GOOD Wall Street Journal Story

[oldbookguy]

This is one we need Engineer to add to the PPA site and an action alert to Congress.
Plus, it clears up the status of negotiations with the WTO, congress WILL have to approve the deal!

VERY good for us.

Link - http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html
(membership required so I will copy whole story here)

Also, G911 has the story.

EU Service Firms Could Gain U.S. Access Thanks to Internet Gambling Case
By JOHN W. MILLER, Wall Street Journal
August 23, 2007; Page A2

BRUSSELS -- The Bush administration, pressured by an unfavorable ruling by the World Trade Organization, plans to push for legal changes that could make it easier for European service companies, from engineering firms to law firms and shipping companies, to do business in the U.S., officials say.

The U.S. is required to offer trading partners greater access to the American market because in May it lost a long-running dispute at the World Trade Organization over laws that banned foreign firms from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S.

• The News: The White House plans to push for changes that could make it easier for European service companies to do business in the U.S.
• The Background: After the U.S. banned foreign gambling Web sites, EU trade officials sought compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The U.S. has been in a trade dispute over online gambling since 2003, mainly with Antigua and Barbuda.
• What's Next: EU and U.S. negotiators are working out details of a compensation offer to open some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.Europe's online gambling firms were hit particularly hard and complained to the European Union's executive arm in Brussels. EU trade officials took up the matter with the WTO, seeking compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The EU invoked a rarely used WTO rule that requires a country that closes one market to foreign companies to open others to compensate trading partners.

A host of countries, including India, Japan and Canada, have filed similar claims for compensation, but the talks with the EU and its $8 trillion service sector promise to have the biggest financial impact. As a result, while any affected sectors would be opened to all 150 WTO members, European companies stand to gain the most.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative this month began talks with EU officials on opening some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.

To be sure, the issue will be contentious and subject to fierce lobbying. Congress and state legislatures would have to sign off on changing laws that now protect American service concerns. States generally control access to sectors like insurance, engineering and legal services. The federal government controls foreign access to activities like shipping, telecommunications and postal services.


The U.S. Internet gambling market is valued at more than $15 billion, so the outcome of the U.S.-EU negotiations will likely be worth billions of euros to European companies. "We have to offer something substantive," says a senior U.S. official.

Global trade in services is growing quickly. U.S. consumers bought $314.6 billion of foreign services in 2005, twice as much as in 1997, including banking, insurance and airplane trips. The areas in which European companies hope to gain greater access include insurance, legal services and mail delivery, says Pascal Kerneis, secretary-general of the European Services Forum, a Brussels lobbying group.

One example of the kind of practice the EU could seek to change: Today, a foreign lawyer or law firm can't practice law in New Jersey without residing in the U.S. (though they can in Maryland). Foreign companies are also prohibited from offering some forms of legal services in Delaware, a lucrative market because of the high number of corporate registrations in the state.

This means U.S. trade officials have to include states in their negotiations. Setting policy on trade in goods, by contrast, is relatively simple because the federal government controls tariffs on all imports.

According to several legal experts, the states might not be easy to win over. "Frankly, I'd be very surprised if the Bush administration pushes for federal legislation that would affect access to U.S. markets for foreign lawyers," says Laurel Terry, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and an expert in the regulation of the legal industry. "The issue of lawyer regulation is very sensitive and has traditionally been handled by the state judiciary."

The U.S. is required to submit a formal offer of market access to the EU by Sept. 22. If the sides disagree, a WTO panel will arbitrate. That has never happened in a case on services, so the outcome would set a precedent. In the end, the U.S. could hope to mollify the EU by offering trade concessions in other protected areas where the EU and U.S. disagree, including agriculture, military contracts or subsidies to aircraft makers.

British gambling companies such as 888 Holdings PLC and Party Gaming PLC -- which drew more than half their revenue from the U.S. -- lost billions in stock-market value after a new U.S. law banned credit-card companies from receiving payments from foreign gaming Web sites.

The USTR could be bailed out by Congress were it to change the law to again allow foreign firms to offer online gambling. Several such bills are on the table.

"The U.S. could make this all go away by passing legislation," says Nao Matsukata, a former senior U.S trade official and a policy adviser at Alston & Bird, which represents clients on online-gaming issues.

So far, none of the bills have garnered enough support. European gambling companies say they have given up hope of doing business in the lucrative U.S. market for now.

The forced concession to the EU on services marks the end of a losing battle the U.S. has fought at the WTO, mainly with the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda. In 2003, the country challenged U.S. prosecution of foreign online-gambling companies. The U.S. argued it was entitled to ban foreign gambling companies because it couldn't have foreseen the rise of the Internet when it first pledged to open part of its services market in 1994.

obg

[Legislurker]

You SOB. I was just about to post that. Its an eye opener, and Im going to email it to some people Ive been pestering for info at some think tanks. I have a couple questions after reading that.

1. US gambling market valued at $15bn. Ok, does the EU get compensation for a $15bn(I dont know if they are a single country in GATS or not) or 27x $15bn. Huge difference.

2. Will the EU get sanctions IF states or Congress have to approve new laws? Say an arb panel comes back with a decision, but in 2 years the US hasnt complied......

3. When can the US back down and not renegotiate? If we are going to muster support somewhere we have to know who the losers will be, and get them on their Congress delegation. If there is a date of No Return we need to know it and start the phone calls.

On a side note, If John Pappas is half-serious about improving the PPA's job approval rating this should be issue #1. He or his lobbyists should be in Senate offices today talking this up. And working on figuring out by hook or by crook what industries are being sold up the river. If its legal services, maybe we should call up the Trial Lawyers PAC. Scumbags they are, but they know how to operate on Capitol Hill. No Dem can afford to ignore them, and few Republicans.

[Jay Cohen]

You'll notice the EU doesn't give a rat's behind about the gaming sector. They are very happy to just use this opportunity to grab market share in other sectors.

I'm sure the reason the EU does not have access today is because there are American interests that have fought long and hard to keep them out. I'm sure they'll appreciate being sold out to protect American gaming interests and satisfy the religious right and their baseless worries.

If the US would just come to the Antiguan negotiating table in good faith, they could put all of this behind them and save the country billions.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Will the EU get sanctions IF states or Congress have to approve new laws? Say an arb panel comes back with a decision, but in 2 years the US hasnt complied......

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big hope for us, this may be the wake-up call to congress we need, they ARE going to be presented with this package (what ever it is) to approve in order to continue ignoring the WTO.

Also, there are still more countries we have no idea what the areas they are wanting are such as Japan, Australia, China, et al.

Agreed, the PPA needs to be all over this one and fast!

I will be drafting a follow-up to Rockefeller later this morning with copies to byrd, Capito and the other WV congressional reps.

EVERY senator and house member needs a letter on this and a copy of the actual article with the USTR's comments and plan.

obg

ps- sorry I beat you too it.

[oldbookguy]

Great point Jay, one we should included in our communications.

obg

[Legislurker]

Jay's point is great, its just we don't have a mouthpeice to get the word out. Not even a [censored] peep over at Drudge about this. Fox, CNN, MSNBC........nothing. We are still losing the press battle.

And lest we ignore him, Costigan is weighing in.
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-082407.html

I think what he is saying(its painful to read his work word for word sometimes) is that the Feds should just cave in to iMega and that would make everything go away. He doesn't go into specifics on how that would work. Im not sure if a Curt decision would work for the WTO. Executive order maybe. The Feds would have to actively challenge and overturn several state laws after issuing an executive order. Maybe, jsut maybe, [censored] is hitting the fan.

[DING-DONG YO]

and once Murdoch finishes with the WSJ, then we won't even have them anymore.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay's point is great, its just we don't have a mouthpeice to get the word out. Not even a [censored] peep over at Drudge about this. Fox, CNN, MSNBC........nothing. We are still losing the press battle.

And lest we ignore him, Costigan is weighing in.
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-082407.html

I think what he is saying(its painful to read his work word for word sometimes) is that the Feds should just cave in to iMega and that would make everything go away. He doesn't go into specifics on how that would work. Im not sure if a Curt decision would work for the WTO. Executive order maybe. The Feds would have to actively challenge and overturn several state laws after issuing an executive order. Maybe, jsut maybe, [censored] is hitting the fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repealing the UIGEA does not solve the WTO situation. Remember the WTO case pre-dates the UIGEA, which only added insult to injury.

[4_2_it]

Somebody should link the article and an articulate interpretation to Drudge (There is a spot for this on The Drudge Report page). You never know. He likes to post off the wall stuff about government ineptness and people from all political walks look at his site daily.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody should link the article and an articulate interpretation to Drudge (There is a spot for this on The Drudge Report page). You never know. He likes to post off the wall stuff about government ineptness and people from all political walks look at his site daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely critical..Drudge loves to post stuff about government interference and he gets hit in huge numbers. If I knew how, I'd do it, but I don't

[PBJaxx]

This is very exciting! Hopefully our fearless leader TheEngineer can let us know how we should approach informing our congressmen. I plan on doing whatever I can do to help the cause.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody should link the article and an articulate interpretation to Drudge (There is a spot for this on The Drudge Report page). You never know. He likes to post off the wall stuff about government ineptness and people from all political walks look at his site daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive done it before, no response at Drudge, but its worth another shot. Drudge is THE site for getting a message out online. If we all do it(wiht your cookies enabled to show locations differring etc, and a bit different presentation) we may get some coverage. DOn't spam , but lets try.

