites we now have to play.
4. The DOJ doesn't agree with our interpretion of the legality of poker (nor does my congressman, for that matter). Explicit legalization is good for us.

[JPFisher55]

Ewallets that serve one US licensed site will have access to the US banking system because it will be impossible to tell which of the transactions from this ewallet derive from a US licensed site and which do not.
In practice, this law repeals the UIGEA because it removes any possible enforcement by the US banking system against ewallets.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the WTO or any other treaty organization can't trash the U.S. constitution which grants the states many rights, just because they don't like those rights.

If the federal government signs a treaty which contains provisions that they don't even have the power to enforce, then the signatory on the other side of the treaty needs to be aware of that before they sign on the dotted line.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this progress? Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. E-wallets will be legal again.
2. The fish will feel more secure with poker being expressly legal (and being able to get money on the sites).
3. We'll have more than the couple of sites we now have to play.
4. The DOJ doesn't agree with our interpretion of the legality of poker (nor does my congressman, for that matter). Explicit legalization is good for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "explicit legalization"? I see it talks about Federal licensing, taxation and regulation of "lawful internet gambling". I agree it would be nice, but legalization ain't there. If it's unlawful internet gambling now, it still would be if this passed tomorrow.

UIGEA already allows "lawful internet gambling" and it doesn't make you get a Federal license, so what am I missing?

[DrewOnTilt]

ATTENTION VICTOR AND THEENGINEER:

Drop it! You are both killing this thread.

On with the discussion.

[The Mayo]

I attempted to send this email to Geoff Davis (R-KY4), Northern Kentucky's congressman and a member of Frank's financial services committee. But the online form here (http://geoffdavis.house.gov/Contact.aspx) will only accept email from members of his district. I live in souther Scott County, so I'm just outside his district. So any Northern Kentuckians out there, feel free to modify this and send it in! It's especially important for people whose representatives who don't accept outside email to contact their congressmen so that this issue gets on their radars.

--- BEGIN ---

Dear Representative Davis,

On Thursday, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. This act would legalize and regulate internet gambling at the Federal level. I urge you to not only support, but co-sponsor this resolution as Rep. Frank introduces this to committee. As you are a member of the Financial Services Committee, you have an opportunity to be an early leader on this issue, and early support could be crucial to the success of this important legislation.

I enjoy playing poker on the internet. I enjoy the convenience of being able to play from the comfort of my own home. I enjoy the low stakes games that allow me to play on my limited budget as a student at UK. I enjoy the faster pace of the online games. These are just a few advantages that are not available in standard casinos.

I have lived in Kentucky my whole life, and believe I know the character of my fellow Kentuckians. And I know quite a few of them, many of whom live in the 4th Congressional District, who responsibly enjoy gambling and would love to take advantage of legalized online gambling. They would be able to gamble in their homes, and the state of Kentucky would be able to generate tax revenue from their gambling. Surely this is better for our state than the current situation where citizens of the 4th district take their money across the Ohio River and generate tax revenue for Indiana casinos, while Kentucky gets nothing.

More importantly, I know that my fellow Kentuckians value freedom and liberty above almost all else. The federal government currently prohibits them from gambling their hard-earned money on a recreational activity which they enjoy that causes no harm to others. That is not consistent, in my view, with the conception of America as the land of the free. I know that Kentuckians value their individual rights very highly, and they don't take kindly to their government limiting those rights absent some compelling reason. And the passage of H.R. 2046 would give these rights to lawful, tax-paying American citizens and generate some tax revenue to boot. It's truly a win-win piece of legislation.

I hope that you will take the time to fully consider the numerous advantages of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, and hope that you will help Rep. Frank make this a reality by co-sponsoring the bill and doing whatever is necessary to help it along in the financial services committee.

Thank you for your time, and I would be delighted if you would contact me with your thoughts on this issue. My contact information is at the bottom of this message.

Sincerely,

[Personal info removed]

[Dima2000123]

This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I think a number of those 11 states dont have illegal internet gambling laws, just shaky ones.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the "explicit legalization"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole bill is about explicit legalization. A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out. E-wallets will be legal for use at these sites as well. Right now, it's illegal to operate a gambling web site anywhere in the U.S. That will be legal under this legislation. And e-wallets are illegal under UIGEA.

