Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,487 Times in 900 Posts

    Default Bill to overturn UIGEA being amended, says Gambling911

    HR 5767, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in an attempt to stop the US government from enforcing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is being amended, says Gambling911, who sources the River City Group.

    No word on what the amendments are and how the changes would impact the chances of the bill's passage or its impact.

    Full story here ... http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-...ed-062008.html

  2. #2
    paulbe is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Furthermore, Bankers cheer Frank-Paul approach to Web gambling:

    Full story: http://thehill.com/business--lobby/b...008-04-14.html

    “The challenge we have is interpreting … federal laws that Congress itself isn’t sure what they mean”

    That does not sound like Congress.... they are usually crystal clear............ :P

  3. #3
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Here's what's happening folks: H.R. 5767 (which prevent UIGEA regulations from being implemented) is going into markup Tuesday in the House Financial Services Committee which is chaired by Rep. Barney Frank -- a definitively pro online gambling legislator. A markup session is part of the legislative process in the Congress, and in many state legislatures in the U.S. What it does is it gives everyone in the committee a chance to debate a bill, debate and offer amendments, and ultimately report the bill to the full House. And that's the key here. Most bills are not brought into markup unless the chair believes/knows that Committee will vote favorably on it. In addition, any amendments that are agreed to in Committee do not change the text. These are simply amendments that they're suggesting the full House should adopt. In essence, this is the next step in the legislative process for this bill. And it's a very good step because Frank clearly thinks he has the votes to win (at least in Committee).

  4. #4
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,487 Times in 900 Posts

    Default Markup/vote delayed until Wednesday, 6/25

    The House vote on the bill that would block the US from implementing regulations mandated by the UIGEA was delayed a day, but is scheduled for a vote today.

    The Birmingham News has a story that gives the viewpoint of Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who was previously the chairman of the Financial Services Committee before the Democrats took control of the House in 2006.

    They are like any other industry, they're going to argue for no obligations or responsibilities, but if you compare the complexity of these to the bank secrecy or money laundering statutes, this is first grade. It's very simple, very doable," Bachus said.

    He also took his argument to the pages of the American Banker newspaper in an opinion piece on Tuesday.

    A 2007 study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found a decrease in online gambling last year by American youth.

    "The strong drop in use of Internet sites also suggests that federal legislation restricting the transfer of funds to Internet gambling sites has had its intended effect," said Dan Romer, director of the survey when it was released in October. "Whether this will last remains to be seen."
    Full story here ... http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnew...440.xml&coll=2

  5. #5
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    The hearing starts at 11 a.m. ET. We'll post what happened after it's done.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to vinism For This Useful Post:

    mojo (25 June 2008)

  7. #6
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Here's what has happened so far:

    An amendment to H.R. 5767, which would prevent UIGEA regulations from being implemented, was proposed this morning. Essentially, this amendment would serve as a substitute for the original bill. The amendment, like the original bill, proposes that the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve be prohibited from developing and implementing regulations to enforce the UIGEA. The amendment also adds language requiring the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and Department of Justice to sit down together and determine what exactly constitutes unlawful Internet gambling.

    There was some vigorous (and entertaining -- thank you Chairman Frank) debate over the amendment, before the the House Financial Services Committee voted to support it. The committee will vote at 4 p.m. on whether to report the bill to the full House of Representatives.

  8. #7
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Entertaining side note: During the debate, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) told some of the people in the gallery who were there to show support for online gambling that they were "representing criminal enterprises" (though he did make an effort to say the people in the galleries were not criminals themselves). He also the Internet puts casinos right in bedrooms of teenagers and college students. Rep. Barney Frank did not let either statement go without comment. Before yielding to another speaker, Frank thanked Bachus for recognizing that the members seated in the audience were not criminals, and noted they probably didn't appreciate the implication that they were. After the amendment was voted on and approved for consideration, Frank told the audience "You are free to go home and put casinos in your children's bedrooms if you choose to."

    Vintage Frank.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vinism For This Useful Post:

    GamTrak (25 June 2008), paulbe (25 June 2008)

  10. #8
    paulbe is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    HahahhahahaWell done Frank!!!!!!!!!

    Thanks for the update!

  11. #9
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Well, the bill to halt the UIGEA regulations lost in its full committee vote. Here's the story I wrote for the newsletter:

    Online gambling bill defeated

    25 June 2008
    By Vin Narayanan

    The House Financial Services Committee rejected a bill Wednesday that would have prohibited the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve from proposing and implementing regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

    In its mark-up session, the Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) that would not only stop the implementation of any UIGEA regulations, but would also force the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve to sit down and define unlawful Internet gambling. King said that this "was a banking issue, not a gambling issue" and that the banking industry shouldn't be in the position of determining what is legal and illegal.

    The King amendment was defeated by the full committee with a vote of 32 for and 32 against. The original bill proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was defeated in a voice vote.

    The defeat is a blow to both the online gambling industry, which has been looking for ways to repeal the UIGEA, and the banking industry, which wants no part in trying to regulate the online gaming industry.

    "The PPA is surprised that the Financial Services Committee today failed to clarify what constitutes 'unlawful Internet gambling' under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)," said Alfonse D'Amato, chairman of the Poker Players Alliance. "The King Amendment would have required a separate formal rulemaking with an administrative law judge to determine the definition of unlawful Internet gambling."

    "The Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury and the banking industry have all testified before Congress that the lack of a definition of 'unlawful Internet gambling' makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce this law and would result in a broader review and denial of financial transactions because they could possibly be deemed unlawful under UIGEA," D'Amato added.

  12. #10
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,487 Times in 900 Posts

  13. #11
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,487 Times in 900 Posts

    Default

    And here's a story from the Las Vegas Review Journal.

    http://www.lvrj.com/business/21712069.html

    Interesting note here ...

    The vote came as a surprise since support for the Internet gambling ban largely was muted in the committee's previous hearings.

    When the committee clerk announced the 32-32 tie, the audience oohed and aahed.

    ...

    Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the committee chairman who supported King's amendment, then called for a voice vote on the underlying bill to prohibit new regulations on Internet gambling.

    Although there were a number of yea and nay votes heard, Frank said the bill was defeated.

  14. #12
    wallstreeterww is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    But it looks like the bill came close to being passed. Why cant our government realize that its to the governments and the peoples interest if this bill passes. The government can cash in on gambling taxes and that money could be used to kickstart our economy again. Heaven knows we could use a kick.

  15. #13
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,578
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,487 Times in 900 Posts

    Default Interesting analysis from Huffington Post

    The Huffington Post, a conservative blog, details how this amendment was defeated. The difference was that the religious right demanded that the Republicans vote against the amendment, and the Republicans on the committee complied, voting 28-3 against the amendment.

    In other words, the leading economically conservative organizations and representatives of financial institutions who are argued that the proposed regulations would interfere with the functioning of our financial system had the support of less than 10% of the Republicans. 90+ % of the Republicans voted along with the social conservatives to maintain the position that the federal government should be restrictive of individual choice in the matter of gambling and should compel the banks to be the banks to be the enforcers.


    I regret the fact that this became partisan. I was hoping that it wouldn't be, and I have been working closely with some of those most dedicated to economic deregulation of the appropriate sort.


    But it became partisan because the religious/social extreme conservatives continue to be in control of the Republican Party on a whole range of issues, and they demonstrated once again that it is they and not those dedicated to what they believe are free market principles who have the upper hand in internal Republican Party disputes.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ba..._b_109650.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •