Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill

[Coy_Roy]

http://www.gambling911.com/Maryland-Florida-Online-Gambling-100307.html

Maryland, Florida Write to Barney Frank re: Online Gambling Proposal Concerns

Maryland Attorney
General Douglas F. Gansler, together with Florida
Attorney General Bill McCollum, sent a letter to
Congressman Barney Frank and Congressman Spencer
Bachus, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of
the House Committee on Financial Services, expressing
grave concerns about H.R. 2046, the “Internet Gambling
Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.”

H.R. 2046 would replace state regulations of Internet
gambling with a federal licensing program that would
permit Internet gambling companies to do business with
U.S. customers – a move Attorney General Gansler and
Attorney General McCollum believe would undermine
States’ traditional powers to make and enforce their
own gambling laws. Under the proposed legislation, the
Department of Treasury would alone authorize and
regulate the federal licenses, marking the first time
in history that the federal government would be
responsible for issuing gambling licenses.

“H.R. 2046 would throw open the doors of the United
States and allow for the greatest expansion of
legalized gambling in American history,” said Attorney
General Gansler. “This attempt to divest the States of
their gambling enforcement power is sweeping and
unprecedented. We oppose this proposal, and any other
proposal that hinders the rights of States to prohibit
or regulate gambling by their residents.”

To help combat the skirting of state gambling
regulations by Internet gambling companies, 49
Attorneys General wrote to the leadership of Congress
in March of last year, urging the passage of the
Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Congress
enacted the legislation, ensuring that the authority
to set overall gambling regulations and policy remains
where it has traditionally been most effective – at
the state level.

Less than a year later, H.R. 2046 would undo the
progress achieved with the passage of the Unlawful
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 by legalizing
Internet gambling in each State, unless the Governor
clearly specifies existing state restrictions barring
Internet gambling in whole or in part. A State may
then “opt out” of legalization for all Internet
gambling or certain types of gambling. However, the
opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly
preserve the right of States to place conditions on
legal types of gambling. In addition, the opt-outs are
deceiving in that they will likely be challenged
before the World Trade Organization – an organization that has already demonstrated hostility towards U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling.

Source: Maryland Attorney General

[cmitch]

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum - that is the problem.

This is the same Congressman that was pushing really hard for the Clinton impeachment. He lost a race for a senate seat a few yrs later and eventually wound up as our state attorney. Very, very far far far far right.

[Legislurker]

Amazing how powerful the horse lobby is in each state, huh?

[Atomic]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing how powerful the horse lobby is in each state, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

The sport of king(makers)

[KEW]

MD horse racing is crap...That industry is in serious need of slots and poker rooms...

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum - that is the problem.

This is the same Congressman that was pushing really hard for the Clinton impeachment. He lost a race for a senate seat a few yrs later and eventually wound up as our state attorney. Very, very far far far far right.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think Bill against us does more than he would for us...


D$D

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]


I think Bill against us does more than he would for us...


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh?

[bap2086]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think Bill against us does more than he would for us...


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
because so many people hate him in general. he works actually in a positive way.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hate to say it, but I agree with them. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has precisely zero right to become involved in making gambling law. That is reserved to the States.

Better to get the Feds out of it completely.

[canvasbck]

Where were these guys when the UIGEA was passed???? If they were so worried about the fed not interfering in states rights to decide on their own about internet gambling, why did these two bozos endorse the UIGEA?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Where were these guys when the UIGEA was passed???? If they were so worried about the fed not interfering in states rights to decide on their own about internet gambling, why did these two bozos endorse the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA does not create a new federal law. It only sets out guidelines to be followed by those States that have already existing laws regarding online gaming. IIRC correctly, that means the UIGEA only impacts 11 States.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where were these guys when the UIGEA was passed???? If they were so worried about the fed not interfering in states rights to decide on their own about internet gambling, why did these two bozos endorse the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA does not create a new federal law. It only sets out guidelines to be followed by those States that have already existing laws regarding online gaming. IIRC correctly, that means the UIGEA only impacts 11 States.