Currently, even if a state like ND chose to legalize online gambling, it would be illegal to them to offer the service outside of that state. This will all become legal under the Frank bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I attempted to send this email to Geoff Davis (R-KY4), Northern Kentucky's congressman and a member of Frank's financial services committee. But the online form here (http://geoffdavis.house.gov/Contact.aspx) will only accept email from members of his district. I live in souther Scott County, so I'm just outside his district.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you'll still print it and mail it to him. Davis was a cosponsor of HR 4411, but he also barely survived his last election, so he's more receptive to public input than usual.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true for snail mail. I've been sending them to everyone, and I've been encouraging others here to do the same. Rep. Ron Paul actually sent me a reply, despite being several states away from me.

For email, though, Davis (and Frank as well) has a filter that checks the nine-digit ZIP code, so one would have to enter a false ZIP code (such as 41017-2136, the ZIP code of his local office) to send it electronically. But then, if the address used is out-of-state, it wouldn't reflect well on our cause.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
ATTENTION VICTOR AND THEENGINEER:

Drop it! You are both killing this thread.

On with the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite sure where this "we" comes in....Victor tried to discourage us from acting, going so far as to call us "retards" for trying. I don't know if he supports UIGEA or what, but he should honestly state his intentions, rather than trying to sabotage our effort by demoralizing people.

Anwyay, I dropped it a couple of hundred posts ago and I won't reply if he again posts defending his position that we shouldn't do anything about UIGEA, as no one here will pay any attention to that, now that we have the Frank bill. Earlier, I wanted to make sure his advice to not write didn't go through unchallenged. This is crunch time, where we take no prisoners.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true - All forms of correspondence (email, fax, letters, calls) are checked to see if you reside in their district (assuming you give a proper address). Those not in the district are generally forwarded to the actual person who represents you---its just general courticy.

If you give a false address, the database will indicate it most times.

[Jay Cohen]

This is what the Antigua WTO lawyer said this morning regarding the state by state issue.

"With respect to international and interstate commerce, the states themselves have no say unless the federal government expressly allows them to. So, an international treaty dealing with international commerce will trump any state law on the same topic, period. Utah, for example, has no right to prohibit international commerce from Antigua to be transacted within its borders if the federal government has decided otherwise."

I have been over this state issue with him many times the past 4+ years. What if the states....? Would that be compliant? The answer is always the same, it's one country. The Feds stepped all over states rights a long time ago, including when they signed the GATS and the GATT.

As far as "my cause" goes, I have consistently fought for the right of Americans to gamble online and to access licensed and legal offshore sportsbooks and casinos wherever in the world they are located, as long as they are properly licensed by the country they where they are located and that country allows them to access the global market.

Regarding throwing sports players under the bus, what can I say? That's a choice everyone here has to make. Back in 1997, the horse racing people were on our side until they got their exemption, then they didn't know the sports folks.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

ive been sending emails from the house.gov link and they only require your addy/zip if you want a response.

[Eaglebauer]

Dear Eaglebauer:

Thank you for your message regarding Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.



The debate over Internet gambling has generated strong public interest. While most types of Internet gambling operations are prohibited under federal law, many Internet gambling operations are based in foreign countries and have fallen outside the jurisdiction of American enforcement agencies. Overall, Americans spend roughly $4 billion to $6 billion a year on Internet gambling. Because of the largely unregulated nature of this business, Internet gambling sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud. Further, Internet gambling can be addictive, and this addiction has had a harmful effect on some individuals and communities.



In September 2006, the Senate passed the SAFE Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954) by unanimous consent. This legislation contained numerous important provisions that would improve the security of our nation's ports. It also included language added to the measure late in the process to enhance the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling. The provision bars those who are in the business of gambling from knowingly accepting credit cards, checks, electronic fund transfers or similar financial instruments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The Act imposes fines and/or prison sentences on violators. The legislation further requires the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations directing banks and other financial transaction providers to adopt practices that will enable them to identify and prevent restricted transactions that support Internet gambling.



The SAFE Port Act of 2006, and its strong measures to prevent unlawful Internet gambling, passed the Senate with my support. At the same time, it is important that the relevant federal agencies work in conjunction with law-abiding financial transaction providers when crafting the regulations required by the SAFE Port Act. We can and should effectively target unlawful gambling transactions without imposing unrealistic or overly burdensome requirements on law-abiding financial transaction providers.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to stay in touch.



Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator



RJD/jk



P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details.

[1p0kerboy]

^^^

Automated response from about 6 months ago.