Oh, btw, scroll down to bottom right part of the Drudge main page. Its a blank box that says
SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE
[ANONYMITY GUARANTEED]

(imagine an empty box here)

[Legislurker]

I already sent mine, maybe someone else link to this thread?
If they need help investigating the story further, Im sure someone here will help. Lol, maybe Jay can give Matt Drudge some quotes.

[4_2_it]

Just sent a link of the WSJ article to drudge with the following (paraphrased): Looks like the Bush Administration is going to sell out US service companies to appease the EU over the recent WTO trade dispute regarding Internet gambling that the US lost.

If anyone (Engineer) can put it more succinctly then have at it.

[Jay Cohen]

I just sent this to Drudge:

Two articles out today about how the US's obstinate and ridiculous stance on online gaming will cost them billions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783338870406171.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Thanks for considering them,

[schwza]

i don't understand why everyone thinks this is such positive news. the US's plan is to give concessions in some non-gambling areas. that's great that the WTO works and antigua is going to force goliath into some concessions, but i fail to see how it helps us. maybe if i need some law representation in delaware i'll be able to get cutrate foreign lawyers.

i also would like to know some more about how this process works exactly. can the us just say "we'll open up lawyer access" and then two years later say "oops, states wouldn't budge"?

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
I already sent mine, maybe someone else link to this thread?
If they need help investigating the story further, Im sure someone here will help. Lol, maybe Jay can give Matt Drudge some quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just sent link to Drudge myself.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why everyone thinks this is such positive news. the US's plan is to give concessions in some non-gambling areas. that's great that the WTO works and antigua is going to force goliath into some concessions, but i fail to see how it helps us. maybe if i need some law representation in delaware i'll be able to get cutrate foreign lawyers.

i also would like to know some more about how this process works exactly. can the us just say "we'll open up lawyer access" and then two years later say "oops, states wouldn't budge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the same question. I think the answer is that the US has an easy way out of this -- fix the problem that got them into it. Also, does anyone know what happens if they keep violating the WTO after concessions are made? Are they cleared? Or would they then just have to face additional concessions later?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why everyone thinks this is such positive news. the US's plan is to give concessions in some non-gambling areas. that's great that the WTO works and antigua is going to force goliath into some concessions, but i fail to see how it helps us. maybe if i need some law representation in delaware i'll be able to get cutrate foreign lawyers.

i also would like to know some more about how this process works exactly. can the us just say "we'll open up lawyer access" and then two years later say "oops, states wouldn't budge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good because the Bush Administration is trying to sell out US service companies. A lot of these service have very powerful lobbies (see trial lawyers) and will want to fight these concessions. The obvious way to prevent the concessions is to return to the previous status quo.

If played properly, this could be a great example of my enemy's enemy is my friend.

[Jay Cohen]

Well, that's what the EU is asking for, compensation through access in other sectors.

Antigua on the other hand is not. Antigua is still seeking access. It is doubtful whether or not the US can withdraw a commitment in response to an adverse decision.

What is good about it is it is showing the US is willing to sell out other industries out in order to protect American gaming and the whims of the religious retards. I doubt the Bar Association of Delaware will be too happy about this.

Hopefully those other industries will call their Congresspeople and say, "I don't care about your gambling problem, but now it is affecting me so fix your gambling problem."

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why everyone thinks this is such positive news. the US's plan is to give concessions in some non-gambling areas. that's great that the WTO works and antigua is going to force goliath into some concessions, but i fail to see how it helps us. maybe if i need some law representation in delaware i'll be able to get cutrate foreign lawyers.

i also would like to know some more about how this process works exactly. can the us just say "we'll open up lawyer access" and then two years later say "oops, states wouldn't budge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Antigua gets to apply sanctions...........IP or whatnot ignored. No recommittments are final until all the deals are done, and arbitration settled, and all parties agree its over. THe sanctiosn run until then, or that is my understanding. So cheap Ipods, nickel and dime movies and songs, etc, until the US redressed all harm done. At some point after stalling, Im sure the EU and pals will get sanctions as well, if the whole WTO doesn't come crashing down around us and start Great Depression II.

[dukenukem]

The only change that will make regulated online poker possible in the US is a lessening of the political power now enjoyed by Evangelicals. That means a bigger Demorcratic majority and a Democratic president a bit more libertarian than Hillary is likely to be, and less self-righteous and image-fragile than Obama. As for the EU, they certainly enjoy the diversity of opportunities negotiated compensation offers. Drudge and other media don't pay much attention to online poker news because few outside of industry insiders and the people who post here regularly care much one way or the other, sad as that may be. Right now, with all the crises (health care, energy costs, housing market, Iraq, real jobs, Hollywood blondes in rehab) facing this country, poker just doesn't loom large.

[TheRedRocket]

how about sending this to lou dobbs? this seems to be exactly the type of thing he talks about (middle class getting sold out.

link (http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9)

[oldbookguy]

Well, any concessions will require both the Senate and House approval and perhaps some states as well.

Congressman to Governor: We FINALLY have poker banned. I need you to get passed a bill give away your protected industry and lose taxes from state coffers AND perhaps jobs in the state.

Governor: wait, I can get TAXES from Internet poker AND keep everything else....

I still don't like poker, but.....

obg

[TheRedRocket]

[ QUOTE ]
Lou,

I was completely disgusted when I read an article in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html

about how the Bush administration is going to try and sell out US service firms all in the name of "protecting" us from online poker. Does the religious right have such a strangle hold over our government that middle class white collar workers are going to be shafted over whether or not I play some texas holdem before I go to bed?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

Remember alot of U.S. Congressmen are lawyers, it is around 36% I read.

[oldbookguy]

Sent with the following:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html

And how will Bush sell this to congress and the American people?

Will he say - Ah, I am a compassionate conservative and yes, I know you lost your job when I gave away to France and Germany your job, but hey, I AM protecting you from playing poker where you surely may have lost some money.

I know, now you lost your house, but hey, at LEAST you lost it to an American bank......

obg

[JPFisher55]

Traditionally, and under the 10th amendment, the offering of professional services such as, medical, legal, tax, engineering and architecture, have been licensed by states. Heck there is no federal law license. The federal courts require that lawyers practicing in them are licensed by some state and usually introduced to the court by a local attorney.
So what right does the Bush administration have to negotiate over foreign entities access to those markets?
I think this article is a red herring by the Bush administration to try to convince other politicians, members of congress etc., that this WTO thing is no big deal. These politicians might be hearing peeps from industries that might be affected by IP sanctions.

[oldbookguy]

Sent and sent to the Suggest a News Story as well.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand why everyone thinks this is such positive news. the US's plan is to give concessions in some non-gambling areas. that's great that the WTO works and antigua is going to force goliath into some concessions, but i fail to see how it helps us. maybe if i need some law representation in delaware i'll be able to get cutrate foreign lawyers.

i also would like to know some more about how this process works exactly. can the us just say "we'll open up lawyer access" and then two years later say "oops, states wouldn't budge"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good for us because it bring in more stakeholders. It also helps us to show the hypocrisy of McConnell and others who'd have U.S. businesses get penalized so horse racing Internet betting can continue while claiming that other Internet gaming is somehow less moral.

Boeing and Microsft may not think they should subsidize horse racing.

[counthomer]

I thought I was going to be the first to suggest this is not a good article at all, but it seems others have their concerns too.

Unfortunately, objective analysis of the article has one again been damaged by yet another one-eyed Jay Cohen post (on WTO issues, I have no major problem with his other ones). I appreciate that you have an interest in this Jay, but you do a disservice to everyone when you try to simplify a very complex issue and conveniently ignore any aspects you don't want to address.

Anyway, I going to argue that this article is very BAD for us - the reason being is that I think we have all read this with some underlying assumptions which don't hold true, and some of the less opinionated statements in it don't seem to fit with our current world view.

I think our biggest mistake is to assume that our government will somehow be forced to do something in our favor as a result of the EU et al joining the Antigua case (as it made the compensation costs substantially larger).

There are two major problems with this assumption. Firstly increases in cost (taking the form of sanctions, market access etc) to resolve the issue does equate to more pressure for a solution, but the next logical leap that a lot of us have seem to have made (that it will lead to our solution) does not hold. There is no reason to assume that Mr Delaware law company doesn't come down on the side of banning all gaming (which is obviously bad for us). Given the opportunity to put the final nails in the coffin, we could see ourselves up against a collaboration of FoF, Kyl, right leaning corporations and all our traditional enemies. The non right-wing corporations will probably go for the quickest resolution option rather than support us. Having said that, who knows how the politics plays into this? Not me, certainly not Jay Cohen, but I hope we can all see how it is not in any way clear cut.

Furthermore, and this is something which everyone seems to miss, the WTO is the arena of big politics and big deals. In our forum we tend to view every article and step in the process through a narrow prism of our poker world, but the government doesn't care about us or remote gaming. Look at the Doha round of negotiations (and any previous trade round) and you will see how big trade politics works. It is a massive subsidy loss here for a bigger market access gain there. We have zero visibility on issues of this size - there is no reason to assume that we not would welcome a arbitrated settlement against us on the Antigua issue if it allows us to leverage the WTO on issues involving China. We might lose billions to Antigua and friends, but get more back from China. It's impossible to tell.