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA created new federal laws that force banks to follow arcane, ambiguous state laws on gaming (i.e., banks are supposed to determine the applicability of something like a 150 year old prohibition on riverboat faro to Internet poker). UIGEA also deputizes our banks as the enforcers of these state laws. Also, many banks may simply punt and refuse all gambling transactions (as there's little upside to processing a questionable transaction and a lot of downside to making a mistake).

This could have been easily contained at the state level. All these states had to do was pass laws like Washington state did. They didn't do that because the claimed "uproar against Internet gaming" didn't exist. So, these neo-prohibitionists took their ban to the federal level. And, the federal law was intended to be a ban, plain and simple. It just happened to have gotten watered down at the last minute, when we got Fristed.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where were these guys when the UIGEA was passed???? If they were so worried about the fed not interfering in states rights to decide on their own about internet gambling, why did these two bozos endorse the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA does not create a new federal law. It only sets out guidelines to be followed by those States that have already existing laws regarding online gaming. IIRC correctly, that means the UIGEA only impacts 11 States.

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA created new federal laws that force banks to follow arcane, ambiguous state laws on gaming (i.e., banks are supposed to determine the applicability of something like a 150 year old prohibition on riverboat faro to Internet poker). UIGEA also deputizes our banks as the enforcers of these state laws. Also, many banks may simply punt and refuse all gambling transactions (as there's little upside to processing a questionable transaction and a lot of downside to making a mistake).

This could have been easily contained at the state level. All these states had to do was pass laws like Washington state did. They didn't do that because the claimed "uproar against Internet gaming" didn't exist. So, these neo-prohibitionists took their ban to the federal level. And, the federal law was intended to be a ban, plain and simple. It just happened to have gotten watered down at the last minute, when we got Fristed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two issues here. 1) What Frist et. al. intended and 2) the reality of how this all will ultimately shake out.

By raising the States-rights issue, our opponents may well end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Both this and the WTO issue are impacted by the confusing nature of federalism and the downstream impact from things like allowing cross-border wagering on horse racing. The more the conflict between the states and the fed gets thown into the mix, the less likely a quick resolution to the issue becomes.

Maybe its just the libertarian in me wearing rose-colored glasses, but my gut is

gridlock > legal/regulated > illegal.

[Skallagrim]

The state's right to control/regulate gambling is a dead issue with respect to the internet. The internet is by its very nature "interstate commerce," a Federal concern.

Also, the WTO does not allow for individual state variation (though this may not matter eventually if Bush's Trade Representative is successful in withdrawing the US from the gaming part of the WTO).

Congress can punt regulation back to the states by doing so explicitly (like they did with the insurance business), but the UIGEA does not do that (the Wire Act controls all states, e.g.).

I am not afraid of state control as it relates to poker. I think the vast majority of states would allow internet poker, especially if they come with away to get a cut (which aint that hard to do). Although certainly some states would follow the examples of WA and LA, I dont think most would.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where were these guys when the UIGEA was passed???? If they were so worried about the fed not interfering in states rights to decide on their own about internet gambling, why did these two bozos endorse the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The UIGEA does not create a new federal law. It only sets out guidelines to be followed by those States that have already existing laws regarding online gaming. IIRC correctly, that means the UIGEA only impacts 11 States.

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA created new federal laws that force banks to follow arcane, ambiguous state laws on gaming (i.e., banks are supposed to determine the applicability of something like a 150 year old prohibition on riverboat faro to Internet poker). UIGEA also deputizes our banks as the enforcers of these state laws. Also, many banks may simply punt and refuse all gambling transactions (as there's little upside to processing a questionable transaction and a lot of downside to making a mistake).

This could have been easily contained at the state level. All these states had to do was pass laws like Washington state did. They didn't do that because the claimed "uproar against Internet gaming" didn't exist. So, these neo-prohibitionists took their ban to the federal level. And, the federal law was intended to be a ban, plain and simple. It just happened to have gotten watered down at the last minute, when we got Fristed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two issues here. 1) What Frist et. al. intended and 2) the reality of how this all will ultimately shake out.

By raising the States-rights issue, our opponents may well end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Both this and the WTO issue are impacted by the confusing nature of federalism and the downstream impact from things like allowing cross-border wagering on horse racing. The more the conflict between the states and the fed gets thown into the mix, the less likely a quick resolution to the issue becomes.

Maybe its just the libertarian in me wearing rose-colored glasses, but my gut is

gridlock > legal/regulated > illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]


To build on the examples in these posts.

What the UIGEA law and its proposed rule tries but glaringly points out is the nightmare of Constitutional issues Congress tried to slip into Law and the futileness of unthought out legislation attached to must pass funding bills.

To use the riverboat example:

The law and regulatory scheme floated says to the banks. We don't like our citizens gambling. We can't find a well thought out way to stop them, and can't be bothered to try. If we give you a liability free pass to mess with them, then perhaps you can do our job for us and help us protect them from them selves.

So, if one of our citizens tries to make a withdraw from your bank, and you think he might break a law by not going to the proper jurisdiction to gamble legally, we want you to keep his money from him.

Also, if he happens to try and depost money in your bank, and you think all of it or part of it might have been won in an illegal home game and not on a legal river boat cruse we want you to not accept his deposit.

We'll further write it into law that is he complains to you or tries to sue you, you get immunity.

Now lets see if we can slip this one past the stupid gamblers, we're sure since they can't handle their money for themselves they would never know how to take on the Federal Government and the Banking system!


D$D<--in a really sarcastic mood today.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
The state's right to control/regulate gambling is a dead issue with respect to the internet. The internet is by its very nature "interstate commerce," a Federal concern.

Also, the WTO does not allow for individual state variation (though this may not matter eventually if Bush's Trade Representative is successful in withdrawing the US from the gaming part of the WTO).

Congress can punt regulation back to the states by doing so explicitly (like they did with the insurance business), but the UIGEA does not do that (the Wire Act controls all states, e.g.).

I am not afraid of state control as it relates to poker. I think the vast majority of states would allow internet poker, especially if they come with away to get a cut (which aint that hard to do). Although certainly some states would follow the examples of WA and LA, I dont think most would.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think you're wrong about states. Reflexively, politicians are still anti-gambling. Their budget directors say it kills Lotto revenues. The ChristaNazis take up arms.
They don't want to be in a commercial where a voiceover saysLittle Johnny got hooked on gambling and shot his brains out because Governor X signed a law letting the gambling predators loose in our state. The entire South, the whole horsebelt from Maryland to Illinois, and the Indian heavy west would ban it ASAP.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state's right to control/regulate gambling is a dead issue with respect to the internet. The internet is by its very nature "interstate commerce," a Federal concern.

Also, the WTO does not allow for individual state variation (though this may not matter eventually if Bush's Trade Representative is successful in withdrawing the US from the gaming part of the WTO).

Congress can punt regulation back to the states by doing so explicitly (like they did with the insurance business), but the UIGEA does not do that (the Wire Act controls all states, e.g.).

I am not afraid of state control as it relates to poker. I think the vast majority of states would allow internet poker, especially if they come with away to get a cut (which aint that hard to do). Although certainly some states would follow the examples of WA and LA, I dont think most would.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think you're wrong about states. Reflexively, politicians are still anti-gambling. Their budget directors say it kills Lotto revenues. The ChristaNazis take up arms.
They don't want to be in a commercial where a voiceover saysLittle Johnny got hooked on gambling and shot his brains out because Governor X signed a law letting the gambling predators loose in our state. The entire South, the whole horsebelt from Maryland to Illinois, and the Indian heavy west would ban it ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the PPA was the true NRA type grassroots political organization it should be!!!


D$D<--still tilting at windmills

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The state's right to control/regulate gambling is a dead issue with respect to the internet.



