iMEGA reports that the UIGEA Regulations will be out Thursday

[oldbookguy]

As part of this, will OMB look at the ramifications, I.E. the UIGEA claims as a cost factor if they consider cost?

I read in a House report that Leach estimated the cost at less that 1.00 per taxpayer and with the pending claims that is no even in the same country now, let alone the ball park.

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


The Sky will fall soon, just not today, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

We might want to think pro-activly about how we organize an effective response to the proposed regs before they are published.

While burrying the poor sap who's name gets stuck on the reg is always fun, it is not always the most effective measure. Meetings will be held to decide how to respond to the proposed regs during the comment period. Much of the work that will affect the comment and shape of the final rule will be affected by "reaching out and touching" the people going to those meetings, who will be directing the responses issued by the "named sap."

This committee wil have already prepared legal justification for the reg some of which will be in the published proposed rule. There are quite a number of ways to defeat a proposed rule not all of which are straight defeats of the logic or underlying foundation for the rule. The Paperwork Reduction Act is one I mention again because it has some fun hoops to make Agencies jump through and you can some times defeat a proposed rule on a simple "the reward to the gov't is less than the burden on the people" basis.

I know there are some old D.C. hands in this forum. As well as quite a few sharp leagal minds.

IMPO a well thought out campaign might be in order.


D$D

[HelloandGoodby90]

This sucks. I wonder how much they will hurt the industry. Hopefully, they are ineffective.


So, let me get this straight. The regulations will be proposed, and then there is a 100 day comment period, for the government to get input. During this time, the regs can be changed, if needed, and then be implemented?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This sucks. I wonder how much they will hurt the industry. Hopefully, they are ineffective.


So, let me get this straight. The regulations will be proposed, and then there is a 100 day comment period, for the government to get input. During this time, the regs can be changed, if needed, and then be implemented?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the exact number of days the proposed rule or regulation has to stay up for comment but somewhere between 60 and 120 days.

The government HAS to respond to all realistic suggestions and there are a number of claims that it will HAVE to respond to completely to get past OMB again. The first time through with OMB is usually dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s type effort. Well unless the Administration has decided to try and publish what is in there minds the final rule, where they have spent the extra time on making pretty sure they can defeat most avenues of attack. In that case defeating the proposed rule is a bit harder.

There should be people "in the know" or who can be "in the know" pretty quickly to get a read on where the Administration is on this issue.

Given all the current issues involving UIGEA, states rights, trade, WTO, the EU, involving potentially many more industries than are currently up to sped on this issue we have really furtile ground to fight an asymertical battle rather than a brute force one, or even both.........

D$D

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The Sky will fall soon, just not today, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

We might want to think pro-activly about how we organize an effective response to the proposed regs before they are published.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. We have a lot of room to run. Let's neuter the regs, and render them useless. I am all for this, and will help out as much as I can.

[oldbookguy]

A good indicator could be parsed in reading the Federal Reserve Board FYI 2006 report to Congress.

My link starts on page 68 or so, see page 146-147 as follows:

[ QUOTE ]
The act also requires the Secretary and the Board to grant exemptions from any requirement imposed under the regulations to particular types of transactions or designated payment systems if the agencies jointly find that it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or otherwise prevent or prohibit, such restricted transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the report, actually the UIGEA section is very short:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...06/pdf/fro.pdf

obg

[DeadMoneyDad]

Went over to the Treasury's website to get some info and this really jumped off their front page at me....

"Every time we break down barriers to trade and investment, we open up new markets for American ranchers, farmers, workers, and entrepreneurs. ..."

http://www.ustreas.gov/



I wonder if they feel the inverse hurts these same groups???

D$D

[JPFisher55]

We don't want to neuter the regs. We want very specific regs that expressly ban transactions to online poker sites. Then the lawyers like Skall can go to court and challenge the regulation and obtain a final ruling that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker; only sports betting.
With general, ambiguous regs, the DOJ can continue its stance that any transaction to any online gambling site is illegal and it will be harder to challenge this stance in court.
I still think the rumors of these regs are rumors, but I hope I am wrong.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't want to neuter the regs. We want very specific regs that expressly ban transactions to online poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

You sure have a lot of faith in the courts!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Then the lawyers like Skall can go to court and challenge the regulation and obtain a final ruling that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker; only sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we'd be better with ambiguous regs and an overzealous DOJ that sues a poker site, affiliate, venture capitalist, or advertiser.

[ QUOTE ]
With general, ambiguous regs, the DOJ can continue its stance that any transaction to any online gambling site is illegal and it will be harder to challenge this stance in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as there's money to be made in the U.S., and no attempts are made to stop PokerStars, FT, etc., new sites will come to offer services. The DoJ will have to put up or shut up. Hopefully the regs won't bolster their argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I still think the rumors of these regs are rumors, but I hope I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs have been inevitable since the day UIGEA passed, as Congress ordered the executive branch to enforce the law, and as Bush wants to enforce it. The only question has been timing.

[Halstad]

Anyone else get this email?