On this point, the fact that Jay posts about his shock that the EU has no interest in gaming and has joined the case to get concessions elsewhere shows the naivety of thinking this is all about gaming (and Jay, I don't for one moment think you were ever naive enough to believe that, so I seriously question you motives for posting it). It is about trade, it is about money - gaming is just this weeks weapon of choice.

I think we should never forget that the WTO has two long terms solutions (to give an extremely crude simplification, all gaming or no gaming) and that either one is a possibility. Jay hates to mention the possibility that we could pull the plug completely, but I say it is real possibility. All these industries that get harmed by sanctions or market access could easily demand a resolution (as we rightly expect - why should they pay for someone else's decision), and the best resolution for US Inc (as i see it - feel free to argue on this one) is to cut everything off for a period before starting up again with regulation.

By pulling the plug completely we would destroy the Antiguas (and their gaming economies), and in a year or so we could push through a study bill followed by regulation. The entire US market would be therefore effectively brought onshore. WTO issue resolved, sanctions avoided, net benefit to our taxman.

Now would the horse racing lobby go bananas at the thought of losing their cash cow? Absolutely, but then look at the value of the sanctions being proposed and weight it up - it isn't worth protecting the our current bits and pieces remote gaming market if it hurts us elsewhere. Much better to say to Mr HorseLobby, 'We'll have to stop remote gaming for a year, but you'll be sure to be first to the market in a year or so when the law changes'. All we would have to do is make the medium term returns to those who would lose out worth the short term pain - something which would be very easy to do given our propensity for favouritism on such matters.

I think we have to ask serious questions why our government is looking to do deals on this when it seems so obvious to us. If this is true, then it says to me that we haven't appreciated the whole scheme of things, and as such I won't be listening to someone who has an direct interest in a positive outcome for Antigua (which is not necessarily a positive outcome for us poker players by the way).

We should always remember that articles like this always have an angle, and this one seems to be trying to promote the iMEGA suit (can't see why) - I just think we have to be very wary of the whole WTO thing - it is mind bogglingly complex and there is little point getting carried away because some reporter tries to package it up into 300 words.

I've always seen the WTO as a mere signpost along the road to where we will inevitably end up. I don't even think it will accelerate the inevitable process of regulation. There are far more significant and interesting things afoot - the only reason the WTO gets even a sniff of interest in the industry is because there are those operators (maybe like Mr Cohen and friends) who have missed the boat when it comes to the real solutions.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one we need Engineer to add to the PPA site and an action alert to Congress.
Plus, it clears up the status of negotiations with the WTO, congress WILL have to approve the deal!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sharing the news. I think we should write to Congress, of course, but we should REALLY write to all media possible as well as companies that are potentially affected.

My letters will refer a lot of freedom and liberty. They will also point out the fact that the U.S. could have gotten out of this my making all Internet gaming illegal, and that these companies are essentially being asked to subsidize our horse racing industry. I'll assign a name to this horse racing tax -- Sen. McConnell.

[oldbookguy]

Good, though perhaps the Horse Racing Corporate Subsidy may be better than tax. Afterall, to keep HR legal while banning other forms, the USTR and Bush will be asking congress to approve trade deals AGAINST their states interests for this, thus uninterested business' will 'subsidize' keeping HR legal.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Good, though perhaps the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy may be better than tax. Afterall, to keep HR legal while banning other forms, the USTR and Bush will be asking congress to approve trade deals AGAINST their states interests for this, thus uninterested business' will 'subsidize' keeping HR legal.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll work up a letter.

[oldbookguy]

Excellent!

Well, I am off to an auction to look at some antique books then a little cards later tonight.

obg

[MiltonFriedman]

GOOD analysis.

There will still be Antigua to pay off ... although I expect that their price is nowhere near as high as their demand.

I agree that the US market will be available in 3 years or so, with a regulatory scheme in place to "qualify" entrants and keep out the rif-raff like the folks who built the industry to begin with ...... (How many casinos in Las Vegas are mob-run today ? I'd say zero. .... A real change from 30 years ago.)

Capital is relentless, it doesn't eat, it doesn't sleep, it can't be negotiated with, it will never quit until it can raise effective barriers to entry for those less capitalized. It will also steal a crutch from a cripple (gaming,) if it can push a more powerful agenda instead.

[oldbookguy]

That is why I like this board.

We have good, diverse views.

Are elements of the story bad, perhaps.

I however, look at the end result of the negotiations with the E. U.

Congress is going to have to approve this, either this fall or spring. Congress is then, if approved, going to have to go home and tell several business, hey, guess what, I just gave away much of your business.

Tell your employees who may / may not be effected, well, I promised to ban internet gambling and this is the price you and the company you work for must pay.

BTW, do vote for me this fall, I delivered on my promise, no Internet Gambling!

obg

[Skallagrim]

Counthomer, the problem I see in your analysis is that you think the Delaware law firm will say "oh OK, we too think online gambling is evil and are prepared to sacrifice some of our revenue to help you stop it." .... No law firm I have ever known has ever uttered the phrase "we are prepared to sacrifice revenue."

This is very good news for us because it creates allies.

Under the WTO ruling, its not just online horseracing the US would have to ban, its ALL gambling (at the very least its all remote access gambling, i.e., online or offtrack). Again at the very least THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONGRESS TO BAN INTERNET FANTASY FOOTBALL/BASEBALL FOR MONEY. Time for the NFL to change its tune too....

I am already composing the letter I will write to my representatives saying how I dont want federal laws telling me I have to compete with foreign lawyers for clients. As news of this gets out, I would expect EVERY state bar association to do the same.

The point made when we first began discussing the WTO is now finally coming true; legalize and regulate internet gambling or be prepared to send billions of dollars overseas (one way or another).

Cant ask for a much better reason for action than that.

Skallagrim

[counthomer]

Funnily enough I think Antigua lost their chance of getting paid off the moment it allowed all the other countries/trading blocks to jump on board. This instantly made the price of compensation more than it was worth paying.

It is possible that they will get paid off, as I can foresee no scenario where the Republicans would want to be seen to have lost on a moral point that drives their core vote (one of Rove's principles), which an open market solution would represent.

Interestingly enough, Jay and the rest of the Antigua noise makers never want to discuss compensation as an option. My guess is that deals have been done behind closed doors and the Antiguan govt can't be seen to be throwing its 'crucial industry' under the bus...

Then again, like I said, this is all very, very complex politics, and as such I think we play with fire if we try to use this to our advantage..

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Counthomer, the problem I see in your analysis is that you think the Delaware law firm will say "oh OK, we too think online gambling is evil and are prepared to sacrifice some of our revenue to help you stop it." .... No law firm I have ever known has ever uttered the phrase "we are prepared to sacrifice revenue."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your point here, Skall. At the moment Mr Delaware law firm is facing a scenario where foreign competitors may be able to compete. It is therefore going to lose out, and is effectively subsidizing our protection of certain interests (horse racing etc).

My point is that they may look at this scenario and say, hang on, why should we pay so that Mr Horse Lobby can have their games? Then they will look at the options, which are:

a) All gaming
b) No gaming

If they are right leaning, anti gaming or if they think getting all gaming banned is the quickest option they will be against us.

Now you are correct, the lobbies (NFL etc) are massively powerful, but they are tiny compared with the interests of non-gaming companies that could be harmed by the type of sanctions being demanded.

We could therefore easily end up with big business against us, and the NFLs accepting a short term loss as they have been promised first run at the 'new US market' a couple of years down the line..

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell your employees who may / may not be effected, well, I promised to ban internet gambling and this is the price you and the company you work for must pay.

BTW, do vote for me this fall, I delivered on my promise, no Internet Gambling!

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the point, obg? Those business interests looking at pain for no reason may well say,

"We asked you to ban online gaming, you only half did it so now the WTO is after us - why not do it properly and save me from these sanctions? After all you are already half way there and we don't like gaming anyway"

The penny therefore drops both ways - do we want to be in a situation with the current government where we are back in a fight for our lives? Last i checked we weren't doing too well in those battles...

[Jay Cohen]

I'm not shocked at all that the EU doesn't care about their gaming sector. I have known that for some time. I was merely highlighting that fact. EU sees some money on the table and they are going to take some. They can't agree among themselves how to handle cross border gaming so I never expected them to go to bat for their companies on an international stage.

The US has never negotiated in good faith at any point in the process. Maybe they will now, we can only hope. There have been at least a dozen meetings over the years. The only thing the US has suggested is that it would please them if Antigua would drop the matter. They almost always brought along a DOJ stooge to lecture Antigua on the evils of gambling.

Antigua has always been willing to talk.

As to them shifting to no remote gaming, sure, that's an option. But I don't think the horse racing lobby will tolerate it, even for a year. Furthermore, even if they did that, they would still owe Antigua compensation for 2003 to the present. The amount and form of that compensation will not be determined by the US, Antigua, me, or you, but by a WTO panel which is convening in the very near future. So even if they go the ban all remote gaming route, they still need to come to the table with Antigua at some point.

