Frank to introduce bill.....

[OpenWheel]

Internet gambling sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud

Where do the children get their money? Can the congress show me where gambling is detrimental to a child? Or is that one of the theorems I'm just supposed to "assume" for the purpose of a national debate? If a parent wishes to allow their minor to gamble will proposed legislation give that parent a "carve out"?

Why should the federal government be involved in preventing fraud for private businesses? You mean to tell me they can't figure something out to protect themselves? Contract law and my vigilance isn't enough to protect me? Shouldn't the businesses that commit fraud or fail to prevent fraud against themselves be the ones who go out of business? What if I prefer to do business with a site that uses a private service to monitor their integrity to my satisfaction instead of the federal government... Will you reduce my tax "rake"?

[Skallagrim]

Quick note:

The "11 state ban" would NOT apply to this bill. It would, at present, be a 2 state ban: Washington and Louisianna.

The other 9 states have laws that restrict internet gambling OPERATORS and SITES, but not players. Those laws would not apply under the Frank bill, because Federal licensing trumps state licensing.

Of course those 9 states, and maybe others, may seek to opt out under Frank's bill, but it would require them passing NEW legislation.

Skallagrim

PS - Richard Durbin shows only ignorance on this issue, you folks in Illinois (which is one of those 9 states) had better get organized and writing!

[The Mayo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's in the mail.

[meleader2]

what's that choking sound? oh, it's the final death throes of gaboon.

[ImsaKidd]

Skallagrim I hope youre right on the Wash/LA issue.

Now to make sure Dickwad Durbin doesnt mess it up...

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a state would make internet gambling "explicitly legal", not this bill. This bill gets you a license to offer what a state legalizes, if they don't all opt out.

Your drivers license allows you to drive lawfully, it doesn't make or change any driving laws.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A licensed site will be explicitly legal in the U.S. in states (and on tribal land) that didn't opt out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a state would make internet gambling "explicitly legal", not this bill. This bill gets you a license to offer what a state legalizes, if they don't all opt out.

Your drivers license allows you to drive lawfully, it doesn't make or change any driving laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Frank's bill passes, it will be legal for licensed online sites to offer gambling in states that don't opt out. The states won't have to pass legislation to make it explicitly legal. It will be legal to move money back and forth between U.S. banks or credit carrds and licensed sites. It will also be legal for venture capital and other companies to aid in the establishment of new online gambling companies.

[Skallagrim]

Engineer is right, sorry permafrost.

Once the Feds say legal unless opted out, states that want out will have to have already, or newly pass, legislation saying explicitly "internet gambling is illegal here." Those laws that say "internet gambling illegal without state license" wont cut it, a Fed license trumps a state license every time.

[JPFisher55]

More importantly, the regulation on ewallets by banks would not take place. Thus, you could move money to an unlicensed site.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, the regulation on ewallets by banks would not take place. Thus, you could move money to an unlicensed site.

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta say I am not 100% sure about this JP, because some banks will still panic about being invovled with unlicensed (hence illegal) sites. But you are absolutely right that some banks (and also all the ewallets) wont care once the UIGEA is no more.