UIGEA NEWS ALERT The office of US Congressman Barney Frank, who is chairman of the House financial services committee, has confirmed that he is currently working on legislation to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The news item appeared this afternoon on the Financial Times website and has been confirmed to eGaming Review by Frank’s press department. The details of how any repeal would take action have not been worked out and no timeframe was given. Frank is quoted as describing last autumn’s Act as one of the “stupidest laws” ever passed and adds: “I am working on legislation to cut back on this internet gambling thing… I think it’s preposterous”. While rumours of Barney Frank’s support for a repeal of the Act had been circulating around the egaming industry in the past few weeks, Frank himself had not confirmed or commented on them. Shares in PartyGaming, 888 and Sportingbet were all up this afternoon. The FT says the mid-term Democratic victory in the US Congress brought some hope to the online gaming sector and John Conyers, chairman of the House judiciary committee, is also considered sympathetic to the industry. But while Frank and Conyers are “powerful potential allies, it is far from clear that the lawmakers would have enough support to pass any meaningful legislation” because it is not clear “whether the votes would be there for a regulatory bill”. The FT adds that the US treasury is currently drafting the rules to implement the Act but that the deadline for presenting them has been missed and is now expected in April or May. http://www.egrmagazine.com/item/1669
Step 2 Step 1, legislation to clear the U.S. market of foreign operators Now it's time for Step 2, regulate the U.S. market so U.S. operators can dominate it. I can already hear the other shoe dropping. Man, are they working fast... There's tax money at stake.... and campaign contributions to be earned
Barney Frank I want to write to Mr Frank offering my support in his attempts to repeal the US online gaming ban. When I looked on his web site it gives a Washington address and three district addresses. Which one is the best to use for overseas correspondence? I could not access the link that Ken put on so found the one below (it may be the same). Andy PS. Is there a difference between a Senator and a Congressman? http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=2482
Difference between Senator and Congressman That one could be a good line to start of a lot of jokes. Andy, for those of you from across the pond I think it is similar to the difference between the two "houses" you have in your parliament. I think you have a House of Lords and House of Commons. We have the Senate and Congress. We elect two senators per state, but congress is divided up so that larger areas of population have more representatives. There are different rules for how each group operates and for how long they serve before having to be reelected. That's the cliff note version without the jokes.... Pat
Technically, Congress includes both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Barney Frank is a Representative from Massachusetts. Generally, they are pretty anonymous (there are 435 representatives, but only 100 senators), but Barney Frank is one of the more well known Representative as he is openly gay and has been around for a very long time. I don't know how much traction and interest he will get, but I'm glad to see that someone is at least bringing the subject up for debate.
background Barney Frank has been a member of the House of Representatives representing the state of Massachusetts since 1981. He is a “colorful” individual, an unabashed liberal and outspoken member. Some of the more “memorable” highlights of his career: In 1995, former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey bashed Frank when he referred to Frank as "Barney Fag" in a press interview. Armey apologized and claimed it was "a slip of the tongue". Frank did not accept the "slip of the tongue" excuse and famously responded, "My mother says that in 59 years since being married to my father, no one had ever called her Elsie Fag." In 1998, he founded the National Stonewall Democrats, the national gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democratic organization. In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian magazine gave Frank the title of the "brainiest" member of the House of Representatives. In the same survey he was also listed as the "funniest" member and the "most eloquent" member of the House. In Congress, Frank is an ardent supporter of medical marijuana. He was the author of the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2592), an attempt to stop federal government from intervening states with medical marijuana laws. Frank consistently voted for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, annually proposed by Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would prohibit Department of Justice from prosecuting medical marijuana patients. On February 3, 2007, a group to draft Congressman Frank into the 2008 Presidential Race began. The group's website was launched that day Recent quotes: • The issue is not that morals be applied to public policy, it's that conservatives bring public policy to spheres of our lives where it should not enter. • Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do.—March 15, 2006, in opposition to proposed internet gambling ban in US. • What kind of social, cultural authoritarianism are we practicing here? I think (the bill) is a great infringement on liberty. When it comes to an individual decision on how to spend your own time and money, that's not my position. That’s not my business. I am skeptical of people who want to protect people from themselves—in opposition to proposed internet gambling ban in US. July 11, 2006 • We're told "don't take things personally", but I take this personally. I take it personally when people decide to take political batting practice with my life.—speaking on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. July 18, 2006 For his voting record try On the issue: http://www.ontheissues.org/MA/Barney_Frank.htm For his official government site: http://www.house.gov/frank/ Hopefully he can get some people talking about this issue.