Once the US moved to withdraw their commitments, Antigua had no control over who filed. There are pros and cons to having others involved. I have my own opinion but I will keep it to myself.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Counthomer, the problem I see in your analysis is that you think the Delaware law firm will say "oh OK, we too think online gambling is evil and are prepared to sacrifice some of our revenue to help you stop it." .... No law firm I have ever known has ever uttered the phrase "we are prepared to sacrifice revenue."

This is very good news for us because it creates allies.

Under the WTO ruling, its not just online horseracing the US would have to ban, its ALL gambling (at the very least its all remote access gambling, i.e., online or offtrack). Again at the very least THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONGRESS TO BAN INTERNET FANTASY FOOTBALL/BASEBALL FOR MONEY. Time for the NFL to change its tune too....

I am already composing the letter I will write to my representatives saying how I dont want federal laws telling me I have to compete with foreign lawyers for clients. As news of this gets out, I would expect EVERY state bar association to do the same.

The point made when we first began discussing the WTO is now finally coming true; legalize and regulate internet gambling or be prepared to send billions of dollars overseas (one way or another).

Cant ask for a much better reason for action than that.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Only this adminstration would decide pissing off lawyers is a good idea.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
As to them shifting to no remote gaming, sure, that's an option. But I don't think the horse racing lobby will tolerate it, even for a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Jay, you make a point which is true in isolation but useless in the entirety of a WTO trade dispute. You are correct that the Horse racing lobby will hate losing their piece of the pie for a few years, but do they have the sway to prevent it against a big business lobby which is demanding all gaming to be banned to come into compliance with the WTO ruling and prevent sanctions?

This is issue is way too complex to be reduced to looking at a single element or strand.

[ QUOTE ]
Once the US moved to withdraw their commitments, Antigua had no control over who filed. There are pros and cons to having others involved. I have my own opinion but I will keep it to myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I take issue. It's up to you, but I feel that if you come in here to trumpet the cause of Antigua, you should be willing to put on record your issues and concerns with their approach. Otherwise you are just one step above a shill (albeit a famous one).

[Skallagrim]

Counthomer, I see your point, but what I think you are missing is that the solution of opening the services sector to foreign competition is not a remedy for ANTIGUA, but a remedy for the US withdrawal of its commitment under the GATS part of the WTO relating to the provision of gambling services. If the US doesnt withdraw, per WTO rules, then every country with an online gambling business will file for Antigua-style compensation offsets, if it does withdraw, it has to provide the kind of compensation the EU is now seeking.

In other words, we open up our remote gambling market or we pay. Completely eliminating ALL remote gambling AT THIS TIME would not put the genie back in the bottle (correct me if I am wrong Jay, you have researched the WTO rules far more than me).

Skallagrim

[Jay Cohen]

Other countries filing has nothing to do with Antigua's approach. They had no control over it. We discussed ad nauseum the pros and cons of other countries filing. You have pointed out one of the cons, the gross price went up. One of the pros is it elevates the visibility of the matter.

Do you believe that the credibility of the WTO is at stake here? Tiny Antigua wins a case and can't get any compliance. The developing trade community is watching, the same countries the US is always pitching to make more and more concessions.

Another good point in today's NY Times article, "One day they're out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn't respect WTO decisions," Van Den Hende said. "But then the next day there's a dispute that doesn't go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don't know what they're doing, why should we comply?" That can't help the US's image and promoting further liberalization around the world.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Counthomer, I see your point, but what I think you are missing is that the solution of opening the services sector to foreign competition is not a remedy for ANTIGUA, but a remedy for the US withdrawal of its commitment under the GATS part of the WTO relating to the provision of gambling services. If the US doesnt withdraw, per WTO rules, then every country with an online gambling business will file for Antigua-style compensation offsets, if it does withdraw, it has to provide the kind of compensation the EU is now seeking.

In other words, we open up our remote gambling market or we pay. Completely eliminating ALL remote gambling AT THIS TIME would not put the genie back in the bottle (correct me if I am wrong Jay, you have researched the WTO rules far more than me).

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

No COuntHomer makes a point. The US could cancel the withdrawal and then probably comply with the Antigua case by eliminating all remote gaming. But it still leaves the US with the Antigua's sanction from 2003 to the present. They may still have to face IP sanctions from Antigua.

The US's best option is to come to the table with Antigua.

[MiltonFriedman]

Jay, I'll offer my opinion on Antigua's self-interest.

Anything it can get which it thinks can allow it to replace online gaming as an industry.

Antigua embraced online gaming because it needed something other than tourism ... at which it frankly sucks. Antigua cannot afford to pass up any reasonable aid/development package.

Antigua has always screwed up on management of its economy. It depended upon the rising tide of gaming to float its boat. That tide IS receding; regardless of the recent US legislation, online gaming was fleeing Antigua already for more competitive jurisdictions and markets.

IF the Wire Act is knocked for a loop by the WTO, why would anyone move/return to Antigua ? If the US decides to kill off horseracing, and resolve its issue that way, how would Antigua thrive ? ..... by taking some development aid package to settle past claims.

Antigua needs to REPLACE online gaming.

You know Antigua. Do you think the Spencer government would not seek to replace online gaming if it could do so ? If it also can portray the issue in racial terms, it would be politically popular. Or, you might ask Allen Stanford or whoever holds Antigua's paper.

Antigua has pretty good tourism resources, i.e great beaches and an English speaking population. It can shift call centers from online gaming to other industries as a short-term employment matter. If it gets its banking in order, then it can still operate as a tax advantaged jurisdiction.

Finally, consider this in looking at what Antigua will do .... It is a Commonwealth nation, yet it did not make the cut on the UK gamingwhitelist. No whitelist, no support from the UK, Antigua better switch to a new industry.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Other countries filing has nothing to do with Antigua's approach. They had no control over it. We discussed ad nauseum the pros and cons of other countries filing. You have pointed out one of the cons, the gross price went up. One of the pros is it elevates the visibility of the matter.

Do you believe that the credibility of the WTO is at stake here? Tiny Antigua wins a case and can't get any compliance. The developing trade community is watching, the same countries the US is always pitching to make more and more concessions.

Another good point in today's NY Times article, "One day they're out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn't respect WTO decisions," Van Den Hende said. "But then the next day there's a dispute that doesn't go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don't know what they're doing, why should we comply?" That can't help the US's image and promoting further liberalization around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole issue here is how this fits into the big scheme of things. Can you explain why we are willing to pay off the EU? I can't. Can you tell me how we see this dispute in the entire trade picture? If you can't then your posts aren't helpful, as they basically take a huge issue and ignore 95% of it to try and make a point that suits your vested interest.

Furthermore, if we can't see how this all fits in, how can we assume it plays in our favor? The way I see it is that it could go either way, and no one has yet to post anything that I feel convinces me in either direction.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
The US's best option is to come to the table with Antigua.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't make a statement like that without giving some basis for it. It may be in our interest to negotiate on that specific aspect, but what is in our long term interest?

My guess is that since gaming cannot be controlled or prohibited effectively, then it must be regulated and taxed (this is bad for us the player, but the best scenario for US Inc). How would I go about this, well I would want to give all the domestic players the best chance of success. We are way behind in the game at the moment, so lets level the playing field by scorching the earth for a few years.

That is just one opinion, and one option. The possibilities are endless. This is a big money game, being played on many tables at once. There is no way to know whether this is good or bad for us.

[Skallagrim]

OK Jay, so the next question is about the distinction between gaming and gambling. Does the WTO distinguish between the two in the services agreement?

If it does, then how does the WTO define gambling ('cause I wonder if it technically includes poker).

If it does not distinguish, then are we not talking about the US having to ban playing EVERY game for money on the internet?

Skallagrim

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
OK Jay, so the next question is about the distinction between gaming and gambling. Does the WTO distinguish between the two in the services agreement?

If it does, then how does the WTO define gambling ('cause I wonder if it technically includes poker).

If it does not distinguish, then are we not talking about the US having to ban playing EVERY game for money on the internet?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

The terms are interchangeable. I believe the case was brought under the title "MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER SUPPLY OF GAMBLING AND BETTING SERVICES" The terms gaming and gambling were both used during the hearings and in the briefs in reference to the same thing.

[JPFisher55]

I do not believe that a complete ban on Internet gaming and gambling will ever pass Congress. Besides remote pari-mutual betting and fantasy sports, what about remote purchase of state lottery tickets?
Also, I question, but do not know, if such a ban can really pass muster under the US constitution. Certainly the iMEGA thinks not.
I expect that the EU is going to want compensation in industries like steel, agriculture and maybe cars and aircraft. I doubt that any deal will occur and it will be arbitrated by WTO. Same for the other countries.
I wonder if the Bush administration can really delay this mess until 2009. Clearly it wants to do so. IMO, the withdrawal move was to give the DOJ an argument to counter the WTO issue in the Kaplan/Carruthers and iMEGA cases. With withdrawal, the DOJ can claim that the Wire Act, as they broadly interpret it, is not in conflict with GATS and WTO.

[TomVeil]

What about online state lottery tickets? Wouldn't those be shut down too? I can see 0% chance of that happening. Sure, hurt the other sectors of the country, but don't try to take money from the government.........

[Skallagrim]

Thanks Jay, but then, to elaborate my point further, if gaming and gambling are interchangeable, then the US will have to ban warcraft, secondlife, and all the "skills" games sites too. Are these not part of the remote gaming sector? The video golf game in my local bar (which offers paid tournaments through the internet) will also need to be banned.

The real point is the counter to counthomer's original counterpoint (I enjoyed typing that): will the US (more specifically the US congress) really come to the conclusion that banning every for-money online game is the proper way to go?

Maybe they could get away with just banning online betting, but that also has problems of overinclusiveness.

Or maybe they could just ban all none-skill games, and McConnel could get an amendment adding race-betting as a game of skill to Wexler's bill, in which case Wexler's bill goes sailing through (I'd kinda like to deny the NFL the pleasure of having fantasy sports be called a skill game, is that too vindictive?).

At this point I will conclude by saying its been fun speculating. The one thing we can ALL agree on is that the WTO decision on remote gaming cannot be ignored by our government for much longer without significant cost.

That means something MUST happen, and so, for all the fun speculating about what will happen, the far more important task is to make sure we influence whatever happens so that this time it breaks our way.

Skallagrim

[fnord_too]

Just to clarify, in the "all or nothing" dichotomy, doesn't the nothing have to be enacted at a federal level, thus denying states auspices over the area? If so, that is a bit more complex than a battle of corporate interests, is it not? It certainly makes sense for all things involving internet commerce to be governed at a federal level, but that is not the way we have been moving, and yanking this from states right now is basically a complete reversal of current trends. Would states have any constitutional grounds to challenge such an effort? I think there is a lot more to this issue than just horse racing and lottery carve outs versus other larger industries.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe that a complete ban on Internet gaming and gambling will ever pass Congress. Besides remote pari-mutual betting and fantasy sports, what about remote purchase of state lottery tickets?
Also, I question, but do not know, if such a ban can really pass muster under the US constitution. Certainly the iMEGA thinks not.
I expect that the EU is going to want compensation in industries like steel, agriculture and maybe cars and aircraft. I doubt that any deal will occur and it will be arbitrated by WTO. Same for the other countries.
I wonder if the Bush administration can really delay this mess until 2009. Clearly it wants to do so. IMO, the withdrawal move was to give the DOJ an argument to counter the WTO issue in the Kaplan/Carruthers and iMEGA cases. With withdrawal, the DOJ can claim that the Wire Act, as they broadly interpret it, is not in conflict with GATS and WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with Jp here. When sanctions start, the landscape changes, and the Feds cannot act instantly to ban off-track betting and remote lottery sales. Federalism works for us.
Its going to be nigh impossible for the DoJ to make them stop offering the horse racing, fantasy, etc, AND its still very easy for them to tell the states they CAN'T ban remote gaming. I think counthomer is way way overstating widespread support for banning remote gaming. Remember, its never been easy to garner support for the legislation. No one outside people who play would care in a couple of months. Dobson may have some indigestion, but we arent the "homosexual agenda" that gets him going. Kyl may lose some bonus money from Harrah's and the tribes, but he has a freezer to put Jefferson to shame. I can even see the Bush
spin machine finding a way to still say its illegal when its
not. We have a SMALL hurdle of opposition to get by, because 99% of legislators and regulators just want this thing to go away. Is this enough? Something has to give.

As for just paying off Antigua in another way, I have been afraid of that for a long time. But, I think its now too late in the game. I don't see the scope for maneuver in the WTO now that would stop compensation for recommmittment.
That raising of the price was the only way to force the hand of the Bushies. Their incompetence has wiped away almost all chance of a corrupt, sleazy resolution. Im not sure if September brings a resolution, but Lou Dobbs will have a tailor made rant agaisnt the WTO when those offer sheets become public. I hope to GOD the professional cadre at the USTR leaks everything to the press about the BS and incompetence of the Bush political team there.

And looking at Antigua itself and the embrace of remote gaming, I think its a good move for them. I really don't see expanding as an OFC helps racially. Those are very "white" jobs as well. First-movers will always have an advantage, even in something as ephemeral as remote gaming.
It is tax-advantaged already, and firms are there, and you really thing the US or even the UK will have near as professional a licensing/regulating regime. The population speaks English, and has a decent education regime. Its not horrid to live there. I can see whats there staying there for the near term. And it benefitting Antigua and the industry.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the point, obg? Those business interests looking at pain for no reason may well say,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the primary point is the poor schumk who could lose a job. Do you think he cares more about Internet wagering or paying his mortgage?

Do you thing the Horse Racing groups will sit by idle and let the online wagering be banned or the Senators who state industries this would hurt will?

As to why we are willing to pay off the E.U., it is the only way to withdraw from the trade treaty agreement.
If not, the a real trade war is likely.
Also, the article only mentions the E.U. and service firms.

We are also in or going to be in negotiations with Canada, China, Japan and all the others who signed that deal with us.

And China, we are about to try and levy sanctions against them.

japan, we are in a constant steel war with them and our steel industry is very fragile.

The areas effected will hit something in every state.

Also, the E.U, we are fighting with them AND everyone over Farm subsidies. Hello Mom, sorry, that can of green beans now costs a dollar each, but, hey, we have BANNED Internet wagering for you.

This latter is a point to drive home over and over again.

Yes, this IS good for us, no one cares about Internet Wagering, it is a non-issue.

However, trade sanctions, jobs and higher prices to ban it, now people will care.

obg

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
The US's best option is to come to the table with Antigua.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay, do you know what Antigua would hope to gain from these negotiations: cash compensation or the ability to offer online gambling in the U.S.?

[tangled]

What is happening (in effect) is that online gaming is being subsidized with American jobs: The easiest way to comply with the WTO is to ban the exempted remote gaming industries. If the US did that, then there would be no need to pay off the EU, Antigua or anybody else.

If we framed the issue like this then maybe the story would get legs and put the Horse Racing business in a difficult position, motivating them, possibly, to become our ally instead of our enemy.

[TheEngineer]

August 23, 2007

Alan Mulally
Chief Executive Officer
The Boeing Company
100 North Riverside
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Mulally:

As an engineer in the aerospace industry, I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s blocking of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade sanctions to the EU and other nations in order to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the U.S. government would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse race betting and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, Boeing is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on the shoulders of Boeing.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

I guess we could write to companies we know are impacted, especially if we are stockholders, and Cc our congressmen and senators. Here are the top 20 companies in the Fortune 500 [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/index.html]:

Wal-Mart Stores
Exxon Mobil
General Motors
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
General Electric
Ford Motor
Citigroup
Bank of America Corp.
American Intl. Group
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Berkshire Hathaway
Verizon Communications
Hewlett-Packard
Intl. Business Machines
Valero Energy
Home Depot
McKesson
Cardinal Health
Morgan Stanley

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
August 23, 2007

Alan Mulally
Chief Executive Officer
The Boeing Company
100 North Riverside
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Mulally:

As an engineer in the aerospace industry, I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s blocking of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade sanctions to the EU and other nations in order to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the U.S. government would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse race betting and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, Boeing is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on the shoulders of Boeing.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer, you just keep getting better and better.......this is phenomenal.

I'm speechless.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, you just keep getting better and better.......this is phenomenal.

I'm speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

Fantastic letter, a company would have to take some interest in this:

How about companies like Microsoft (and other software providers) and entertainment providers (record labels, artists, video companies, movie theaters, Blockbuster types, record stores, etc.)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, you just keep getting better and better.......this is phenomenal.

I'm speechless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I hope we'll all send lots of letters to various affected companies and to newspapers to wake folks up. We have a real chance to gain some allies.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Fantastic letter, a company would have to take some interest in this:

How about companies like Microsoft (and other software providers) and entertainment providers (record labels, artists, video companies, movie theaters, Blockbuster types, record stores, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Yes, we should write to them as well. I hope we'll all get a lot of letters out.

[TheEngineer]

My letter to the NY Times, heavily leveraged from the Boeing letter:

With regard to the upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s restricting of access to our Internet gaming market (www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business)), it’s very troubling that this administration is willing to force our most successful industries, and our largest employers, to finance “Prohibition 2.0” to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions. It’s also troubling that this administration is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the U.S. government would choose to not allow people to freedom the choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

If the Republicans in Congress who passed last year’s Internet gaming restrictions truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by banning ALL Internet gaming. Had they done that, we’d be in full WTO compliance now and wouldn’t be asking our remaining strong industries to take on this burden. However, last year congressional Republicans hypocritically decided to exempt Internet horse race betting and fantasy football from the restrictions. I guess some contributed more than others to gain this congressional protection. So, in essence, our big industries are being asked to subsidize these two gambling activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

It’s quite interesting that this administration will work so hard at the federal level to prevent Americans from choosing to play poker in their own homes with their own money, yet can’t seem to find money or resources for real national needs, or even for national emergencies. I guess we see their priorities. I hope many Americans will contact Congress to tell them to focus on issues Americans care about.

[XChamp]

If these concessions affect "service firms" like law firms, will they also affect big accounting firms? I have a contact with someone who is high up in a Big 4 firm that may be very interested in this.

[JPFisher55]

Great letter Engineer. Frankly it is more likely to help than all your political efforts.
I would think that big accounting firms may be negatively affected more than law firms.

