Frank to introduce bill.....

[Skallagrim]

"First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum. I also appreciate BluffTHIS for his level headedness (where is skallagrim? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )"

Sorry Kodfish, I do have a day job ...

This is a great step forward for all of us and everyone should contact their representatives.

A couple of points for the doomsayers, sportsbetters, and apathetic/pessimistic.

1) There are certainly just as many (probably more) poker players in the US as there are anti-gambling fanatics. While it is true most of the US does not see internet poker or gambling as a big issue, that didnt stop the UIGEA from passing did it? Nor will it mean the repeal wont pass.

2) I am not sure the WTO would rule against individual state differences, and I see Frank's intelligence in including that provision (softens the opposition). If some states were open to all and others were not, that is not really different from some countries being open and some not. So long as the rules are the same for the offshore and the US companies, I think the WTO would allow it.

3) It is legal under the commerce clause for the congress to explicitly allow states to have individual laws for certain commerce, and this is clearly explicit.

4) Dont forget we have some powerful allies here (banks).

5) I really sympathize with the sports bettors, but the NFL is a really powerful foe - I like that Frank does not seperate different gaming in the bill, but allows for it (if I am reading it right) because, as a poker player, while I support the rights of sports betters, I am not so supportive as to insist on losing with them if given a chance to seperately win.

6) The skill argument is not unimportant. Part of getting any bill passed is going to be to convince the (mostly democratic) nanny-staters that all hell WILL NOT break loose if we legalize online gaming. Treating poker like golf because it is more like golf than slot machines may become an important point as the bill is debated and amended (poker being the vast majority of current online gaming). A skill game is less threatening to the nanny-staters. We shall have to see how the votes line up, but if it comes to be that poker can get the votes while slots cant, so be it.

Observe that nobody talks about total drug legalization because "all hell would break loose." Marijauna alone, however, is getting closer to that point as the years roll by not because the individual rights and "its better to regulate' arguments are gaining more ground, but because most folks realize marijuana is not that dangerous.

I really think the chances of passing this bill (either as written or slightly amended) are pretty good. It just requires getting the ducks all lined up (banks with us, NFL pacified, highly religious states able to opt out, and the prospect of more government pork, er I mean revenue, for the safe seat politicians and NRA style single issue voting to worry the non-safe seat politicians - remember Leach).

Our point in that line is to let the representatives know which side we want them to be on. WRITE NOW!

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Washington, DC - Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators , allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

The Act establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals in the U.S., to the extent permitted by individual states , Indian tribes and sport leagues.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is this progress?

Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

A states "properly licensed operator" is already exempted from "the ban".

It says along with your state regulation, you get a new level of Federal regulation.


Something similar to this may be needed once a few states allow online gambling and want to pool customers, so maybe that's the point.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this progress? Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. E-wallets will be legal again.
2. The fish will feel more secure with poker being expressly legal (and being able to get money on the sites).
3. We'll have more than the couple of sites we now have to play.
4. The DOJ doesn't agree with our interpretion of the legality of poker (nor does my congressman, for that matter). Explicit legalization is good for us.

[JPFisher55]

Ewallets that serve one US licensed site will have access to the US banking system because it will be impossible to tell which of the transactions from this ewallet derive from a US licensed site and which do not.
In practice, this law repeals the UIGEA because it removes any possible enforcement by the US banking system against ewallets.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the WTO or any other treaty organization can't trash the U.S. constitution which grants the states many rights, just because they don't like those rights.

If the federal government signs a treaty which contains provisions that they don't even have the power to enforce, then the signatory on the other side of the treaty needs to be aware of that before they sign on the dotted line.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this progress? Americans are already allowed to "lawfully bet online....to the extent permitted by individual states". This bill isn't "allowing" any new lawful bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. E-wallets will be legal again.
2. The fish will feel more secure with poker being expressly legal (and being able to get money on the sites).
3. We'll have more than the couple of sites we now have to play.
4. The DOJ doesn't agree with our interpretion of the legality of poker (nor does my congressman, for that matter). Explicit legalization is good for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "explicit legalization"? I see it talks about Federal licensing, taxation and regulation of "lawful internet gambling". I agree it would be nice, but legalization ain't there. If it's unlawful internet gambling now, it still would be if this passed tomorrow.

UIGEA already allows "lawful internet gambling" and it doesn't make you get a Federal license, so what am I missing?

[DrewOnTilt]

ATTENTION VICTOR AND THEENGINEER:

Drop it! You are both killing this thread.

On with the discussion.

[The Mayo]

I attempted to send this email to Geoff Davis (R-KY4), Northern Kentucky's congressman and a member of Frank's financial services committee. But the online form here will only accept email from members of his district. I live in souther Scott County, so I'm just outside his district. So any Northern Kentuckians out there, feel free to modify this and send it in! It's especially important for people whose representatives who don't accept outside email to contact their congressmen so that this issue gets on their radars.

--- BEGIN ---

Dear Representative Davis,

On Thursday, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. This act would legalize and regulate internet gambling at the Federal level. I urge you to not only support, but co-sponsor this resolution as Rep. Frank introduces this to committee. As you are a member of the Financial Services Committee, you have an opportunity to be an early leader on this issue, and early support could be crucial to the success of this important legislation.

I enjoy playing poker on the internet. I enjoy the convenience of being able to play from the comfort of my own home. I enjoy the low stakes games that allow me to play on my limited budget as a student at UK. I enjoy the faster pace of the online games. These are just a few advantages that are not available in standard casinos.

I have lived in Kentucky my whole life, and believe I know the character of my fellow Kentuckians. And I know quite a few of them, many of whom live in the 4th Congressional District, who responsibly enjoy gambling and would love to take advantage of legalized online gambling. They would be able to gamble in their homes, and the state of Kentucky would be able to generate tax revenue from their gambling. Surely this is better for our state than the current situation where citizens of the 4th district take their money across the Ohio River and generate tax revenue for Indiana casinos, while Kentucky gets nothing.

More importantly, I know that my fellow Kentuckians value freedom and liberty above almost all else. The federal government currently prohibits them from gambling their hard-earned money on a recreational activity which they enjoy that causes no harm to others. That is not consistent, in my view, with the conception of America as the land of the free. I know that Kentuckians value their individual rights very highly, and they don't take kindly to their government limiting those rights absent some compelling reason. And the passage of H.R. 2046 would give these rights to lawful, tax-paying American citizens and generate some tax revenue to boot. It's truly a win-win piece of legislation.

I hope that you will take the time to fully consider the numerous advantages of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, and hope that you will help Rep. Frank make this a reality by co-sponsoring the bill and doing whatever is necessary to help it along in the financial services committee.

Thank you for your time, and I would be delighted if you would contact me with your thoughts on this issue. My contact information is at the bottom of this message.

Sincerely,

[Personal info removed]

[Dima2000123]

This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm really worried about the 11 states. The very real danger is that people living there are going to be shut out completely, if FTP and PS go legit, and go from a bad situation to even worse one.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I think a number of those 11 states dont have illegal internet gambling laws, just shaky ones.