It doesn't address the new legislation that WOULD block access to gambling by children, etc.

[OpenWheel]

Internet gambling sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud

Where do the children get their money? Can the congress show me where gambling is detrimental to a child? Or is that one of the theorems I'm just supposed to "assume" for the purpose of a national debate? If a parent wishes to allow their minor to gamble will proposed legislation give that parent a "carve out"?

Why should the federal government be involved in preventing fraud for private businesses? You mean to tell me they can't figure something out to protect themselves? Contract law and my vigilance isn't enough to protect me? Shouldn't the businesses that commit fraud or fail to prevent fraud against themselves be the ones who go out of business? What if I prefer to do business with a site that uses a private service to monitor their integrity to my satisfaction instead of the federal government... Will you reduce my tax "rake"?

[Skallagrim]

Quick note:

The "11 state ban" would NOT apply to this bill. It would, at present, be a 2 state ban: Washington and Louisianna.

The other 9 states have laws that restrict internet gambling OPERATORS and SITES, but not players. Those laws would not apply under the Frank bill, because Federal licensing trumps state licensing.

Of course those 9 states, and maybe others, may seek to opt out under Frank's bill, but it would require them passing NEW legislation.

Skallagrim

PS - Richard Durbin shows only ignorance on this issue, you folks in Illinois (which is one of those 9 states) had better get organized and writing!

[The Mayo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I attempted to send this email to Geoff Davis (R-KY4), Northern Kentucky's congressman and a member of Frank's financial services committee. But the online form here (http://geoffdavis.house.gov/Contact.aspx) will only accept email from members of his district. I live in souther Scott County, so I'm just outside his district.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you'll still print it and mail it to him. Davis was a cosponsor of HR 4411, but he also barely survived his last election, so he's more receptive to public input than usual.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's in the mail.

[meleader2]

what's that choking sound? oh, it's the final death throes of gaboon.

[ImsaKidd]

Skallagrim I hope youre right on the Wash/LA issue.

Now to make sure Dickwad Durbin doesnt mess it up...

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a state would make internet gambling "explicitly legal", not this bill. This bill gets you a license to offer what a state legalizes, if they don't all opt out.

Your drivers license allows you to drive lawfully, it doesn't make or change any driving laws.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a state would make internet gambling "explicitly legal", not this bill. This bill gets you a license to offer what a state legalizes, if they don't all opt out.

Your drivers license allows you to drive lawfully, it doesn't make or change any driving laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Frank's bill passes, it will be legal for licensed online sites to offer gambling in states that don't opt out. The states won't have to pass legislation to make it explicitly legal. It will be legal to move money back and forth between U.S. banks or credit carrds and licensed sites. It will also be legal for venture capital and other companies to aid in the establishment of new online gambling companies.

[Skallagrim]

Engineer is right, sorry permafrost.

Once the Feds say legal unless opted out, states that want out will have to have already, or newly pass, legislation saying explicitly "internet gambling is illegal here." Those laws that say "internet gambling illegal without state license" wont cut it, a Fed license trumps a state license every time.

[JPFisher55]

More importantly, the regulation on ewallets by banks would not take place. Thus, you could move money to an unlicensed site.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, the regulation on ewallets by banks would not take place. Thus, you could move money to an unlicensed site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta say I am not 100% sure about this JP, because some banks will still panic about being invovled with unlicensed (hence illegal) sites. But you are absolutely right that some banks (and also all the ewallets) wont care once the UIGEA is no more.

[sellthekids]

Barney Frank was on NPR today - the stream will be up at 7:30PM EST

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9884085

[Johnny McEldoo]

gaboonviper has been awfully quiet as of late /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I think a number of those 11 states dont have illegal internet gambling laws, just shaky ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
I remember going through New Jersey's laws when I was thinking about registering from TradeSports, and I remember seeing it expressly written that placing wagers over Internet is illegal. It wasn't enforced, obviously, but even laws that aren't enforced are going to be enough to prevents the licensed operators from allowing you to play.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, what I meant is that since ewallets will service both licensed sites and unlicensed sites, banks will not be able to tell which transactions and customers of the ewallets come from licensed or unlicensed sites. Thus, the banks, FRS etc. can't enforce the UIGEA. This removes the burden on the banking system. Therefore, I think that the banking industry (especially smaller banks) and their lobbyists will support this bill.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
the Feds say legal unless opted out

[/ QUOTE ]

We wish it said that, it doesn't, so your theory is weak. It says it will regulate existing "lawful internet gambling", not create "lawful internet gambling". If your theory is correct and a state forgets to opt out, who will create what is lawful---Barney, you, me, the gambling site, the state??

