Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,581
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,492 Times in 902 Posts

    Default Frank: Repealing UIGEA will take time

    An outstanding story from Reuters (via the Washington Post) says U.S. Congressman Barney Frank will submit a bill to repeal the UIGEA within two weeks, but won't force the issue until the "storm of public unhappiness" is loud enough that his colleagues are ready to reconsider the issue. Frank also nixed the idea of a skill exemption for poker said that beyond credit cards and said he wasn't sure how much jurisdiction his House Financial Services Committee had over the legislation.

    Not in the story, but of note:

    IF a UIGEA repeal ever passed the House, it would also have to pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president.


    Article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041200961.html

  2. #2
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Thanks for the info Buzzy. I'm just getting caught up on the news of the day. I see there is reaction to the "storm of public unhappiness" comment. There is a campaign started called "Outcry" for the public to express this unhappiness.

    xxxhttp://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/internet_gambling_outcry_campaign_created_to_repea l_the_uigea_45577.html

    The campaign is starting today, although congress people will not be back at work until the 16th. However, leaving a message with a congress person's staff member is being advised and calling every day is recommended. Each call should not take any longer than 2 minutes and the more calls the louder the 'outcry' will sound.
    Thoughts for the politically unsavvy?

    Thanks,
    Mojo

  3. #3
    big fish is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,170
    Blog Entries
    31
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 98 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    this is good news. of course it will take some time - likely a long time. of course there will be opposition. but if the government finally comes around on this that we be an exciting day for sure. in the big picture, it only makes sense to regulate & tax the industry and sooner or later they are going to have to understand that.
    - Big Fish - Gambling.org Founder -
    Gambling.org: Learn about legal online gambling in the USA with trusted reviews from gambling experts since 1996.

  4. #4
    WinYourWayKyle is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2005
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    578
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 42 Times in 37 Posts

    Default

    Yes, it will take time.... But we, as a community are moving in the right direction to get online gaming back into the US market!

  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 337 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    I see there is reaction to the "storm of public unhappiness" comment. There is a campaign started called "Outcry" for the public to express this unhappiness.

    xxxhttp://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/internet_gambling_outcry_campaign_created_to_repea l_the_uigea_45577.html

    Thoughts for the politically unsavvy?

    In a previous life, I used to do/track this sort of thing for a living -- for both the government and fourth estate -- and here are some basics:

    • Every legislator logs and tracks each and every communication they have with a constituent. It doesn't matter whether you're just phoning for information or writing to voice an opinion -- they've got a code in their database for just about everything.
    • Each type of communication has a value associated with it. E-mail is the least valuable. A hand-written letter is the most valuable. Phone calls and letters done on a computer vary in value, depending on whether it seems like a form letter or call. But they're generally worth more than an e-mail and less than a phone call.
    • If responses to a particular issue are running overwhelmingly in one direction, AND the response appears to be organic, then there is a good likelihood that some action will take place.
    • In order for pro-gambling action to take place, a higher threshold for action will be set.
    Last edited by MichaelCorfman; 14 April 2007 at 10:04 am. Reason: fixed broken quote tag

  6. #6
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Ahhh thanks Vin. That helps to make my one small voice heard more effectively. That's if I remember how to write a handwritten letter.

    Mojo

  7. #7
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    There is more reaction to these latest developements. Clearly, Barney Frank is asking for as much support as possible. He can't do it alone and his success depends on it. I feel this is our (especially Americans) chance to finally be able to do something. I know I have felt pretty helpless. I urge everyone to speak up, now's the time. It's not time to chill the champagne yet but I have a glimmer of hoping to ponder which kind I want.


    Barney Frank this week announced plans to repeal a law that severely curbs some forms of internet gambling. In order for Frank to be successful, it is urgent that every operator, poker player, sports bettor, gambling portal website owner, casino player etc.. from all over the globe offer support.
    xxxhttp://www.gambling911.com/Internet-Gambling-Barney-Frank-041407.html

  8. #8
    villa10 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Posts
    188
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    In all countries is hard to have the politicians voting in the favor of gambling.
    But lobby is lobby.
    Maybe in a cup of years we'll see some change to the US market.

