Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

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

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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?

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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.

Re: Maryland and Florida Apparently Against Frank Bill
 

[ 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