Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 337 Times in 173 Posts

    Default What's next for the Frank bill?

    Here's an analysis piece on the future of the Frank bill that I wrapped up last night. Hope it provides some insights.

    What's next for Frank's Internet gambling bill?

    29 July 2010
    By Vin Narayanan

    Now that Rep. Barney Frank's bill to license and regulate online gambling in the U.S. has been passed by the committee he chairs, the House Financial Services Committees, all sorts of questions are swirling around about what's actually in the bill, and what the future holds for the bill. Here's a look at various questions, FAQ-style.

    Frank's HR 2267 was amended several times before it was passed. What's actually in the bill?

    Here are the key provisions:
    • The Treasury Department will be in charge of licensing and regulating online gambling sites
    • Both states and Native American tribes will have parallel licensing and regulating authority
    • Sports betting on the Internet will be illegal.
    • "Bad actors" will be denied online gambling licenses. Congress has defined bad actors as companies, and the managers of those companies, that have knowingly violated or evaded U.S. Internet gambling laws — especially since the passage of the UIGEA. It's a provision that clearly has Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars in mind.
    • Credit cards will not be allowed to fund player accounts. Debit cards and pre-paid cards, however, are permissible.
    • Loss limits will be put in place for players.
    • Advertising targeting minors will be illegal.
    • Self-exclusion lists for problem gamblers will be required.
    • The facilities used by online gamblers in the U.S (servers, payment processors, etc.) have to be located in the United States, as do the majority of the employees working for the online gambling site.

    If this bill becomes law, will Full Tilt and PokerStars get licenses?

    PokerStars and Full Tilt might be in a bit of trouble here. But PokerStars — no shock here — disagrees. Here's part of their statement on the amended Frank bill.

    "PokerStars supports the provisions in both amendments as neither would adversely affect the availability of a license for a respected operator such as PokerStars. As reflected in legal opinions provided to PokerStars, its activities in the US are and at all times have been lawful."

    Full Tilt has always maintained they are acting lawfully in the U.S. as well. But that doesn't change the fact powerful forces are lining up against them.

    There is a contingent in Congress that's unhappy that many gaming companies have chosen to continue offering services to Americans despite the passage of the UIGEA.

    In a weak moment, I suspect you could get some of the UIGEA proponents to admit that the UIGEA is a weak banking law that did nothing to change the legality of online gambling in the U.S. But that doesn't change the fact that the message they were trying to send with the law is "online gambling is illegal." And they feel that message has been ignored by the likes of PokerStars and Full Tilt, among others.

    That means while online gambling opponents might concede that they've lost the fight to prohibit online gambling in the United States, they'll be damned if companies who ignored them are allowed to profit from a new licensing scheme.

    Joining the prohibitionists in attempting to stop the "bad actors" from coming to America are the gambling monopolists. This group doesn't want to share gambling revenue with any overseas interests. And then you have the overseas interests who pulled out of the U.S., like PartyPoker, when the UIGEA passed. It's in their interest to see the "bad actors" denied licenses, so they'll be lobbying for that as well. And PartyPoker already has a somewhat friendly relationship with the U.S. Treasury after voluntarily paid a $105 million fine as part of a nonprosecution agreement last year.

    With all of these forces lined up against PokerStars and Full Tilt, it's hard to see how they would get a license. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

    What happens to Full Tilt and PokerStars if they don't get a U.S. license?

    They'll likely be bought out by one of the big Vegas casino companies. Buying Full Tilt or PokerStars is a quick way for companies like Harrah's or MGM to assume a dominant position in the American market quickly.

    Can the Frank bill pass before they figure out how to tax online gambling?

    It's hard to see the full House voting to license and regulate online gambling before the taxation part is settled.

    The political argument being advanced by many of the people supporting this bill is that in a time of enormous deficits and tough economic times, ignoring a tax stream like online gambling is irresponsible. And when you combine the tax revenue with protecting consumers, licensing online gambling is a no-brainer.

    This is a powerful political argument. But it's an argument that only works if the tax part of this equation is figured out. Until Rep. Jim McDermott's Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement act is ready, it will be hard for the House to authorize the licensing of online gambling.

    Does that mean the Frank bill won't pass the House this year?

    That's the most likely scenario. The two biggest factors working against passage are the tax bill and the calendar. The House is set to go on its August recess shortly. And they won't return to Washington until the beginning of September. When they return, they'll be session for just one month before heading out on the campaign trail for the November elections. With so much on the legislative calendar, it's hard to see how this bill will be squeezed in. And the House typically doesn't vote on contentious legislation during lame duck sessions, so this 30-day window is the only realistic time frame the bill has for a vote.