  9. #9
    joeyl's Avatar
    joeyl is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2003
    Location
    London
    Posts
    474
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 140 Times in 90 Posts

    Default

    Interesting post Vinism, cheers for that..

    Now, honestly, not enough American players are bothered. The PPA has 150k members, which is not alot considering.

    Frankly, banning online gaming would be upheld by the American people if put to a vote is my guess.

    A few affs won't make a difference. How many affs would bother accept the American people can gamble online, but no advertising is allowed anyhow? There are other player issues the majority of affs have ignored for a decade-. It's a pity more affs did not respect the player at large during this time, they might actually be able to influence a whole bunch more players to actually write in a letter. How many affs have appealed to the player above the fold - 4? Make it a million + and you might get somewhere. More affs have decided to target Europeans and Asians frankly.

    International pressure via the WTO might just work though. The key is the carve outs. I think the UIGEA will be repealed one day. That said, I would not be the slightest bit surprised to see US horseracing and lotteries banned online instead.

  10. #10
    GPWA Aaron is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Needham, MA
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 144 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joeyl View Post
    The PPA has 150k members, which is not alot considering.

    Frankly, banning online gaming would be upheld by the American people if put to a vote is my guess.
    The PPA's membership has grown to nearly 350K in the last month, so it's getting up there. And the majority of Americans would likely support more stringent gun control laws, but there's a very vocal minority in the NRA which is able to get legislators to listen to their voices over the majority because they shout so loudly.

  11. #11
    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 337 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    Barney Frank is asking for as much support as possible. He can't do it alone and his success depends on it. I feel this is our (especially Americans) chance to finally be able to do something. I know I have felt pretty helpless. I urge everyone to speak up, now's the time.
    Mojo is 100% correct. Now is the time do something. Some momentum has shifted towards at least revisiting the UIGEA, and we need to take advantage of it.

    But joeyl rightly points out that players need to get involved this fight in order for it to be effective. And as D'Amato has said several times since becoming the chair of the PPA, it will take at least 1 million members for them to be taken seriously on the Hill.

    In addition, I think there needs to be a steady drumbeat of support for repealing the UIGEA. It's not enough to for their to be a spike in letters and calls to legislators. Rather it needs to be a consistent drone (a roar would better, but we can start with a drone) for an indefinite period of time (best guess -- a year) so the issue stays in front of the eyes and ears of Congressmen and Senators. If that happens, then there is a good chance of something happening. But we do need to act.

    Another potential scenario involves the land-based gaming industry. I know many people think differently, but I don't believe they really wanted the UIGEA to pass. Most of them had come to the realization that online gambling was good for their business. It was creating a new generation of gamblers who would at some point visit brick-and-mortar casinos to play (and lose!!) money. They would have been fine with status quo continuing for a while.

    That said, I'm also quite certain that at some point, they're going to want to expand into online gaming in the U.S. And when that time arrives, they'll bring their considerable influence to bear and make it happen.

  12. #12
    gordonprice1947 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Here is a list of the 110th Congress representatives phone numbers... http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/us-representative-contact-information.jsp

    Casino Gambling Web has also written an article that explains the 'Public Outcry Campaign'. It features 5 talking points to bring up when calling a representative. It can be seen at the following address...

    http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gam...nts_45663.html

    For those of you that can, please write something/anything on your blogs, portals, forums, or news sites about the campaign. Help spread the word.

    For those of you that can, please contact all affiliate managers and explain that they can send out an email to all of their US players with links to these articles so they can all join the campaign.

    For those of you that can, please contact the Poker Player Alliance and demand that they support this campaign.

