Regulations are out

[HelloandGoodby90]

It's not like the Family Research Council is writing the regs. It is the Federal Reserve, and the Department of the Treasury. When the "GAMBLING IS BAD, OMG, HELP" crowd at FOF writes about how terrible gambling is, and should be outlawed because it is the work of Satan, what is the DOT, and FR, likely to think? My guess is they would not care much, considering what their job is, and may even become slightly turned off to the regs.

Now, if we come at the FR, and DOT, saying, these regs are terrible, and all regs would be terrible. We need less of them, as they are impossible to enforce, the reg writing powers are likely to be more turned on to our idea, then FOF's. Why?

A: Our comments address the regs (not what the country needs to outlaw), in a logical manner, that the FR and DOT is likely to be sympathethic to.
B. I am sure DOT and FR care more about the well being of the banks, more than whether or not someone gambles for cents in their living room.
C. FR is a big bank, anyway. (Good that they are writing the regs, huh?)

The banks are going to lobby for less regs, IMO, so that is the best move for us. Less regs work better for us, and it is going to boost us tremendously to be in step with the banks.

No matter what the regs say now, or mean later, we need to be on record supporting our beliefs, and we need to do it in a way that addresses the following four things:

A. In step with the banks.
B. Regs are not logically enforceable. Therefore, no matter how many regs there are, they are not going to be enforced. Also, all regs are SO unenforcable, they place too big a burden on the banks.
C. The regs should be less, and less specific, because of the logic I outlined in letter B.
D. Poker, and gambling in general, are not big threats, and should not have tough regs against them.

FOF is going to lobby for more regs. Why? Because more regs is going to place more burden on the poker industry. We do NOT want more regs.

FOF logic of more regs, is going to fail miserably. The DOT, and FR, is going to see that. When you look at their plan of action, they have no logic to more regs, other than "I HATE GAMBLING!!"

There is NO logic to more regs, and we need to make that clear to the DOT and FR, that what we want is less regs.

[TheEngineer]

Please comment. Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------

Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses. Most of the weaknesses, which include the inability of the regulations to define “unlawful Internet gambling” and the risk of overblocking transactions to legal businesses, are inherent in UIGEA itself. I urge the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to further clarify these regulations prior to implementation to ensure orderly and fair enforcement of these regulations.

The primary weakness in the regulations as proposed is the lack of a definition of “illegal Internet gambling”. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gambling bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all gambling transactions. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, which was specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “illegal Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers sports betting only (excluding horse racing per the Interstate Horse Racing Act). Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, the regulations should specify that state laws must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific forms of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Treasury Department. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they have been tasked to prevent. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

-------------

edited to change "overblock offshore gambling sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law" to "overblock offshore poker sites..."

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't mind what you are trying to do, but I think there is more productive ways of doing it. Ways that circle around, making the law more specific.

The best way to attack this, IMO, would be to make the law less specific, and easier on the bankers.

Easier on the banks= Easier on us.

For instance, show the absurdity of the law, by how the banks cannot properly enforce the law. Follow up with, because the law is so absurd and not enforcable, there should be less regulations for the banks to follow. (In place of a list)

This helps our cause, without hurting it through the use of a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I like the way you think.....

The problem is the law at least as I read it and the regs say that if a bank messes up and blocks a legal transaction there is no recourse.

Given that bankers are NOT the worlds riskiest gamblers unless their is a price to pay for them throwing a wet blanket over anything associated with gambling and saying "so what!" is the problem I have with this law and proposed rule.

There is no hook to make them pay for doing the gov't bidding.

THAT is why they don't have a problem with the reg!


IMPO as always,


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we need to strongly be on record saying that this is not the banks problem, leave them alone. There should be no recourse on the banks, or any effect.

Now, what you say about the banks not being the world's strongest gamblers is true. They are likely to block anything they can, even with no regs. But the thing is, they don't block everything, as they don't actually care to. They do not know what Epassporte is, as they have no incentive to find out. As of right now, most banks are against online gambling. I cannot deposit with my Bank of America Visa, can you? But, I still gamble online everyday. Why? Because my bank doesn't actually care about online gambling.

But, if there are strict regulations, outlining what is bad, and exactly how my bank can block it, the banks are a lot likely to hunt harder, and make it tough for me to play online. More likely to block Epassporte, etc.

As of right now, the banks have no incentive to go after online gambling. It is unproductive for them, and they make no money at it. Obviously, they have have enough incentive to not openly support gambling, as that would be silly on their part. That is why I cannot deposit with my Visa. But I do not want to give them the incentive to hunt gambling down, and be forced to block Epassporte, as well.

This is why, we need to make it easier on the banks, with less regs.

[gringo]

I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[HelloandGoodby90]

[ QUOTE ]
I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

There won't be a poker exemption in the regs. If the regs are clearly defined, poker will be clearly defined as illegal. That is court challengable, and court winnable, but I place little hope in the judicial process.

[Johnny McEldoo]

TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format. Also show support for things we like.

For example in the section about exemptions they say:
"The Agencies request comments on all aspects of the exemptions, but in particular, whether the exemptions for certain participants in the ACH systems....are appropriate"

Shouldn't we take the time to echo our support for the ability for financial institutions to receive exemptions and state that we expect that these exemptions will be granted to such financial entities requesting them.

I would think this is important to fight off the FOF type groups when they fight against specific sections and we are silent.

How easily one of these financial institutions are granted an exemption seems like a big thing...

[JPFisher55]

Perhaps the following comment would be best on the list matter.

"Under II. E. 6. of Supplementary Information to the proposed PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING, the agency requests comments on the feasibility of creation of a list of unlawful internet gambling businesses. In my opinion, the creation of such a list is not practical or judicious. Under the UIGEA, the term unlawful internet gambling is essentially defined as any internet gambling that violates any applicable state or federal law. However, the power to interpret state or federal laws is granted to the judiciary branch of government; not to the executive. So how can any government agency determine whether any business is engaged in unlawful internet gambling? Interpretation the laws affecting internet gambling of all 50 states and the federal government and applying these laws to determine which businesses are violating them would place any agency in the position of being judge and jury for any potential business. Besides being extremely costly, I believe that any such judgment should be left to the judiciary branch and not any government agency. Without some judicial ruling about any business engaged in internet gambling how can an agency insure that such business is engaged in unlawful internet gambling. In my opinion, the Agencies discussion about the difficulties of creating a list of businesses engaged in unlawful internet gambling are correct. In my opinion, the Agencies cannot establish, maintain and update such a list."

Please let me know what the group thinks about this comment. Also, should we reveal our names etc. with any comment. D$D or TheEngineer, it might be helpful for you to post general directions about how to properly address and sign comments.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I really respect all of TE's postings, but not sure I understand why we want items specifically listed. I would think the more vague the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The regs aren't bad. Our biggest threat is overblocking, so I focused on that. Keep in mind that our opponents are the ones who spam the FCC to death every time a curse word is uttered on TV. Imagine if they do that to the Treasury Dept and banks once this goes through.

[Coy_Roy]

Engineer, I understand where it is you're coming from.............but I have to admit that I feel a sense of danger in calling their hand.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
TE,

I like the letter. At the same time, I wonder if it would be better to attack section by section instead of a general letter format.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is EXACTLY what the author of the proposed reg asked people to do..........


D$D