I think the vast majority of states would allow internet poker...Although certainly some states would follow the examples of WA and LA

[/ QUOTE ]

You say states have no rights regarding internet poker and then seemingly contradict yourself. Even UIGEA alludes to state's rights to regulate internet poker. It even insists they regulate or it's unlawful. What did I miss?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]


The UIGEA does not create a new federal law.

[/ QUOTE ]

In effect now is a Fed law from UIGEA giving penalties to persons engaged in gambling businesses if they accept funds for unlawful internet gambling. Perhaps you mean if a bet is lawful, UIGEA doesn't change/apply to that.

[ QUOTE ]
It only sets out guidelines to be followed by those States that have already existing laws regarding online gaming. IIRC correctly, that means the UIGEA only impacts 11 States.

[/ QUOTE ]

States generally have anti-gambling laws that allow a few categories of gambling business and prohibit everything else. They don't allow a poker business to set up tables at your local mall or tavern or Uncle Bob's warehouse without regulation. Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

In fact, UIGEA says that state regulation/authorization is required for gambling businesses to legally make internet offerings in that state. It affects all states, not 11.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state's right to control/regulate gambling is a dead issue with respect to the internet.



I think the vast majority of states would allow internet poker...Although certainly some states would follow the examples of WA and LA

[/ QUOTE ]

You say states have no rights regarding internet poker and then seemingly contradict yourself. Even UIGEA alludes to state's rights to regulate internet poker. It even insists they regulate or it's unlawful. What did I miss?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed:

1) the middle of my post where I explained that it is POSSIBLE for the Feds to send the issue back to the states, but the UIGEA did not do that in the the way the courts have demanded.

2) The UIGEA only requires state regulation of INTRAstate gambling, INTERstate gambling is not regulated at all, but is "Unlawful Gambling" if it otherwise violates a state law.

3) Not all states have laws that ban everything except whats regulated, thats a vast overstatement. And that also ignores whether poker is, in fact, "gambling" which varies among the states and is an open question in most.

4) The word "poker" is not present anywhere in the UIGEA.

Also, when you asked "Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?" the answer is A) regulating the internet is presumptively a federal not a state function under the commerce clause, and B) there is a vast policy difference between what people do in their own homes by themselves on their computers and what people do at public businesses. Example: many cities regulate adult dancing, but just because your computer is within 500 feet of a church or school does not mean a business cant send you pictures of women dancing naked over the internet.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is telling you that the "Isle of Man" gambling business has entered R.I. Your state law does not authorize that (thereby triggering UIGEA). The law may or may not speak to the different concept of you gambling online.

You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to say it, but I agree with them. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has precisely zero right to become involved in making gambling law. That is reserved to the States.

Better to get the Feds out of it completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh.....Commerce clause? Internet betting would be placed across state lines, unless the state government want to keep it in state. FT and Pokerstars serves all states. It is federal commerce, and the Federal government has the right to regulate it. That is why I don't totally understand the state section of the Frank bill. Maybe it is only there to get the thing passed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you cite actual laws, please?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think a gambling business would be allowed on people's computers without a specific regulation?

The game takes place on the server, not on the client. The servers are located in a location where gambling is legal. The government has no more right to tell me I can't log on to my compuetr and play poker on the Isle of Man than it has the right to tell me I can't get on an airplane to play poker in Las Vegas. (obviously, the preceding is opinion)

Again, I live in RI and there is no law on my state's books that says I can't gamble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government is telling you that the "Isle of Man" gambling business has entered R.I. Your state law does not authorize that (thereby triggering UIGEA). The law may or may not speak to the different concept of you gambling online.

You need a law authorizing online poker business, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depositing or withdrawing to or from a poker site is not illegal in any way in any state or jurisdiction. You can deposit to a gambling site to take advantage of a free T-shirt offer and never actually gamble(or whatever).

The actual placing of a wager may or may not be depending on the jurisdiciton you are in when the wagering happens.

I could from the state of WA where on-line gambling is illegal deposit to FT, drive to Canada and play on-line where I have broken no US laws and either from Canada or back on WA try to deposit my winnings and the bank might under the proposed rule block the transaction.