The bill also says "NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or
extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States." How does that fit your theory?


What it also says is that "some form of gambling is permitted in every state" which admits existing lawful gambling comes from states; and also admits that some gambling is NOT permitted in states, opt out or not.


[ QUOTE ]
states that want out will have to have already, or newly pass, legislation saying explicitly "internet gambling is illegal here."

[/ QUOTE ]

No they won't. Just because you modify gambling business with internet doesn't make it lawful. If a state says your gambling business exists only when and how they allow it to exist, that includes internet. They would opt out using their current general gambling prohibitions.


[ QUOTE ]
Those laws that say "internet gambling illegal without state license" wont cut it, a Fed license trumps a state license every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then that state would certainly opt out, but again, suppose they forgot, how does a Federal license that allows you to offer lawful gambling make you feel comfy in a state that is anti-gambling business? Remember, it says you must have "Appropriate safeguards to ensure that the individual placing a bet or wager is physically located in a jurisdiction that permits Internet gambling at the time the bet or wager is placed." Very risky since they don't permit.


If the mythical 35-40 states really wanted legalization, as everyone seems strangely convinced they do, why would they need this extra regulation? Wouldn't they just do it and form a compact? Or pass a much simpler enabling act?

[TheEngineer]

Permafrost,

Do you think Frank's bill is a scam? I'm just trying to understand your opinion relative to your discussion of the specifics of the legislation. Your use of phrases like "your theory", etc, leads me to believe you think we're being misled. Thanks.

TE

[JPFisher55]

permafrost=gaboonviper

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost,

Do you think Frank's bill is a scam? I'm just trying to understand your opinion relative to your discussion of the specifics of the legislation. Your use of phrases like "your theory", etc, leads me to believe you think we're being misled. Thanks.

TE

[/ QUOTE ]

Being misled? Not what I was getting at. In fact I don't believe any leader had led us.

My main concern is about the extant misinformation.

[Skallagrim]

I think permafrost's main concern is trying to find a place where he can say "skallagrim you are worng." Either that or he is fixated on state licensing laws. If its the latter, permafrost misunderstands the nature of federalism in our constitution. If its the former, keep trying, eventually you will get me, but I am smart so it may take a while /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[RiverRider]

So when is this bill supposed to be voted? I mean, in around how many days/weeks will we know if this bill passed or not?

Any approximation will do. =)

[Reef]

haven't gone through the whole thread. Could someone post phone numbers and emails of key people we should be emailing / calling? Also a basic template? thanks

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
haven't gone through the whole thread. Could someone post phone numbers and emails of key people we should be emailing / calling? Also a basic template? thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem. Check out Support Online Gaming Rights Here! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10177762&page=0&vc=1 ) ... plenty of info. Thanks.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
So when is this bill supposed to be voted? I mean, in around how many days/weeks will we know if this bill passed or not?

Any approximation will do. =)

[/ QUOTE ]

[joeker]

It's gotta get out of committee first, and survive any alterations there...sounds like it will with both Frank and Paul on the committee, then it goes to a vote in the house.

[LotteryOrPoker]

It will make it out of committee. Barney Frank is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He will have the votes in his own committee to get it in front of the whole House.

The fact that he has revised the bill means that he is wheeling and dealing to try and get something passed. Rep. Frank has been in the House since 1981 and has a LOT of friends. He would not have proposed this bill if he did not think it could get passed.

[David1234]

[ QUOTE ]
It will make it out of committee. Barney Frank is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He will have the votes in his own committee to get it in front of the whole House.

The fact that he has revised the bill means that he is wheeling and dealing to try and get something passed. Rep. Frank has been in the House since 1981 and has a LOT of friends. He would not have proposed this bill if he did not think it could get passed.

[/ QUOTE ]
bills get introduced all the time, but they get passed at a much much lower rate

[Cooder]

According to Reuters, he doesn't think it will pass.

"The chairman of U.S. House Financial Services Committee, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, has introduced a bill to lift the online gambling ban. But he conceded there is not enough support currently to pass it."

Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00742720070504?pageNumber=2)

This issue is being discussed under the subject of:

"US Admits Defeat in Antigua Gambling Case at the WTO"

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Reuters, he doesn't think it will pass.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he said anywhere that he doesn't think it will pass. He said, "there is not enough support currently to pass it." Let's work on the "currently" aspect by continuing our efforts to write and call Congress. Let's remember to remind them that the PPA has over 400,000 members. Let's also remind them of what happened to Jim Leach. Finally, remind them that waves of young voters who normally wouldn't vote will show up to the polls to vote this issue.

We don't have to pass IGREA this year (the Frank bill) to claim victory. The mere existence of IGREA allows us to stay on the offensive while building our grassroots effort. People fight back more effectively with clear goals, like IGREA. Also, it's gotten us some positive media coverage. It also shows the fence-sitting politicians that we're here (and why we believe as we do). And, our enemies will learn that we're not punching bags to be used to mobilize their base penalty-free. For example, I doubt we'll see a successful effort to expand the Wire Act to include playing poker this year.

[catcher193]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I doubt we'll see a successful effort to expand the Wire Act to include playing poker this year.

[/ QUOTE ]
I liked your whole reply, and I think this is very important.

[Jeffiner99]

I want poker legal more than anyone. I want it legal for everyone in every state. I want unregulated, feds out of my face, poker that I had a year ago. I know, I know I will be screamed at from every angle, but I have to bring up a few things to this thread that seem to be missing.

1. This is not a repeal of the UIGEA. It is a continuation of it. It strengthens that act, instead of leaving it the limp dog that it currently is. (So far, not one person, or business has been charged with a violation of the UIGEA).

2. Because it is a not a repeal it seems that Barney Frank has been a little manipulative in calling it a repeal. That sends up red flags for me.

3. This bill does not legalize poker. Poker is already legal. In most states. In the states that it is not, then this bill will make it "more" illegal to play there.

4. The requirement that the sites collect all federal and state taxes due on internet gaming winnings may scare off a lot of players and have a negative rather than positive effect on the industry. Players may not like having to give their ss# to sign up to play. They may worry about identity theft. Or they may worry about what it will cost them. Different states have different laws about paying taxes on gaming winnings and a lot of states are not exactly fair to gamblers. Do a search for gaming and taxes on google to see what I mean.

5. This may not bring back PartyPoker and the others. Besides the taxes requirements, there are also licensing fees, an agreement to subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the US (something they may not be not be so keen to do) and it has a host of other licensing requirements that may make it impossible for them to get licenses, I don't know their situations. If so, then we could also lose the other sites that are currently operating here as well.

6. If it costs a lot more to operate a site, then it is possible the rakes will increase. I understand about elasticity, but if the costs of running a site go up too much, then the rakes will have to go up or it won't be profitable to operate a site.

7. Licensing always limits competition in any field. Limited competition always means higher prices.

8. One of the requirements for even attempting to get a license is that the sites open their books for the feds. Will that be good for everyone?

9. This bill gives an unfettered amount of discretion to the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. This guy gets to personally decide who get a license and who doesn't. He also gets to set up "Such other requirements as the Director may establish by regulation or order."
That is a lot of power to hand over to one guy. Once you hand over the power you can't take it back. What happens to our entire industry if the guy who gets that position decides he doesn't like gambling? He could theoretically make up any rule he wanted that would ruin the industry. And if we are safe with this Director, what about the next guy and the next. The law will stay on the books and the power will stay in this one individual's hands.
I for one don't think that is good for industry.

I think this bill has a lot of problems. It has been designed to pander to the politicians who will make a fortune from it because they are the ones who are handing out the licenses. The right wing loves it because it will tax the hell out of gamblers (potentially) and gives the federal government power over the industry finally. The ones I see losing in this little deal are the poker players. The ones who play on line day after day. I can see a situation where the sites may dry up to almost nothing (if you have a choice to play taxed and watched online by the feds or play in anonymity in a B & M casino, many people may choose the casino).

I also see the potential for a political backlash against it where all sorts of states throw things on their ballots to make gambling online illegal in their states so they can opt out. It will bring gambling to the forefront and people may freak about it. Think about what happened with gay marriage. If that happens then a whole lot of us will be unable to play online who are happily gambling right now.

I think we need to be extremely cautious and really think about how this bill will effect the players and not just jump on it because it sounds good in the soundbites.

I am a libertarian and I think that most government interference is a bad thing. Federal interference is just force and it has a destructive force on markets. I do not think it will help the poker market to pass this bill. I think you may live to regret it.

So please be careful.