[permafrost]

The "story" may be "good" for us or not, however the story itself is not much of anything new or all that good; a few reasons...

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration, pressured by an unfavorable ruling by the World Trade Organization, plans to push for legal changes that could make it easier for European service companies, from engineering firms to law firms and shipping companies, to do business in the U.S., officials say.


[/ QUOTE ]We've known for sometime that the US is planning withdrawing its commitments for entertainment and this just repeats that. Part of those plans "could" involve changing other things, not exactly breaking new ground here. And as to the omnipresent "officials" -- I would like to know if those "officials" are from the US, or Antigua, or the EU, or WTO, or Dinah's Diner.


[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. Internet gambling market is valued at more than $15 billion, so the outcome of the U.S.-EU negotiations will likely be worth billions of euros to European companies. "We have to offer something substantive," says a senior U.S. official.


[/ QUOTE ] Not much basis for the story's wild speculation. $15 billion a year, month, what? Gross, net, net worth, profit, what? "Substantive" means what to the omnipresent US "official", billions of euros? Unlikely.


[ QUOTE ]
One example of the kind of practice the EU could seek to change: Today, a foreign lawyer or law firm can't practice law in New Jersey without residing in the U.S. (though they can in Maryland). Foreign companies are also prohibited from offering some forms of legal services in Delaware, a lucrative market because of the high number of corporate registrations in the state.

According to several legal experts, the states might not be easy to win over. "Frankly, I'd be very surprised if the Bush administration pushes for federal legislation that would affect access to U.S. markets for foreign lawyers," says Laurel Terry, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and an expert in the regulation of the legal industry. "The issue of lawyer regulation is very sensitive and has traditionally been handled by the state judiciary."


[/ QUOTE ]After speculating further, the author finally quotes a non-anonymous person that shoots down all his speculating. But I see the rampant speculating is continuing just fine here on the forum.


[ QUOTE ]
British gambling companies such as 888 Holdings PLC and Party Gaming PLC -- which drew more than half their revenue from the U.S. -- lost billions in stock-market value after a new U.S. law banned credit-card companies from receiving payments from foreign gaming Web sites.

[/ QUOTE ]I think I missed that law. Maybe he means the UIGEA which doesn't say that.


[ QUOTE ]
The USTR could be bailed out by Congress were it to change the law to again allow foreign firms to offer online gambling.


[/ QUOTE ]Congress allowed foreign firms to offer online gambling previously? Who knew?

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess we could write to companies we know are impacted, especially if we are stockholders, and Cc our congressmen and senators. Here are the top 20 companies in the Fortune 500 [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/full_list/index.html]:

Wal-Mart Stores
Exxon Mobil
General Motors
Chevron
ConocoPhillips
General Electric
Ford Motor
Citigroup
Bank of America Corp.
American Intl. Group
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Berkshire Hathaway
Verizon Communications
Hewlett-Packard
Intl. Business Machines
Valero Energy
Home Depot
McKesson
Cardinal Health
Morgan Stanley

[/ QUOTE ]

My employer. Most of AIG's revenues come from abroad, but the U.S. market still represents a good chunk of our profits. If there is any chance of the U.S. opening the domestic financial services market to greater foreign competition, AIG would likely put up a fight. Sending letters to the Public Relations or Investors department certainly wouldn't hurt.

This company is highly politically connected in most of the countries where we do business, and is not afraid to put up a hard fight to protect its interests. In some cases AIG has gone into a country with no insurance laws or regulatory body, and actually helped the local government establish rules and an insurance commission. In China and a few other countries we are the only foreign insurer allowed to do business.

That said, AIG is a highly conservative company, and is unlikely to take a pro-gambling stance. Any lobbying efforts will likely take the focus "open up other industries to EU operators, but leave insurance and financial services alone."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, AIG is a highly conservative company, and is unlikely to take a pro-gambling stance. Any lobbying efforts will likely take the focus "open up other industries to EU operators, but leave insurance and financial services alone."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info.

I don't expect many of these companies to be pro-gaming, but if we can get some pushback from these companies, combined with our lobbying we can possibly get ourselves in a decent position. I think we have a decent shot here, especially if we all forward copies of our letter to Congress (rep and both senators).

[TheEngineer]

Some contact info:

Microsoft
https://support.microsoft.com/contactus2/emailcontact.aspx?scid=sw;en;1239&ws=investorrelat ions
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399

Boeing
wwwmail.boeing2@boeing.com
100 North Riverside
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Pfizer Inc
http://www.pfizer.com/contact/mail_general.jsp
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017

GM:
Mr. G. Richard Wagoner Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Directors
General Motors Corporation
300 Renaissance Center
Detroit, Michigan 48265

USA

[TheEngineer]

I updated my PPA action thread: https://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=234 . I'll post this to a few websites tomorrow.

Let's all get this info onto some mainstream sites where we can.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, AIG is a highly conservative company, and is unlikely to take a pro-gambling stance. Any lobbying efforts will likely take the focus "open up other industries to EU operators, but leave insurance and financial services alone."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info.

I don't expect many of these companies to be pro-gaming, but if we can get some pushback from these companies, combined with our lobbying we can possibly get ourselves in a decent position. I think we have a decent shot here, especially if we all forward copies of our letter to Congress (rep and both senators).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if anyone can think of a way in which an insurance company could make money from online gambling, let me know. AIG makes a ton of money from insuring and buying things that other companies can't/won't, and is not afraid to jump into political frays if there is a possibility of profit (see the Dubai Ports World controversy (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/15/business/dport.php).)

[Legislurker]

Lets not give up on drudge yet. If you didnt do the tip box, do the tip box. If you did, lets follow up with an email.
Drudge@drudgereport.com

Short sweet and on point please. Thats the gateway to popular media coverage.

[oldbookguy]

This is a good point, I came across this site, Forum Democracy, researching this.

This is BAD for the states the way GATS / WTO is now being handled and GOOD for us.

[ QUOTE ]
- Bigger picture of GATS – First, the revised U.S. offer is part of a bigger picture of GATS negotiations. Some of the other GATS negotiations could have a greater impact on state lawmaking in the future, particularly with respect to GATS disciplines on Domestic Regulation.

- State-federal consultations – Second, USTR’s Spring 2005 consultations with state and local officials continue a pattern that avoids legislatures, and USTR does not disclose some legally significant information (both in the details of the U.S. offer and the assurances regarding state authority). In addition, USTR appears to be adding another strategy, which is to list and “bind” states at their current level of “liberalization” in a number of sectors.

- Priorities for oversight of specific commitments – Third, responding to the May 2005 GATS offer is an important oversight role for state legislatures. Keep in mind, however, that past GATS commitments and future GATS commitments that are still on the drawing board may be more important topics for oversight by your state. For example, the WTO’s interpretation of GATS commitments in the US-Gambling case puts a wide field of regulation at risk – and this is the position taken in briefs filed by the United States government. Our comments on the revised U.S. offer include connections to the broader context of past commitments and potential future commitments. By taking this broader view, your committee can start to create a menu of its own GATS priorities for future oversight activity, as opposed to simply responding to documents that USTR sends to states on short notice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Full report:

http://www.forumdemocracy.net/global_trading_system/wto-gats-offer_memo.html


Edited Addition: Though this does not directly tie to the current negotiations, the methods used tthen and now do and will.

There is also mention of the Gambling Commitment and how it may effect states.
[ QUOTE ]
D. Priorities for state-level oversight. State-level committees can provide oversight of GATS negotiations that would otherwise not take place. The least oversight is now being provided over negotiations on Domestic Regulation, which includes trade rules that could have the greatest effect on state and local government. In terms of specific commitments, states have begun to focus on energy and environmental services, but less attention is being paid to existing commitments, where states may want to propose clarifications or limits on the U.S. commitments. Among these existing commitments are the following examples, to name just a few – gambling, health facilities, health insurance (financial services), regulation of tobacco (advertising and distribution), distribution of prescription drugs, commercial zoning, and wastewater services.

[/ QUOTE ]

obg

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
If these concessions affect "service firms" like law firms, will they also affect big accounting firms? I have a contact with someone who is high up in a Big 4 firm that may be very interested in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the big firms will care at all, and that goes for law and accounting. It's always been pretty hard to get licensed to practice law in say Japan when you are a US citizen. So the big firms simply open an office in Japan, and hire some Japanese attorneys to actually sign off on the work product. Then they fill the rest of the office with the staff of their choice from all over the world.

I know the big accounting firms do this as well. For these big firms, it will be business as usual, except they might have less paperwork and compliance costs. If this will hurt any one, it will be the smaller firms with regional and domestic practices.

You can expect PriceWaterhouseCoopers to support these concessions.

[Skallagrim]

As a lawyer, I have to disagree with morphball to an extent. He is right that the big firms have a way right now to get into another country, but he misses the point about these trade concessions: the french law firm that wants to represent NY clients currently needs more than a NY office, it needs NY lawyers. That increases employment for NY lawyers. With the trade concession proposed, it would not have to hire the NY lawyers, not even open up a NY shop. With modern communication, local rules and laws requiring that legal services only be provided by lawyers licensed in the state is about the only thing that insures NY lawyers are the ones representing NY clients. Even if the real work is done by foreign lawyers, the NY lawyers get a cut. Self interest will prevail here, believe me. Admittedly, I dont know enough about accounting firms to know if the same situation applies to them, however.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Can we each write to five companies (hardcopy letters)? Email is fine to send a copy, but let's get the paper letters out there, and let's do it by Wed, 8/29 (if you read this on 8/30, please still do it, of course).