Well unless the bank is going to work with the NSA to track my every movement to make sure I was actually in a jurisdiciton where it was illegal to wager all or part of the withdraw to even have a chance of hoping to win a law suit for blocking my transaction (well unless the regulation and UIGEA non-due process law is allowed to stand)



D$D

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I could from the state of WA where on-line gambling is illegal deposit to FT, drive to Canada and play on-line where I have broken no US laws and either from Canada or back on WA try to deposit my winnings and the bank might under the proposed rule block the transaction.


[/ QUOTE ]

If it weren't for the Patriot Act I would say you were correct.

Jimbo

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


If it weren't for the Patriot Act I would say you were correct.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being rude.

Is this an opinion or a statue you can send me a link to?


D$D

[Jimbo]

Both I suppose, after all the Partiot Act grants a great deal oflatitude when it involves money being moved into and out of the US.

Linky (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Yf-FPEuRexwJ:www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf+leaving+US+jurisdiction+to+perfom+an+a ct+legal+in+another+country&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl= us)

All USA Patriot Act Guidelines Statutes and Regulations (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:)

Jimbo

[JPFisher55]

Hey Jimbo, do you know how to cite a statute or regulation? You have to cite the particular section of a statute or a specific regulation to support your legal opinion. Not a link to the entire act and its regulations. BTW the Patriot Act has done very poorly in federal courts.

D$D, I doubt that banks will block any deposits by non-commercial customers. The proposed regulations talk about banks knowing their commercial customers so that they might block their deposits if it is funds obtained by violation of the UIGEA. How this will work is beyond me since no US bank actually has an internet gambling business as a customer unless it is for horse racing, state lottery or some other exempted internet gambling in the UIGEA.

[Coy_Roy]

Nothing better than watching two braniacs fight. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
How this will work is beyond me since no US bank actually has an internet gambling business as a customer unless it is for horse racing, state lottery or some other exempted internet gambling in the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well following on Jimbo's thought, and a conversation with a Complaince VP at a decent sized small bank (5 states and adding FLA in Dec) today it seems the government hoped the system will simply add poker and gambling sites to the "ofac" list. This action would have been a death blow to us until some future legislation action.

While I am still investigating the origins, legal issues, as well a the offical name of this list; it seems this is a anti-fraud, crime, terrorism and narco-terrorism list. How it works is if a merchant, or even country is coded on this list banks will block all transaction to or from such merchant or country. I think they can do this under some sort of "national security" hook or law. But given how relucant the fairly open Complaince VP had been up an until the mention of this list was, I get the feeling there are some secrecy issues involved.

Given the former Att. Gen's exchange with Sen Kyl in January, I firmly beleive that is exactly what Sen. Kyl wanted from the UIGEA.

Given that the Sec. of the FED and TD, specifically avoided putting the UIGEA regulations under this method gives me hope as well as concern.

I am glad we didn't end up fighting for the rights of terrotists and narco-criminals just to be able to play poker on-line in the privacy of our own homes.

As it is I feel we have a better than even shot at getting the banks to tell the "Agencies" the proposed rule, and the UIGEA itself is completely unworkable if not un-Constitutional.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

If online poker had been added to some banned transaction list, if it existed, then litigation over the legality of online poker would be necessary sooner than the present situation. Can such a list work for ACH's and checks?
I would be very optimistic about the result of such litigation. And I don't think that a favorable result would take years.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Jimbo, do you know how to cite a statute or regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, must I do all the work for you? Heck, you can't even tell the difference between a regulation, a rule and a procedure, give me a break, I am giving you plenty of them. D$D only asked for a link where he could do some research on his own so that is what I provided. I don't see you offering any specific statutes that refutes what I stated was only my personal opinion on this matter. None of your posts on regulations cite anything other than personal opinion and 2nd hand experience.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW the Patriot Act has done very poorly in federal courts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, Kettle, black. Would you care to cite several examples of how poorly the Patriot Act has fared in Federal courts? Links to specific finalized cases will suffice.

Jimbo