    I posted this at CAP also, sorry for those of you who are double/triple reading it. This is my first post here, so hello to everyone. (I am not sure linking is okay, if not I apologize.) however I think this is a very important campaign that we all need to promote the heck out of instead of just talking about what we should do. Many people have asked how they can help with this campaign so this is my suggestion... those of you with good relationships talk to the affiliate managers and convince them to send emails out to their US players. As was said before, this cannot be a 30-50 person campaign, this has to get the support of close to a million people and it needs to be persistent, it needs the Poker Player Alliance to jump on board, it has to get the support of offshore Internet gambling sites who want to re-enter the US market legally in the future.

    Thank you all for your time and support with our efforts. If anyone has any suggestions I would be happy to hear them.

  13. #13
    Vallerius's Avatar
    Vallerius is offline Independent Reporter
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    85
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Ya'll care if I throw a couple cents out there?

    I'm skeptical of Frank's effort to repeal the UIGEA.

    He told reporters "My committee only has jurisdiction over credit cards. I can't do more than repeal the ban on the use of credit cards. We don't have jurisdiction generally over the Internet or other aspects of this."

    But what good is it going to do if the ban on credit card transactions is repealed? Remember, credit card companies were already blocking-- of their own will-- transactions for Internet gambling before the government told them they had to block them. I'm not sure why a repeal of that aspect of the UIGEA should make them change their minds. Ah, but hell, it doesn't really seem to matter I guess since I hear Frank's efforts have been "dampened."

    Anyway, my two cents say that a state-based regulatory system is going to be the way forward for the U.S., if forward is indeed the word to use.

    The UIGEA doesn't actually prohibit Internet gambling; It is completely non-judgmental about what sorts of Internet gambling activities are legal or illegal. What it does is dictate that financial institutions must block payment transactions for "unlawful Internet gambling".

    "Unlawful Internet gambling" is defined as:

    to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

    So essentially, the Wire Act remains the guiding statute on determining the legality of Internet gambling activities.

    There is another important part to the definition for "Unlawful Internet gambling":

    The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single state.


    This is by no means a welcome sign for states to begin regulating, but I think it is remarkable foresight. In previous Congresses, the AGA formally opposed Internet gambling prohibition bills that didn't contain a states rights exemption, but it was neutral on bills that did have one. It is not merely by chance that an exemption for state-based gaming is slipped into the UIGEA.

    Legally, the only thing preventing a state from regulating is the Justice Department's opinion that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet Gambling. But quite frankly, that's a crock of bullshit and it's really nothing more than an opinion. Nevada, North Dakota and the U.S. Virgin Islands have all seriously pondered regulating some form of Internet gambling, but in all three cases they have abandoned their plans after warning letters from the DOJ. I've seen the letters, and their arguments are not convincing. District courts have also ruled that the Wire Act does not apply to non-sports wagering. The Justice Department's stance is very weak, but it remains unchallenged.

    Supposing that a state did want to regulate (Nevada and Virgin Islands already have the necessary legislation in place but Nevada's Gaming Commission still needs to draft the regulations to proceed any further), the DOJ may or may not decide to challenge it. I doubt it would even issue a challenge because its case is really that weak. Sports betting of course will probably never be permitted because it's clearly prohibited by the Wire Act and because the big rich sports leagues oppose it.


    A prohibition isn't going to work. What we have now isn't really a prohibition, people are still gambling. They will continue to find a way. It's only a matter of time before a state realizes the possibilities.
    Last edited by Vallerius; 17 April 2007 at 2:09 am. Reason: explaining AGA role

  14. #14
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vallerius View Post
    Anyway, my two cents say that a state-based regulatory system is going to be the way forward for the U.S., if forward is indeed the word to use.


    There is another important part to the definition for "Unlawful Internet gambling":

    The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single state.


    This is by no means a welcome sign for states to begin regulating, but I think it is remarkable foresight. In previous Congresses, the AGA formally opposed Internet gambling prohibition bills that didn't contain a states rights exemption, but it was neutral on bills that did have one. It is not merely by chance that an exemption for state-based gaming is slipped into the UIGEA.

