Frank to introduce bill.....

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the "explicit legalization"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The whole bill is about explicit legalization. A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out. E-wallets will be legal for use at these sites as well. Right now, it's illegal to operate a gambling web site anywhere in the U.S. That will be legal under this legislation. And e-wallets are illegal under UIGEA.

Currently, even if a state like ND chose to legalize online gambling, it would be illegal to them to offer the service outside of that state. This will all become legal under the Frank bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you'll still print it and mail it to him. Davis was a cosponsor of HR 4411, but he also barely survived his last election, so he's more receptive to public input than usual.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true for snail mail. I've been sending them to everyone, and I've been encouraging others here to do the same. Rep. Ron Paul actually sent me a reply, despite being several states away from me.

For email, though, Davis (and Frank as well) has a filter that checks the nine-digit ZIP code, so one would have to enter a false ZIP code (such as 41017-2136, the ZIP code of his local office) to send it electronically. But then, if the address used is out-of-state, it wouldn't reflect well on our cause.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
ATTENTION VICTOR AND THEENGINEER:

Drop it! You are both killing this thread.

On with the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite sure where this "we" comes in....Victor tried to discourage us from acting, going so far as to call us "retards" for trying. I don't know if he supports UIGEA or what, but he should honestly state his intentions, rather than trying to sabotage our effort by demoralizing people.

Anwyay, I dropped it a couple of hundred posts ago and I won't reply if he again posts defending his position that we shouldn't do anything about UIGEA, as no one here will pay any attention to that, now that we have the Frank bill. Earlier, I wanted to make sure his advice to not write didn't go through unchallenged. This is crunch time, where we take no prisoners.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like they are going to check if you are actually in their district. i have been sending them out to everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true - All forms of correspondence (email, fax, letters, calls) are checked to see if you reside in their district (assuming you give a proper address). Those not in the district are generally forwarded to the actual person who represents you---its just general courticy.

If you give a false address, the database will indicate it most times.

[Jay Cohen]

This is what the Antigua WTO lawyer said this morning regarding the state by state issue.

"With respect to international and interstate commerce, the states themselves have no say unless the federal government expressly allows them to. So, an international treaty dealing with international commerce will trump any state law on the same topic, period. Utah, for example, has no right to prohibit international commerce from Antigua to be transacted within its borders if the federal government has decided otherwise."

I have been over this state issue with him many times the past 4+ years. What if the states....? Would that be compliant? The answer is always the same, it's one country. The Feds stepped all over states rights a long time ago, including when they signed the GATS and the GATT.

As far as "my cause" goes, I have consistently fought for the right of Americans to gamble online and to access licensed and legal offshore sportsbooks and casinos wherever in the world they are located, as long as they are properly licensed by the country they where they are located and that country allows them to access the global market.

Regarding throwing sports players under the bus, what can I say? That's a choice everyone here has to make. Back in 1997, the horse racing people were on our side until they got their exemption, then they didn't know the sports folks.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

ive been sending emails from the house.gov link and they only require your addy/zip if you want a response.

[Eaglebauer]

Dear Eaglebauer:

Thank you for your message regarding Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.



The debate over Internet gambling has generated strong public interest. While most types of Internet gambling operations are prohibited under federal law, many Internet gambling operations are based in foreign countries and have fallen outside the jurisdiction of American enforcement agencies. Overall, Americans spend roughly $4 billion to $6 billion a year on Internet gambling. Because of the largely unregulated nature of this business, Internet gambling sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud. Further, Internet gambling can be addictive, and this addiction has had a harmful effect on some individuals and communities.



In September 2006, the Senate passed the SAFE Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954) by unanimous consent. This legislation contained numerous important provisions that would improve the security of our nation's ports. It also included language added to the measure late in the process to enhance the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling. The provision bars those who are in the business of gambling from knowingly accepting credit cards, checks, electronic fund transfers or similar financial instruments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The Act imposes fines and/or prison sentences on violators. The legislation further requires the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations directing banks and other financial transaction providers to adopt practices that will enable them to identify and prevent restricted transactions that support Internet gambling.



The SAFE Port Act of 2006, and its strong measures to prevent unlawful Internet gambling, passed the Senate with my support. At the same time, it is important that the relevant federal agencies work in conjunction with law-abiding financial transaction providers when crafting the regulations required by the SAFE Port Act. We can and should effectively target unlawful gambling transactions without imposing unrealistic or overly burdensome requirements on law-abiding financial transaction providers.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to stay in touch.



Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator



RJD/jk



P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C. office for more details.

[1p0kerboy]

^^^

Automated response from about 6 months ago.

It doesn't address the new legislation that WOULD block access to gambling by children, etc.