    Who's ultimately in charge of scheduling a vote on the Frank bill?

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her position on online gambling isn't known. When the House Financial Services Committee passed legislation in 2008 that delayed UIGEA enforcement (except for sports betting), it was never brought up for a full vote. But if she was completely against online gambling, she would not have let Frank pursue this legislation for the last few years.

    In California, the Native American tribes have been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to passing online gambling legislation. Will this pose a problem on the federal level?

    It's not likely to pose a problem. When Lynn Malerba, chairwoman of the Mohegan Tribe in Connecticut, testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee last week, she indicated that if Frank's bill was amended to ensure Indian tribes could offer Internet gaming on the same competitive playing field as everyone else, and without affecting their current compacts with states, Native American gaming interests would support the legislation.

    Frank's bill does give Native American tribes the authority to license online gambling. And he indicated he would support measures on the full House floor that would amend a pair of laws (that didn't fall under the jurisdiction of Frank's committee) that would allow tribes to offer online gambling without affecting their state compacts.

    Let's say the Frank bill passes the House. What happens next?

    Nothing is the most likely answer. The Senate won't have the time to take up a similar measure unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decides to ram something through. House rules generally prevent non-germane bills from being attached to "must-pass" bills, so we won't see a situation like we did in 2006 where the Senate attached the UIGEA to a port security bill.

    If nothing happens this year, what's next?

    If the Democrats still control the House after this year's elections, Frank will have to start the process all over again in the new Congress. And then he'll have to look for a partner in the Senate to do the same. Until both pieces are in place, online gambling legislation won't change any time soon.

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

    Anthony (3 August 2010), bb1web (1 August 2010), davenewgates (1 August 2010), Engineer (3 August 2010), JaqiC (31 July 2010), matted (3 August 2010), shelloz (1 August 2010), Skinski (14 August 2010), webber286 (30 July 2010)

  3. #2
    davenewgates's Avatar
    davenewgates is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Over the Web
    Posts
    351
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 24 Times in 22 Posts

    Default

    Seeing this as quite another situation, in my point of view, the UIGEA seems to only "test" which companies will abide the law during the prohibition period. Not knowing that online gambling has a chance to be legalized next year (if not this year), Full Tilt and PokerStars denied the law and still go on with their business. Thus, chances are that they may not be given the "blessings" of obtaining a license once the bill has been passed. I think this can be an example of "moral lesson" to other operators (like how fables are always giving one, no matter how minor it may be).

  4. #3
    grem's Avatar
    grem is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    CBN
    Posts
    1,451
    Blog Entries
    19
    Thanks
    254
    Thanked 418 Times in 205 Posts

  5. #4
    DaftDog's Avatar
    DaftDog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2008
    Location
    RSA
    Posts
    1,952
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 682 Times in 400 Posts

    Default LOL - No Credit Card Funding

    No credit card funding online gambling accounts! What a joke. Anybody that has a credit card and a linked online banking account knows very well that it is a piece of cake to transfer available funds from your credit card to your debit card.

    I also feel that someone with a credit card should know how to manage their financial affairs otherwize they wouldn't have one in the first place. So why penalize them?

  6. #5
    Anthony's Avatar
    Anthony is offline GPWA/APCW Program Director
    Join Date
    June 2003
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,159
    Blog Entries
    67
    Thanks
    2,069
    Thanked 3,452 Times in 1,812 Posts

    Default

    "Credit cards will not be allowed to fund player accounts. Debit cards and pre-paid cards, however, are permissible."

    So will they be extending this limitation to all land based casinos?!? Yea right!

    "If the Democrats still control the House after this year's elections, Frank will have to start the process all over again in the new Congress. And then he'll have to look for a partner in the Senate to do the same. Until both pieces are in place, online gambling legislation won't change any time soon. "

    So nothing will be done in 2010.
    I am here to help if you have any issues with an affiliate program.
    Become involved in GPWA to truly make the association your own:
    Apply for Private Membership | Apply for the GPWA Seal | Partner with a GPWA Sponsor | Volunteer as a Moderator


  7. #6
    slotplayer is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Posts
    1,042
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked 322 Times in 252 Posts

    Default

    have to be located in the United States, as do the majority of the employees working for the online gambling site.
    could that be a problem for programs?

    Actually, excluding credit cards is a good idea, people should gamble with money they have, not borrowed money.

  8. #7
    TanyaEverest's Avatar
    TanyaEverest is offline Restricted Account
    Join Date
    November 2008
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slotplayer View Post
    Actually, excluding credit cards is a good idea, people should gamble with money they have, not borrowed money.
    I agree. Right now buying lottery tickets or scratch cards in the U.S can only be done as a cash transaction. I don't see it being too far of a stretch to extend this to online gaming. Gambling with borrowed money is the reason that we get stories about guys who are $2 Million+ in debt and losing their houses. I do agree-this should be across the board, including land casinos, but we'll see about that...

    I'm pretty shocked that PokerStars and FullTilt were singled out and will be held responsible as bad actors. I thinks this bodes well for rooms like Everest that got out of the U.S market when UIGEA passed who have been compliant and should receive recognition. While this could potentially make it difficult for these companies to remain in the U.S, I think Vin is right-Harrah's or another large corporation will buy-out Tilt or Stars and enter the market with a bang. I'm curious to hear what Harrah's thinks about this provision...

  9. #8
    DaftDog's Avatar
    DaftDog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2008
    Location
    RSA
    Posts
    1,952
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 682 Times in 400 Posts

    Default Credit Card Issue

    Any problem gambler that has a credit card will just transfer money to their debit card anyway. So saying that blocking credit cards is a good thing is just being short sited. Somebody who gambled away two million dollars or more certainly didn't do it through their credit card only.

    The banks are having hassles deciphering gambling transactions on credit cards at the moment. Now they want them to allow debit cards and block all credit cards.

    I just see it as an attempted appeasement to some narrow minded politicians and lobbyists.

    edit: The reason you can't buy your lotto tickets by credit card at your local super market is because they, the super market, would be liable for the credit card transaction fee, which would virtually cancel out the small profit they make on each lotto ticket sold.
    Last edited by DaftDog; 4 August 2010 at 11:37 am. Reason: added text

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to DaftDog For This Useful Post:

    EugeneK (5 August 2010)

  11. #9
    dhayman is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    I appreciate Barney Frank's efforts, because the U.S. could sure use the tax revenue boost, but unfortunately, this bill is being presented at the wrong time (election year). Lots of incumbents are battling for their political lives this November, and the last thing they want to do is **** off the morale majority by advocating online gambling. IMO, 2011 (post mid-term elections) was the right time for this bill; not this year. They failed to look at the big picture at this time.

  12. #10
    webber286 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    The fact that the bill is getting traction at all is quite an achievement. Maybe it won't happen this year (seems like a 50/50 proposition), but it seems like it is destined to move down the road at some point in the future.

  13. #11
    PokerNations's Avatar
    PokerNations is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    305
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 125 Times in 77 Posts

    Default

    Tilt and Stars are MASSIVE in the online poker industry. Even if they're singled out as "bad actors" I don't see them ceasing to accept US players.

    And with their established player base and brand recognition, I also don't see people completely jumping ship once the law passes and other sites become available to them.

    Not to mention the US will be missing out on a TON of revenue if they exclude the two largest players in this market.

    Also, given both sites revenue streams, would they realistically sell themselves to a US-based company? I guess it's possible, but why give up some of their profits to someone else when they'd still be accepting US players AND not paying taxes in the US on top of that, if they're excluded
    Name: Anthony Martino
    Position: President
    Company: PokerNations LLC
    Site: www.PokerNations.com

  14. #12
    Buddy.'s Avatar
    Buddy. is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts

    Default Great article

    I have to say that is a great article by Vin that sumes up the current situation and brings a sense of realism to where we are.

    Good work.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Buddy. For This Useful Post:

    vinism (5 August 2010)

  16. #13
    GPWA Aaron is offline Former Staff Member
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Needham, MA
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 144 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PokerNations View Post
    And with their established player base and brand recognition, I also don't see people completely jumping ship once the law passes and other sites become available to them.
    But will the new fish that will be brought into the online game play at Stars and Tilt? Not a chance. They're going to play at WSOP.com or Foxwoods.com. I'm willing to bet there would be a quick and massive crackdown on advertising for the dot-net versions of sites currently serving US players, too. And if the fish are all playing on sites that are licensed and regulated, where are the sharks going to play? It wouldn't take too long (my bet is less than a year) before those sites were forced into a buyout by ever-shrinking player traffic/revenues.

  17. #14
    johns1124 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2009
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 34 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    This bill is just flat out bad for the Aff market. If its passed kiss affiliates goodbye. The bill will narrow the market down so the books,casinos, and pokerrooms dont need affilites anymore. Not to mention make it illegal to cater to a non-licensee. Hope like hell this garbage dont pass.

  18. #15
    BeckyCA's Avatar
    BeckyCA is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    295
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 10 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Here's our opinion...it's not going to happen anytime soon (next year at the earliest), it's likely to only happen on a state-by-state basis, and midterm elections could screw everything up...have a look at the full article on the Barney Bill if interested!

    Becky

Posting Permissions

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