    Supposing that a state did want to regulate (Nevada and Virgin Islands already have the necessary legislation in place but Nevada's Gaming Commission still needs to draft the regulations to proceed any further), the DOJ may or may not decide to challenge it. I doubt it would even issue a challenge because its case is really that weak. Sports betting of course will probably never be permitted because it's clearly prohibited by the Wire Act and because the big rich sports leagues oppose it.


    A prohibition isn't going to work. What we have now isn't really a prohibition, people are still gambling. They will continue to find a way. It's only a matter of time before a state realizes the possibilities.
    Yep.

    And it looks like North Dakota is going to take the bull by the horns:


    http://www.gamblinglicenses.com/PDF/...ionMay2005.pdf

  15. #15
    CityGuard's Avatar
    CityGuard is offline Former GPWA Program Manager
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    442
    Thanked 672 Times in 392 Posts

    Default

    I understand it is helpful context in terms of providing some historical basis for understand, but I did notice the press release about North Dakota is from two years ago. Is there more recent support indicating there is continuing work being done there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominique View Post
    Yep.

    And it looks like North Dakota is going to take the bull by the horns:


    http://www.gamblinglicenses.com/PDF/...ionMay2005.pdf
    I have left the industry and earned a law degree at Indiana University Bloomington, Maurer School of Law. Here are ways to stay in touch with me:
    > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/StevenCorfman
    > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencorfman
    > Skype: StevenCorfman
    > Phone: +1 617 785 9324

    Inquiries intended for an administrator or staff member can be directed to Anthony Telesca through the forum (username Anthony) or to the general contact address manager AT gpwa DOT org.

  16. #16
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

  17. #17
    CityGuard's Avatar
    CityGuard is offline Former GPWA Program Manager
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,774
    Thanks
    442
    Thanked 672 Times in 392 Posts

    Default

    Thanks!
    I have left the industry and earned a law degree at Indiana University Bloomington, Maurer School of Law. Here are ways to stay in touch with me:
    > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/StevenCorfman
    > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevencorfman
    > Skype: StevenCorfman
    > Phone: +1 617 785 9324

    Inquiries intended for an administrator or staff member can be directed to Anthony Telesca through the forum (username Anthony) or to the general contact address manager AT gpwa DOT org.

  18. #18
    Vallerius's Avatar
    Vallerius is offline Independent Reporter
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    85
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Indeed, North Dakota's state Rep. Jim Kasper has felt strongly about the issue ever since he first introduced the legislation a few years ago. I haven't talked to him in a while, but he is always accessible. Last time I visited the issue I got the impression that he wouldn't be able to convince enough other state legislatures that it would be wise to take on the DOJ.

  19. #19
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    But what good is it going to do if the ban on credit card transactions is repealed?
    Maybe nothing Vallerius but just maybe if, as Vin pointed out, there is a dull roar. We need to keep this fight alive and it just may snowball if enough voices are heard. Barney Frank is one of many that want to make some noise. Barney does his part, we do ours, others do there own. "Jim Kasper from North Dakota has told Gambling911.com that he would like to explore licensing and regulating internet poker once again in his state of North Dakota." Together we can act. It's a battle and will take some time but well worth the fight. Eventually the powers that be will understand the value of legitimizing this industry.

    Mojo

  20. #20
    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 337 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    Together we can act. It's a battle and will take some time but well worth the fight. Eventually the powers that be will understand the value of legitimizing this industry.

    Mojo
    Mojo nailed it. It took a lot of time and effort to pass the UIGEA. And it's going to take a lot of time and effort to repeal it. But the only way a repeal (or regulation) is going to happen is if each of us does our part in keeping this issue in front of our legislators and letting them that this is important to us and we care. Every time a letter is written, or legislation is proposed, it brings us one step closer to where we want to be.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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