Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

I just read a post by someone that claimed to have read the bill that is getting pushed by Barney Frank and they are saying that there is a lot of things in there that we wouldnt want to have in it. I was gonna read it myself but then I opened it and my mind just shut off.


Here's what they said.

You are being fooled by Barney Frank's misleading language. Nothing in this bill repeals the UIGEA, all it does is add more legislation. Here, read the whole act yourself: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...04_xml_(2).pdf
It repeals nothing. It is a hoax. This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over. Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com. You can also expect to pay taxes on each session, pay fees to the government for allowing you to play, and have the fat cats get fat while we pay for the cream. This is a typical political stunt. Like calling something the Patriot Act that takes away all of your liberties. Do not be fooled. This will not be good for any of us. We are better off as things are now.
Plenty of sites open, and none of them are under an obligation to turn over all of their customers records (one of the requirements of the new Act). Don't thank the fox for guarding us hens. It won't be good for us. Plus, any ewallets that agree to work with the new sites will have to agree to be subject to US jurisdiction and will have no chance to operate in the US with any unlicensed sites. Although I like your idea. Read the whole act. It is terrible.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

I guess you could read the bill once your mind turns back on, or some of the 800 posts below.

I read the bill and it looks fine to me.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

I agree if things stayed as they are right now, this day, at least as far as the logistics, it would be better for some (games will be much softer if the bill passes tho, so I'd prefer that to the status quo.) But, UIGEA enforcement hasn't even gotten going yet. Aside from the neteller stuff, everything that has happened is just companies making decisions on their own. It is extremely naive to think that things aren't going to get worse as time goes on.

I agree, Frank's bill is not ideal. He is proposing something he actually thinks can pass, given the fact that there was overwhelming support for the UIGEA on both sides of the isle. Let's not forget that the only reason the UIGEA didn't pass on it's own was that 1) a couple high ranking senators were burying it and 2) the Senate had too much other stuff going on.

The bill is not perfect, especially the sports betting stuff and allowing states to ban online gambling. I don't think it's unreasonable for the U.S. government to want to regulate the industry...when companies do business in the U.S. it is not unprecedented that they be expected to abide by U.S. law. As far as taxes, they could do it in a way that sucks, but I pay taxes on my winnings now, so it's not a big deal for me.

What this bill does do is settle the issue about online poker legality. We may think it's legal to play, but the only message going out to U.S. citizens through the media is that it's illegal to play. This will change that and result in a huge influx of bad players.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over. Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. We all know that's the endgame anyway. The faster we get there, the better for all of us.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

This sounds like more grousing from the sports betting companies and affiliates. They don't benefit from the bill, and so seek to disparage it. All of us here should care *only* about how poker fairs in general, and not other forms of gambling, and not even the specific business model of any current or potential poker site. If the longhot comes in and the bill passes, we will have sites to play *poker* on and that is the bottom line, and all we should care about.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

I think the bill is near perfect for the poker community.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually in Missouri B&M casinos do have to obey a $500 loss limit every 2 hours for each customer. A bill passes the MO house to repeal this limit. I think that it is the only one in the US.
Jay, I don't agree that this bill necessarily discriminates against foreign companies because domestic companies would have to obtain the same license as a foreign operator. Some state laws and practices might still discriminate against foreign operators. The devil will be in the details.

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have looked at it. It needs a lot of work if it is going to address the WTO matter. Frank mentioned the WTO in a quote in the LVRJ as one of the reasons for it.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/7219486.html

I don't know if I would call it grousing. The bill as written basically throws sports players and all foreign operators under the bus, unless they want to open up US subsidiaries and become American operators. That's not the same as allowing foreign operators access to the market.

The state by state thing is a mess. Potential limits on how much people can lose is not a good idea, B&M doesn't have to subject themselves to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay,

What would you recommend for legislation that could actually pass Congress, given the success of HR 4411 in the House last year?

I'd personally prefer something more open as well, but it's hard for me as an American to think Congress should force states to permit gambling if they offer no similar gambling already (such as Utah). I think a bill that proposed that would be DOA. As for the WTO, we should all encourage our government to choose to follow the ruling, but I can't imagine our Congress doing much in response to the WTO if they don't wish to.

Sports betting is another matter. Frank is giving leagues the ability to opt-out more for political expediency than anything else. Unfortunately, as you can tell by the baseball "steroid hearings" (good thing our government has nothing better to do) and the fact that state and city governments pay for sports stadiums, sports and government are linked in the U.S.

Thanks,

TE

Re: Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank?
 

i agree with this guy ^^^^