From the AP Massachusetts Lawmaker May Be Ready To Roll The Dice With Internet Gambling The Associated Press Published: Mar 15, 2007 WASHINGTON - The chair of the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would overturn the ban on online gambling passed last fall. A spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. said Wednesday that the congressman may introduce a bill to reverse the Internet gambling law, but he stressed there is nothing concrete yet. "There's no draft, no text - this is very much still in the thinking stage," said spokesman Steve Adamske. On Wednesday, the Financial Times quoted Frank saying that the law, formally known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is "preposterous" and one of the "stupidest" ever passed. Attached to a larger security bill last October, the act makes it illegal for U.S. banks and credit card companies to process payments to online gambling businesses outside the United States. The legislation caught many British-based companies off guard, causing companies such as Sportingbet PLC and Leisure & Gaming PLC to sell their U.S. operations. Poker Players Alliance, a lobbying group pushing for a repeal of the ban, earlier this month hired former Republican Sen. Alfonso D'Amato to chair its board. The group was formed in 2005 to oppose regulation of Internet gambling in the United States. http://www.tbo.com/news/money/MGBBWS6HAZE.html
"Step 1, legislation to clear the U.S. market of foreign operators Now it's time for Step 2, regulate the U.S. market so U.S. operators can dominate it. I can already hear the other shoe dropping. Man, are they working fast... There's tax money at stake.... and campaign contributions to be earned" I hope this is the case... Then at least there would be compitition, oversight and more of an assurance that we are getting a honest game, plus tax dollars staying here in my homeland. Nothing in place to assure that now.... If the US opened up this market you can bet the "pending bonus dollars" like issues would be settled rather than dodged and gaming commissions would look into how it is possible for a random generator to deal 8 dealer Aces up in a row...;-) The concept of trust in the gaming industry is impossible....casinos have layers upon layers of "eyes" watching everyone including the casino manager Im sure... This internet industry now is unregulated and unwatched and without a doubt rife with corupted behavior. The lack of legal compitition allows the remaining operators to get away with whatever they think they can.... This would be perfect legislation to undo... We could clean up, tax, and expand the games so that people could enjoy gaming from the comfort of the home.... I doubt it is going to happen anytime soon though....Imagine yourself as a lawmaker....Its just too easy to say no to easy gambling....the poker group is quite large though so maybe the numbers are there to convince a member of Congres it is in his interest to vote this away....I cant imagine that they are organized enough to mount a meaningful attack on this pitiful law.... Its just too easy for Congress to be "clean" by saying no. __________________
New Web Gambling Study Could Lead to Legal Online Poker in USA Again New Web Gambling Study Could Lead to Legal Online Poker in USA Again by PokerPages.com Mon, Mar 19th, 2007 @ 12:00am Two Nevada lawmakers are working on legislation for an 18-month study of online gambling to determine whether online gambling can be effectively regulated in the United States. U.S. Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jon Porter, R-Nev. are expected to reveal the co-sponsored legislation within the next few weeks, and they hope to gain a powerful ally in Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime critic of gambling restrictions, has called last year's Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) bill's ban of online gambling "preposterous" and one of the "stupidest" bills ever passed. Frank has said he is considering proposing a repeal of the ban, which aims to shut down 2,300 Internet gambling sites producing about $12 billion (about 6.17 billion pounds or Euros 9 billion) per year. Berkley said she talked to Frank on Wednesday on the House floor about Internet gambling and they plan to meet again "in the very near future." Any legislation to regulate online gambling in the US would also require the support of the American Gaming Association, who has in the past said they would support such a study (click here to read related PokerPages Article). "The purpose of our bill is to provide a comprehensive study with detailed information on the expanded growth of Internet gambling," Berkley said. To avoid the political bickering that plagued a federal commission that completed a two-year study of legalized gambling in June 1999, Berkley and Porter would assign an 18-month Internet gambling study to the National Research Council, which is an agency of the National Academy of Sciences. "This actually is a very independent institution which has the resources to get the facts to Congress," Porter said. Porter introduced a similar bill last year, which Berkley co-sponsored. Despite Congress approving an Internet gambling ban last October, Porter said he thinks lawmakers would consider a repeal. A date has not been set, but Porter said he still plans to visit the Isle of Man, Britain, and Madrid, Spain, to observe Internet gambling operations firsthand. Berkley's position on Internet gambling has changed since July 2000, when she voted for an online betting ban proposed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "I would say technology has improved over the last few years, and I have greater faith in the ability to regulate Internet gambling so that it does not pose a threat to minors," Berkley said. http://www.pokerpages.com/poker-new...-to-legal-online-poker-in-usa-again-29601.htm Please pinch me!
Follow the $$$ What a freaking hoot! Lets review shall we? Barney Frank-D, Mass Representative, says he may attempt to overturn the UIGEA because, according to Barney, “it’s (UIGEA) one of the stupidest bills ever passed.” I listed Representative Frank’s bio and his websites for those not familiar with him. From prior knowledge of his positions I think that Mr. Frank would oppose anything that the “moral majority” put their stamp of approval on. In this case I totally agree with Mr. Frank. Now less than one week after the word gets out that Mr. Frank may seek to overturn the ban two representatives from NEVADA, want to have a “study” done proving that “online wagering” CAN be “REGULATED”. Ok lets translate what they really mean: CAN means SHOULD and REGULATED means TAXED. Now guess where the two new representatives are from? NEVADA. SURPRIZE! See if Mr. Frank gets it repealed it goes back to a free market system in which Uncle Sam gets squat. However, if it can be “regulated” i.e., taxed, then it’s better for all involved right? Think along the lines of cigarettes. These cancer sticks are terrible and if someone invented the product today it would never see the light of day. The government has banned smoking in most public places and even AC passed a smoking ban. The government requires warning about the hazards of smoking. So why can you still buy them? TAXES. In fact the big tobacco kicks back $$$ to the state governments so it’s ok (wink, wink) How much do you wanna bet the same will happen with online gaming? The interesting thing is this – how do you package it to sell to the American public? Simple make it an issue about, ready, THE CHILDREN. Who can argue against protecting our kids? So the government has to step in and protect little Johnny and Suzie from the EVILS of online wagering. What’s that you say, what about child porn? Hey don’t complicate this fake argument with facts. I’ll defer those questions to FORMER representative Mark Foley – oops I’m sorry he’s on the phone right now talking to NAMBLE.
It's Always About the Money Foreign operators' lobbying amount = $0.00 Domestic Casinos' lobbying amount >$0.00 Therefore, remove foreign competition from marketplace in the name of morality and, of course, The Children (capitalized on purpose.) If Harrah's et. al. want to enter this marketplace they will increase lobby $'s and get their market legalized and regulated. No doubt it would all be in the name of Free Trade. If we note increases in lobby $'s from domestic gaming companies, expect to see legalized, regulated, taxed online gaming within weeks.
Agreed!!!This legislation is so stupid that it makes me sick, and angry. My anger is point at the right wing Christian coalation that was the influence responsible for this legislation being enacted! It never would have been enacted without the religious influence on the then Speaker of the Senate Bill Frist, from Tennessee, who lives less than ten miles from me. He alone could have prevented this bill from ever coming to a vote had he so chosen. But no, it was a swap out to gain support for another Administration bill that he was desperately working to pass. Once the "minor gambling issue" was included in the much larger and more important bill there is no way anyone could vote against it less they act in opposition to all of the preachers who were lobbying from the pulpit. When the Congressmen start receiving numerous phone call and e mails from the folks back home, they pay attention. And that is what happened. I happened to me years ago when I was serving in the Tennessee legislature. A Senator friend asked me to introduce a bill in the House for him because of the religious pressure he was receiving. He said the bill was dead on arrival, and would never go anywhere. It was to ban co-ed dormatories on state funded college campuses. I never worked one iota to pass that bill, even made big jokes about it on the House floor. Guess what happened! IT PASSED both the House and the Senate, and went to the Governnor for final signature. He phoned me in Las Vegas asking "What should I do with this bill?. My daughter is in school at the University in Knoxville & I am in a real tough place!" I said, "Governor, it is real simple, just VETO the damn thing" Thank goodness he did, and that was that. George Bush could have done the same thing, but he could not stand the religious pressure either. So do not count on any changes for a long time, if ever. Once it it is enacted it is doubly tough to get anything changed. I do not expect it to change in my lifetime.
Southern religion influence. Don't understand? I have posted several times on here about the real reason why I believed the USA brought in the Internet gaming ban. Monkeysystem has also posted about this in the past on here and reiterated his reasons on this thread. It is the post by Springbac that got me thinking about this again and why I do not understand the southern state connection to the morality reasons behind this ban. Now I may be completely wrong here so please correct me. By reading various articles on the ban, I have been led to believe that the religious pressure that Springbac describes in his post mainly emanates from the southern states of America. I always associate people from the south as being passionate about card games such as poker and blackjack and their right to gamble, or am I watching too many old Hollywood films. I have not done a head count on here but there seems to be a hell of a lot of players registered on this site from the south. For the members on here who attend Church this post is not a slight against your beliefs. It is well documented that professional blackjack player Kevin Blackwood (who I admire greatly) is deeply religious and walks out of his Church ready to hit the casino’s. So did the Church congregation in the southern states of America really have an influence on the gaming ban or was it a done deal by the US government like Monkeysystem says? Andy
Andy, maybe this will shed some light http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/story/miller-caetano-win-runoffs1/ To those who didn’t believe that the “religious right” can influence politics here is your poster child. As a resident of Tampa I had the unique ability to stay abreast of this runoff race. For those so inclined I encourage you to click on the link and read the story. Then continue reading this and see what’s wrong with this picture. Joe Redner owns several businesses. In fact one of those businesses is a gym, kinda like a Bally’s but smaller. He publicly stated that if you took an “I VOTED” sticker to the gym you would get a 1-week free trial membership just for voting. Was that reported? No, just the free admission to the Mons. Joe is actually a very smart, articulate man who is extremely familiar with the issues from a businessman’s point of view. His opponent, when you watched the debates, is clueless. It was sad to see her flip flop more than John Kerry! :joker: Nevertheless who won? The unqualified candidate beat the better, more prepared, more articulate person. Why? Lemmings follow their leaders. In the general election on 14% voted. Now that Joe “Satan” Redner was running (he contributed over 10,000 to various legit charities last year) all the church people thronged to “keep him out of office” These uninformed voters choose the lesser of the two candidates because they voted on principles – their principles of morality. Even though every business that Mr. Redner owns is perfectly legal. So what’s better – sticking by your guns (principles) and getting screwed by electing dopey officials or choosing the more/better qualified person for the job?
Morality Influence On Elections This local race is an interesting and typical example of how "morality" can influence elections in America. But this is a municipal race. Voters get most of their information about candidates in municipal races from the newspapers. The same is true to a large extent in state government legislative races. With statewide elections and in races for the U.S. Congress and President, TV ads are king. That takes money. It's all about the money. Newly elected Congressmen always report being shocked at how quickly they find out they have to start raising money immediately upon taking office. They have to spend the vast majority of a typical work day raising money, all the time and not just in election years. Towing the party line is crucial to getting the money they need. Even candidates who aren't incumbents yet sometimes find this out. A perfect example of this occurred several years ago in my Congressional district. A democratic candidate running for Congress in a seat being vacated made headlines in the local papers for a stump speech she made with her ideas about reforming Social Security. Evidently she hadn't consulted with the national Democratic Party before making these campaign promises. A short time later - maybe a week - none other than Dick Gephardt, House Minority Leader, paid a visit, made a public appearance with her, and held a meeting with her. She never uttered another word about her Social Security reforms after that. This turn of events wasn't overlooked by voters, however, and she lost the election by a widest margin ever lost by a Democrat in our district. This was a Republican seat vulnerable to be turned over to the Democrats, yet very little money was spent for ads for her. The young Republican who beat her is still there. The moral of this story: In the U.S. Federal Government, it's all about the money, raising it for yourself, and towing the party line to get your share of the national money. It sucks. Businessmen big and small in this country are keenly aware of the importance of their relationship with the government. Many big businesses know how to use the Congressional lobbying system to their advantage. Some don't, and suffer for it, as the tobacco industry found out as they were mercilessly savaged for eight years while Clinton was in office. 90% of their lobbying money had been going to Republicans. Morality comes into play in this system mostly as a way to spin their policies and positions on issues. For example, Bill Frist took money from Harrah's to shut down the foreign online gaming industry, all in the name of morality. What a sad joke.