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, I dont know enough about accounting firms to know if the same situation applies to them, however.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

All the Big 4 and mosty of the other largest firms have international operations so I don't think it will have as much of an impact. SEC rules still require the signing partner (on audits) to be a US CPA.

[FiveAce]

As an IT professional I know the horrors of off shoring work. If laws are changed to allow foreign workers to take law and accountant jobs, then it will be a major impact to people making a living in those fields. Most IT jobs are now off shored to places like Gaurgon India or Bangalore India. These people are highly educated and english speaking employees who literally do software engineer jobs for $5000 per year. It is impossible for an American worker to compete with people who work at those wages.

If concessions are made to allow foreign workers to enter the law or accountant fields, this will explode into another massive off shore campaign by companies. The results will be massive job losses in those fields and reduced wages for those fields. Law and accountant work has a lot of paperwork that can easily be transferred over seas. It will be very easy for that work to be transferred back and forth by email or ftp of files onto and off of servers.

I hope some people wake up and not allow those fields to go the way of IT or manufacturing. I do not wish that nightmare on anyone.

John

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, I dont know enough about accounting firms to know if the same situation applies to them, however.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

All the Big 4 and mosty of the other largest firms have international operations so I don't think it will have as much of an impact. SEC rules still require the signing partner (on audits) to be a US CPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why would EU be interested in "concessions" that do not change the status quo very much? I think that the EU will want concessions involving industries like steel or aircraft manufacturing. Maybe the EU would want the ability to subsidize them more than they can at present.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, I dont know enough about accounting firms to know if the same situation applies to them, however.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

All the Big 4 and mosty of the other largest firms have international operations so I don't think it will have as much of an impact. SEC rules still require the signing partner (on audits) to be a US CPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why would EU be interested in "concessions" that do not change the status quo very much? I think that the EU will want concessions involving industries like steel or aircraft manufacturing. Maybe the EU would want the ability to subsidize them more than they can at present.

[/ QUOTE ]

Law is just for starters. My guess is that's the starting point because that's seen as a Democratic area. You can be sure steel, software, and aerospace will be huge for the EU and Japan. Software and movies will be huge for Antigua.

And, banking and ISPs will be impacted by the UIGEA regs. Quite a bit, considering Leach stated the cost of HR 4477 to be "< $1 per American over the 2007-2011 period", which means it would be less than $300 million for the five year period. He may have missed by a factor of 100 or more, once all the costs are in. I hope all these new stakeholders will be doing a lot of complaining.

[fnurt]

Engineer, your letter to Boeing is almost impossibly smooth. Kudos.

However, I'm confused about one thing. When you point out "we could have avoided this problem if Congress had just banned all online gambling," how is that going to be interpreted as anything other than a suggestion to lobby Congress for a complete ban?

I may be missing some second-level thinking here, but it seems like you're setting them up for a punchline that's the exact opposite of what we want. Why wouldn't the message be "look what a mess UIGEA has gotten us all into, let's try to get rid of it"?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, your letter to Boeing is almost impossibly smooth. Kudos.

However, I'm confused about one thing. When you point out "we could have avoided this problem if Congress had just banned all online gambling," how is that going to be interpreted as anything other than a suggestion to lobby Congress for a complete ban?

I may be missing some second-level thinking here, but it seems like you're setting them up for a punchline that's the exact opposite of what we want. Why wouldn't the message be "look what a mess UIGEA has gotten us all into, let's try to get rid of it"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It demonstrates the hypocrisy of UIGEA. These companies could possibly accept that we had to give up trade concessions to allow the U.S. to ban Internet gaming (sovereignty), but they are much less likely to be happy about footing the bill to allow some, but not all, Internet gaming.

These companies will not campaign for us, so that's not our goal (though it would be great if one did, of course). What we want is for them to complain to Bush and to the USTR about having to pay the bill. We want them to see the unreasonableness of the expectation that they pay. If they can't see the logic of them paying (as there really isn't any), they'll push back and tell the administration to go back and negotiate.

To me, the fact that we could have gotten out of this with a total ban is key for us to get corporate support.

As for a total ban, that would be impossible to pass, IMO, especially in the current political environment. I think we'd be in great shape if one were proposed and it crashed and burned.

[JPFisher55]

[As for a total ban, that would be impossible to pass, IMO, especially in the current political environment. I think we'd be in great shape if one were proposed and it crashed and burned.

[/ QUOTE ]

And their lawyers will realize that a total ban on Internet gambling, especially one oulawing actual playing, is not likely to pass a constitution challenge. But complete legalization is easy and can be accomplished by a judge's ruling. Thus, the politicians do not have to vote for free online gambling.
A great letter. I hope it leads to some indirect pressure on the judge in the Kaplan?Carruthers case of iMEGA case to rule in a manner that fixes the WTO problem.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for a total ban, that would be impossible to pass, IMO, especially in the current political environment. I think we'd be in great shape if one were proposed and it crashed and burned.

[/ QUOTE ]

And their lawyers will realize that a total ban on Internet gambling, especially one oulawing actual playing, is not likely to pass a constitution challenge. But complete legalization is easy and can be accomplished by a judge's ruling. Thus, the politicians do not have to vote for free online gambling.
A great letter. I hope it leads to some indirect pressure on the judge in the Kaplan?Carruthers case of iMEGA case to rule in a manner that fixes the WTO problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. ALL we want is for these companies to raise hell about getting billed for this prohibition, especially as the current political environment doesn't suggest they have reason to fear the Republican prohibitionists.

[Legislurker]

If we are all picking five companies, lets make sure you get the Motion Picture Association in. I've heard they have already written the USTR complaining this week. Trying to get a hold of a copy of it, but doubt Id post it, and really doubt I get it, but I do want to see what was said. The sports leagues are pressuring hard the other way as you would guess.

[I dunno]

First of all, is it even true we have any
[ QUOTE ]
laws that banned foreign firms from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S.


[/ QUOTE ]

[oldbookguy]

By simply saying 'gambling services' probably yes, sports betting. Everyone has jumped on this, if it had said poker, the answer would /should be no since federal courts have ruled to the contrary. The UIGEA does include 'games of chance' but, since many 'skill' games have an even greater element of chance......As Sen. Kyl suggested, have a court say poker is included as well or we can hope for the Wexler Bill.

obg

[mntbikr15]

Engineer,

Can we use your letter straight up, or should we be writing our own?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

Can we use your letter straight up, or should we be writing our own?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can use it however you'd like.

Thanks for writing.

[TheEngineer]

August 24, 2007

Motion Picture Association of America
Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO
Washington, DC
1600 Eye St., NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Glickman:

I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s restricting of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade concessions, which include copyright and intellectual property rights, to the EU, Antigua & Barbuda, and other nations to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the Bush administration would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money simply to appease Focus on the Family, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse racing and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, our motion picture industry is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on your shoulders.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
August 24, 2007

Motion Picture Association of America
Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO
Washington, DC
1600 Eye St., NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Glickman:

I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s restricting of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade concessions, which include copyright and intellectual property rights, to the EU, Antigua & Barbuda, and other nations to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the Bush administration would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money simply to appease Focus on the Family, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse racing and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, our motion picture industry is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on your shoulders.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


[/ QUOTE ]

You're ridiculously awesome.

When online poker is finally legalized, I will seek you out whereever you live (or in Vegas at some high limit table we are both bankrolled for due to online poker winnings) to give you a big hug, buy you a beer and if things are really going well in my life, maybe even a brand new car (or a girl, or whatever you want).

Seriously, thanks for everything you're doing.

Toast

[TheEngineer]

I posted this topic at eog.com, if anyone's interested, at http://forums.eog.com/online-sportsbooks...city-97659.html (http://forums.eog.com/online-sportsbooks-and-gambling-discussion/action-alert-wto-sanctions-getting-publicity-97659.html) .

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You're ridiculously awesome.

When online poker is finally legalized, I will seek you out whereever you live (or in Vegas at some high limit table we are both bankrolled for due to online poker winnings) to give you a big hug, buy you a beer and if things are really going well in my life, maybe even a brand new car (or a girl, or whatever you want).

Seriously, thanks for everything you're doing.

Toast

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliments! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I may take you up on that beer, once we have our final victory.

I'm glad we're all fighting back together.

