Banks Backing UIGEA Lawsuit?

[oldbookguy]

I found the following mentioned casually as an after thought in a story.

"Speaking of which, Gambling911.com can now reveal that the banking industry may be working hard behind the scenes to get this injunction through.

A source close to Gambling911 says that the banks are furious over what the official says is "an unfunded mandate by politicians that will cost us (the banking industry) billions of dollars".

Read Story:

http://www.gambling911.com/Costa-Rican-Online-Gambling-061207.html


obg

[wpr101]

It's obviously going to cost banks a lot which they don't want. They currently do not check to see what you are sending to and they would now have to check if it is gambling related. IMO the customer should be able to send to what they want.

[JPFisher55]

The bad news is that the proposed regulations might be really bad. Thus, the banks are trying to prevent them from being enforceable.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
The bad news is that the proposed regulations might be really bad. Thus, the banks are trying to prevent them from being enforceable.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has been that potential from the second the bill was signed. I wouldn't read into anything at this point about being concrete about the "teeth" of the bill in either direction.

If the bill only included checking wires to a specific list, that is still a giant pain in the neck and I think they would oppose.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The bad news is that the proposed regulations might be really bad. Thus, the banks are trying to prevent them from being enforceable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they may have inside knowledge of the regulations, but they are not posted for public comment yet.

As a note, the banks opposed the UIGEA in hearings before the House before it was passed as well as they felt it too much, too expensive and would ACTUALLY detract from the efforts they are currently doing gratis for the government to combat REAL terrorism.

obg

[joeker]

Yeah....isn't their supposed to be a review period of the regulations before they are made final?

[MiltonFriedman]

"Gambling911.com can now reveal that the banking industry may be working hard behind the scenes to get this injunction through"

Wishful thinking, no basis in fact.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah....isn't their supposed to be a review period of the regulations before they are made final?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there has to be a public comment period. minimun 30 days but I think in the banking sector regs it is 60 days.

Keep upto date at:

www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov)

You can check each afternoon for newly posted regs.

As to the banks backing the injunction, I think probable.

obg

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling911.com can now reveal that the banking industry may be working hard behind the scenes to get this injunction through"

Wishful thinking, no basis in fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling911 has repeatedly proven itself to be unreliable, so I would not read seriously into anything that they print.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling911.com can now reveal that the banking industry may be working hard behind the scenes to get this injunction through"

Wishful thinking, no basis in fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling911 has repeatedly proven itself to be unreliable, so I would not read seriously into anything that they print.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. They have also had some decent "scoops", so the story is worth some attention.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Gambling911.com can now reveal that the banking industry may be working hard behind the scenes to get this injunction through"

Wishful thinking, no basis in fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling911 has repeatedly proven itself to be unreliable, so I would not read seriously into anything that they print.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. They have also had some decent "scoops", so the story is worth some attention.

[/ QUOTE ]


I used to think that the Gambling911 site was a worthless gossip rag that was totally reckless in publishing any unsubstantiated gossip. However it is clear that the guy running it has cultivated contacts in the industry and thus gets some inside info. But some of that is of course just spin from those sources. In one of the first posts of the year there, the site operator pledged to do his best to provide only legit stories and not have a repeat of the debacle where he said stars was exiting the US market at around the same time party was. He clearly hasn't lived up to that pledge, not because he has posted anything that egregiously in error this year, but because he is too quick to publish uncorroborated "news" so he can say "you heard it here first!".

Nonetheless, the site is worth reading as long as one doesn't take as gospel what is reported unless it is corroborated independantly by other sources.

[Legislurker]

I don't think it would be beyond the means of twoplustwo to hire a mainstream hard news guy with some gambling background.
I do the majorwager, 911, eog, et all news browse 2-3 times a day, but they do leave a lot lacking. If they want even more traffic here, especially from more casual people, I think it would repay itself fairly quickly. Maybe share a reporter's expenses and a researcher with a news wire service.

[Uglyowl]

A few weeks ago, we heard from a few Commisioner of Banks and Regulatory Department of a few Federal Banking Agencies, that they are working hard to overturn the law.

I don't know if that includes the lawsuit, but only that they were working hard with Barney Frank's office. My head says they would not resort to a lawsuit at this time and try to iron out a solution amicably.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it would be beyond the means of twoplustwo to hire a mainstream hard news guy with some gambling background.
I do the majorwager, 911, eog, et all news browse 2-3 times a day, but they do leave a lot lacking. If they want even more traffic here, especially from more casual people, I think it would repay itself fairly quickly. Maybe share a reporter's expenses and a researcher with a news wire service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is this unfeasible, it wouldn't likely make a difference.

Frankly, I'm very pleased with the attention our plight is getting in the mainstream media. Truth is, most people don't care.

Also, a "reporter" hired by a poker website such as 2+2 would operate within an obvious and inevitable conflict of interest, which would make any information he/she would provide as credible as something produced by Focus on the Family.

Like some have said before, Gambling 911 "is what it is." It's neither 100 percent accurate nor 100 percent fabricated. I would give it the same credence as reports from baseball writers around the trading deadline. These writers throw [censored] against a wall and wait for something to stick. Thing is, their readers love it.

Also, sometimes when there's no news it's because nothing is happening. This forum is by far the most informed and up-to-date source of information on this issue available -- at least that I've found. That's because people are eager enough to care and smart enough to question each other.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
A few weeks ago, we heard from a few Commisioner of Banks and Regulatory Department of a few Federal Banking Agencies, that they are working hard to overturn the law.

I don't know if that includes the lawsuit, but only that they were working hard with Barney Frank's office. My head says they would not resort to a lawsuit at this time and try to iron out a solution amicably.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with the bolded part 100%. The banks aren't going to work via a lawsuit to overturn anything unless it stops them from making money. The IUGEA is instead a measure that amounts to an unfunded (by Congress) liability that *costs* them money. So all they will care about is neutering the regs enough so that they don't incur a lot of costs in compliance. Although that falls well short of our goals of legalization, it is a better fallback situation if the current legislative efforts fail, i.e. where the law can't be effectively enforced.

Sen. Kyl however will doubtless be fighting this challenge by the banks on this, as presumably his second greatest fear after the law being repealed or overturned, is that it can't be enforced effectively, which only adds more fuel to the anti-prohibition fires that we are stoking here.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sen. Kyl however will doubtless be fighting this challenge by the banks on this, as presumably his second greatest fear after the law being repealed or overturned, is that it can't be enforced effectively

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

I hope everyone here is writing to Atty. Gen. Gonzales and to Treasury Sec. Paulson to encourage lax regulations for this very reason, per this week's action at Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9946416&an=0&page=0#Post 9946416).

[oldbookguy]

I think all are not reading what the article says.
Working WITH, not actually sueing.
A major dfference. They may be giving input to IMEGA while not actually paticipating directly which I do not believe they are or would do.

[JPFisher55]

I do not know what parties are members of, or control, the iMEGA. However, I believe that their litigation is the best chance or overturning UIGEA, stopping the DOJ from applying the Wire Act to online gambling and online poker and establishing the legality of online gambling and online poker in the US.