World Trade Organization The following was in today's local newspaper; The United States has failed to change it's ban on internet betting to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling that said the legislation unfairly targets offshore casinos, the global trade body said Friday. The ruling opens the door to possible commercial sanctions against the United States. In a 215 page decision, a three member WTO compliance panel sided with the twin Caribbean island nation of Antiga and Barbuda, which has argued that Internet gambling is a lucrative source of revenue and provides an income for hundreds of islanders. The Geneva-based trade referee has said Washington can maintain restrictions on online gambling, as long as its laws are equally applied to American operators offering remote betting on horse racing.
WTO Criticizes U.S. Internet Gambling Restrictions The organization said the U.S. ban is acceptable only if restrictions are placed equally on domestic practices, including off-track betting on horse races. By K.C. Jones, InformationWeek April 4, 2007 URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198800348 The World Trade Organization claims the United States is not complying with an earlier ruling on Internet gambling. A compliance panel issued a report last week suggesting the United States failed to comply with a dispute settlement body's earlier recommendations and rulings, while unfairly restricting online casinos. The panel stated that the U.S. ban on Internet gambling is acceptable only if restrictions are placed equally on domestic practices, including off-track betting on horse races. The islands of Antigua and Barbuda sought the ruling from the WTO, saying the U.S. online gambling ban has hurt its economy. The Caribbean country successfully argued that the United States is violating trade agreements by making exceptions for off-track betting. Some have argued that the U.S. banned Internet gambling, not to protect Americans but to promote real-world casinos in places like Las Vegas. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, has said he is considering legislation to repeal the ban. The ban makes it illegal for U.S. banks and credit card companies to process gambling payments.
Money talks and BS walks: CERTAINLY: Most of us here understand that. And most understand, because there is not /was not /and possiblly will not be a way to tax internet gambling, those of us who continue to trip the light fandango of it, risk ourselves and our financial institutions, will suffer or wail at the current situation. There is a fine point in all of it, though; the elite of the governing don't trust the masses to understand and that is in the transfer of DA MONEY. Most of the "gambling" internet sites allow transfers between and among playas. Since, we all think we're just "gamblers" or playas, we don't see that there's the potential for gabizillions to be moved dat way, without any traking. A big difference between gambling and porno sites, with gabazillions spent each day. On a porno site, the money spent goes to a specified "product," taxed or not. To the Company running da site: Purchase, spent, final profit. Two porno affecianados can't and don't transfer their funds between each other to purchase the "higher quality offering" of the porno site. They just do it on their own. If you follow the poker sites and conversation, you see many a legitimate transfer of funds to other playas, parties. Global used to, in a time far away, allow money transfers just on a nod. But as there/ are were many legitimate transfers, there's room for the "big Bucks" transfer too. And nobody knows. Who, what, where, when, why. (The how, was built in). And most don't care. No traking available when it's two playas doin it. So, without traking, without taxing, it's the big netherworld. Or pointedly, money to terrorists, without traking. Or minimally mega bucks to some without benefit to the whole. You want to run your cock fights and dog fights, ya gotta pay the po po. But, whether the WTO, or the UN should tell the US and it's citizens what to do is ludicrous, an anathema,(or for those of you in Rio Linda, Evil and a curse, to what we all believe.) While it's slowly slipping away from lack of attention on the citizenaries part, IT IS still possible for the common person to let his/her voice be heard. Even more TODAY. There are more people P'd off with all that's going on in so many areas that an upsurge in Voce Populi would go a long way. And it's either that or curl up and go to sleep.....and stop B'tin. Stress levels and heart attacks will go down and we'll all be sayin "Yes'um Boss."
Not so ludicrous..... The United States has signed on freely to the WTO and has agreed to abide by it's rulings. So we wait... Furthermore, the US recently complained to the WTO about China's trade practices which indicates that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander... Recent rulings against the US by the WTO in the anti-gambling matter makes it easier for other countries to join in and complain.