[TheEngineer]

I emailed every Democratic senator this morning (they all accept email from everyone), plus Rep. Pelosi, with a tweaked version of the email I posted above (I like to reuse these as much as possible, as should we all, I think). I sent Sen. Reid a hardcopy as well:


August 25, 2007

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Reid:

I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s restricting of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html .] The articles are very troubling. It appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade concessions, which include copyright and intellectual property rights, to the EU, Antigua & Barbuda, Japan, China, and other nations in order to keep our federal Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans would choose to use the power of the federal government to keep people from choosing to play poker in their own homes with their own money simply to appease Focus on the Family, the fact that they now expect our most successful industries, our largest employers, and the our workers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions and even more offshored jobs is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congressional Republicans truly felt Internet gaming was “wrong”, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case either. With a bold display of hypocrisy (even by their standards), they specifically allowed interstate horse racing and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet. So, in essence, American workers and businesses are subsidizing these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

As for issues with Internet gaming itself, the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearing on the subject conclusively proved that Internet gaming can be effectively taxed and regulated for fairness, age and identity verification, and control of compulsive behaviors. The rest of the democratic world permits its citizens to make their own decisions regarding playing cards on the Internet. It seems Americans should be as free as Eastern Europeans and Russians.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on the shoulders of your constituents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



TheEngineer

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

EU Service Firms Could Gain U.S. Access Thanks to Internet Gambling Case
By JOHN W. MILLER, Wall Street Journal
August 23, 2007; Page A2

BRUSSELS -- The Bush administration, pressured by an unfavorable ruling by the World Trade Organization, plans to push for legal changes that could make it easier for European service companies, from engineering firms to law firms and shipping companies, to do business in the U.S., officials say.

The U.S. is required to offer trading partners greater access to the American market because in May it lost a long-running dispute at the World Trade Organization over laws that banned foreign firms from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S.

• The News: The White House plans to push for changes that could make it easier for European service companies to do business in the U.S.
• The Background: After the U.S. banned foreign gambling Web sites, EU trade officials sought compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The U.S. has been in a trade dispute over online gambling since 2003, mainly with Antigua and Barbuda.
• What's Next: EU and U.S. negotiators are working out details of a compensation offer to open some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.Europe's online gambling firms were hit particularly hard and complained to the European Union's executive arm in Brussels. EU trade officials took up the matter with the WTO, seeking compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The EU invoked a rarely used WTO rule that requires a country that closes one market to foreign companies to open others to compensate trading partners.

A host of countries, including India, Japan and Canada, have filed similar claims for compensation, but the talks with the EU and its $8 trillion service sector promise to have the biggest financial impact. As a result, while any affected sectors would be opened to all 150 WTO members, European companies stand to gain the most.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative this month began talks with EU officials on opening some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.

To be sure, the issue will be contentious and subject to fierce lobbying. Congress and state legislatures would have to sign off on changing laws that now protect American service concerns. States generally control access to sectors like insurance, engineering and legal services. The federal government controls foreign access to activities like shipping, telecommunications and postal services.


The U.S. Internet gambling market is valued at more than $15 billion, so the outcome of the U.S.-EU negotiations will likely be worth billions of euros to European companies. "We have to offer something substantive," says a senior U.S. official.

Global trade in services is growing quickly. U.S. consumers bought $314.6 billion of foreign services in 2005, twice as much as in 1997, including banking, insurance and airplane trips. The areas in which European companies hope to gain greater access include insurance, legal services and mail delivery, says Pascal Kerneis, secretary-general of the European Services Forum, a Brussels lobbying group.

One example of the kind of practice the EU could seek to change: Today, a foreign lawyer or law firm can't practice law in New Jersey without residing in the U.S. (though they can in Maryland). Foreign companies are also prohibited from offering some forms of legal services in Delaware, a lucrative market because of the high number of corporate registrations in the state.

This means U.S. trade officials have to include states in their negotiations. Setting policy on trade in goods, by contrast, is relatively simple because the federal government controls tariffs on all imports.

According to several legal experts, the states might not be easy to win over. "Frankly, I'd be very surprised if the Bush administration pushes for federal legislation that would affect access to U.S. markets for foreign lawyers," says Laurel Terry, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and an expert in the regulation of the legal industry. "The issue of lawyer regulation is very sensitive and has traditionally been handled by the state judiciary."

The U.S. is required to submit a formal offer of market access to the EU by Sept. 22. If the sides disagree, a WTO panel will arbitrate. That has never happened in a case on services, so the outcome would set a precedent. In the end, the U.S. could hope to mollify the EU by offering trade concessions in other protected areas where the EU and U.S. disagree, including agriculture, military contracts or subsidies to aircraft makers.

British gambling companies such as 888 Holdings PLC and Party Gaming PLC -- which drew more than half their revenue from the U.S. -- lost billions in stock-market value after a new U.S. law banned credit-card companies from receiving payments from foreign gaming Web sites.

The USTR could be bailed out by Congress were it to change the law to again allow foreign firms to offer online gambling. Several such bills are on the table.

"The U.S. could make this all go away by passing legislation," says Nao Matsukata, a former senior U.S trade official and a policy adviser at Alston & Bird, which represents clients on online-gaming issues.

So far, none of the bills have garnered enough support. European gambling companies say they have given up hope of doing business in the lucrative U.S. market for now.

The forced concession to the EU on services marks the end of a losing battle the U.S. has fought at the WTO, mainly with the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda. In 2003, the country challenged U.S. prosecution of foreign online-gambling companies. The U.S. argued it was entitled to ban foreign gambling companies because it couldn't have foreseen the rise of the Internet when it first pledged to open part of its services market in 1994.

[TheEngineer]

I was able to email every Democratic senator, plus Rep. Pelosi, in under an hour. In case anyone's interested, it can be done by going to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm for the alphabetical list of senators, then by opening each senator's contact site (I was opening two or three at a time in separate tabs). If the AutoFill function on your particular browser doesn't seem to work, refresh the page...it will always come back. Start with the letter to be sent on the clipboard, then paste the note, add the senator's last name, and hit the send button. Three Demomcratic senators use real email. Just do those last (I clicked the link to start the new message, then minimized until done with the others).

[TheEngineer]

I just emailed every Senate Republican with a similar letter. Hopefully the costs involved will get some attention.

[Tofu_boy]

Thanks for all the hard work Engineer I don't know anything but I'll support whatever you do to get it better for us.

Thanks Again.

[TheEngineer]

I posted this info at DailyKos, at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/25/145712/463 . Please check it out.

[oldbookguy]

I am certain it will not be appreciated, but, I added this to a blog at the GOP.com site today as well.

obg

[NajdorfDefense]

The Wire Act was law and online/phone betting was illegal long before UIGEA. Yes, there is a HR exemption, and no, state lottos are not done via phone, so stop comparing them.

Secondly, this case will simply be another carrot up for trading in the WTO Doha and other rounds from the US. It is a tiny tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

Sports gamblers have been trying to make betting on say, the Super Bowl, legal for decades and decades. Be prepared for a VERY long battle is all I'm saying here. It's only legal in Nevada and expect online poker to receive similar treatment at best.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
and no, state lottos are not done via phone, so stop comparing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bed to differ, try READING the FAQ at the Mass. lottery, it specifically lists a phone number you can call and buy 'season passes' for Lottery Drawings.

obg

[Jay Cohen]

That's correct. As part of the WTO investigation, lottery tickets were purchased by phone with a credit card from Massachussets. A subscription card was sent UPS mail, and winnings would have been sent by US mail.

[oldbookguy]

Thanks Jay, I take it though the ticket was a loser....no check via US Mail?

obg

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
The Wire Act was law and online/phone betting was illegal long before UIGEA. Yes, there is a HR exemption, and no, state lottos are not done via phone, so stop comparing them.

Secondly, this case will simply be another carrot up for trading in the WTO Doha and other rounds from the US. It is a tiny tiny piece of a much larger puzzle.

Sports gamblers have been trying to make betting on say, the Super Bowl, legal for decades and decades. Be prepared for a VERY long battle is all I'm saying here. It's only legal in Nevada and expect online poker to receive similar treatment at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doha is dead. Beyond dead. The freaks killed it in Seattle. Bilateral and regional trade deals will be it for a generation or more.

[donfairplay]

[ QUOTE ]
August 23, 2007

Alan Mulally
Chief Executive Officer
The Boeing Company
100 North Riverside
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Mr. Mulally:

As an engineer in the aerospace industry, I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s blocking of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business) and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118783338870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade sanctions to the EU and other nations in order to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the U.S. government would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious.

What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse race betting and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, Boeing is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax.

Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on the shoulders of Boeing.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[/ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

You might want to send that to James McNerney. Alan Mulally left Boeing to become CEO at Ford.

[oldbookguy]

Researching this, we all consider 15 billion a lot, the reality is, to congress, it is 15 cents.

What? Yes.

The following is from The Mulinational Monitor, Vol. 25, No. 11, 2004 and relates to another WTO ruling Congress DID follow that involved Export Tax Subsidies.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/112004/mcintyre.html

[ QUOTE ]
In October, Congress adopted legislation to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that an export tax subsidy violates certain WTO obligations. The legislation closed some heavily criticized corporate loopholes that almost everyone agrees are unwarranted. But at the same time, the bill expanded existing and created new tax breaks — to the tune of $210 billion, mostly for corporations. They even include measures that would make it easier (and more lucrative) for companies to shift taxable profits, and potentially jobs, overseas.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, will these companies really care about 15 billion, no. For them, to be certain, Congress will offer substansial tax cuts now, as then.

So, what is our hope and is it lost?

NO! We must main stream this to people, the ones it may and likely WILL effect, lost jobs, the same as in 2004 only with a much smaller impact of course.

Draw a parallel though this is smaller, it is just one more time Congress will be willing to send jobs overseas and lose income.

A quick fact - Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.

obg