Barney Frank Introduces the Internet Gambling Regulation Act

[ChipFerFree]

Not great according to EOG.com article found here:

http://www.eog.com/news/full-article.aspx?id=22602

"What does this mean? It means that, if a state has a law prohibiting casino gambling at that state, online casinos cannot operate in that particular state, even with a license. And in the United States, there are only 11 states which have private casinos (except Indian tribal gambling, which is treated separately). So in the other 40 states, where casino gambling is illegal - online casinos cannot operate. And when those 11 states already have laws or are working on laws to explicitly prohibit online gambling - there are no states left where a licensee could operate - thus banning online gambling on a state level."

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
in the other 48 it will be legal unless the opposition gets a bill passed and that might be difficult even in places like S.Carolina (where playing ANY game for money is illegal). In most states it will never happen.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Skall,

Can you explain to me why this bill will would make online gambling legal in SC or NC, where all betting is illegal except for specific exceptions.

I think it's clear that the Frank bill would not make it legal in such states.

[twobitplayer]

Being regulated is never a good thing. The UIEGA certainly was successful if it already has folks begging to be regulated.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Being regulated is never a good thing. The UIEGA certainly was successful if it already has folks begging to be regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. A lot of the companies were "begging" for regulation before the UIEGA was passed. There was a 60 minutes segment about eight months back. I believe it was som chairman at 888 or something who was saying, 'just regulate us and let us continue operating.'

[Skallagrim]

This part is rather simple; if the choice is free poker, regulated poker, or illegal poker - I choose free poker. If the choice is regulated poker or illegal poker - I choose regulated poker.

To answer Benjamins' question: When the Feds pass a law like this with a state opt out provision, the state choice must match the feds' options. This is a bill covering online gambling, so old laws that were designed to cover B&M gambling wont cut it. Only 2 states have specific laws against participating in online gambling: Washington and Louisianna.

Now there are 9 other states which have laws about online gambling, but these 9 choose to make online gambling illegal to OPERATE without a state license (no violation to play). Since a Fed license trumps any state license, those laws are not in compliance with Frank's bill. Those 9 states, and any others so inclined, will have to pass NEW legislation making online gambling illegal even when the operator of the site has a license if they want to opt out.

Skallagrim

[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news.

My first reaction is: if this is adopted as proposed, the NFL has a very tough decision whether to opt out or not. Despite their apparent interest in prohibiting internet gambling, it clearly is NOT in their financial interest to do so.

As far as poker goes, if this is adopted, I think we can expect a second explosion of popularity, lower rakes, more security, better games and lots of people moving out of states that elect to prohibit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it seems to me, that the NFL could use this to setup their own gaming on their own site, and then opt-out of allowing everyone else to take bets on their games.

Sounds like a grand slam for them, to me.

[Annorax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good news.

My first reaction is: if this is adopted as proposed, the NFL has a very tough decision whether to opt out or not. Despite their apparent interest in prohibiting internet gambling, it clearly is NOT in their financial interest to do so.

As far as poker goes, if this is adopted, I think we can expect a second explosion of popularity, lower rakes, more security, better games and lots of people moving out of states that elect to prohibit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it seems to me, that the NFL could use this to setup their own gaming on their own site, and then opt-out of allowing everyone else to take bets on their games.

Sounds like a grand slam for them, to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably what will sell this thing all the way to a Bush veto. NFL campaign contributions will keep every congressman who votes for this thing in office for as long as they want to be in office.