Finally, a voice of reason!

[The Judge]

Barney Frank Introduces New Internet Gambling Act
Congressman Barney Frank spoke this morning about his new bill that would look to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enactment Act (UIGEA). The law requires banks to monitor credit card transactions that could be used for the purpose of betting online.

The chairman of the Financial Services Committee is looking to raise tens of billions of dollars with his new bill, which could be used to pay for expensive tax, healthcare, or other domestic legislation Democrats want to move this year.

“It’s a terrible idea and there are a large number of people who think it is a terrible idea,” Frank said yesterday. “I don’t know how it ends. The worst that happens is that enough anti-gambling busybodies will be less inclined to interfere in people’s lives.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

The Act establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals in the U.S., to the extent permitted by individual states, Indian tribes and sport leagues. All such licenses would include protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud.

“The existing legislation is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans and this interference should be undone,” said. Rep. Frank.

In 2006, the House passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, restricting the handling of payments by U.S. financial institutions for unlawful forms of Internet gambling. That law prohibits the use of payment instruments by such institutions to handle the processing of any form of Internet gambling that is illegal under U.S. federal or state law.

Traditional forms of legalized gambling already exist in nearly every state. By continuing to prohibit Internet gambling in the U.S., the U.S. has left Americans who choose to gamble online without meaningful consumer protections. The proposed legislation would institute practical and enforceable standards to bring transparency to Internet gambling and provide consumers the protections they expect and deserve.

The Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Can Internet gambling be regulated to protect consumers and the payments system?” at a date to be determined in June, 2007.

[The Judge]

"This is about freedom," Frank said yesterday. "I'm not just concerned with poker. What's next? Mahjong?"

[OldMan]

Great stuff Judge..

Vote DEMOCRAT in 08.

Oldman

[The Judge]

LINK to the bill

[mr5nakeeye5]

The only thing that worries me about something like this is that states can opt out if they choose, and for us handicappers sports leagues can opt out. So if one league opts out immediately I'm sure all the others will follow. So if this bill would go into effect I'm sure all the offshores would cooperate with the law, thereby making it impossible for the people who's states opt out to wager online. And it could also put an end to online sports betting in the states if all the major leagues opt out and the offshores cooperate.

[hammink]

First off, I understand this bill probably has no shot in hell of passing but...

If it passes, does it mean Vegas casinos and US companies can offer online gambling? Or does it just apply to off-shore? If online gaming could operate more like Vegas casinos, with a governing body regulating everything and big-time companies (with no grey area legality issues) making everyone feel secure - it would just take off. There are still tons of casual gamblers who would never deal with off-shore but would have no problem putting money into CesarsPalace.com or Harrahs.com...

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by hammink

If it passes, does it mean Vegas casinos and US companies can offer online gambling?

Yes, but some states already have laws in place already making online gambling illegal. Those states would have to pass new legislation before their residents could gamble online.

[hammink]

Originally Posted by The Judge

Yes, but some states already have laws in place already making online gambling illegal. Those states would have to pass new legislation before their residents could gamble online.

Well, in that case, I think the chances of it passing increase dramatically - like from 1% to 50%. The brick and mortar casino lobby actually has teeth. I could see Harrah's spending whatever it takes to get a gambling Web site up and running. And no one, and I mean NO ONE, really gives a shit about the moral issues, it's just about money. And now all the $$$ that was against online gambling will be feverishly for it!

[The Judge]

A poster at another site who I believe is Mark Mendel, lead legal counsel for Antigua's WTO case, has this to say about the bill introduced yesterday by Rep. Barnet Frank:

Originally Posted by Barrister

Lads

I think it is a good development, even if the bill itself is, as John Turrturo would say, "laughable, man." From our perspective, it gives us something to negotiate over, a starting point from which to work. I am arranging a meeting with Frank's staff for the week after next.

I know many of you think that our case will end up nowhere, but after being in the thick of it now for more than four years I am still quite confident that Antigua is going to get some very real benefit out of the case. Keep in mind, our real goal is a negotiated settlement--we never expected them to simply repeal the Wire Act and swing the doors wide open.

I would like to address a couple of points that were in this thread. First, with respect to international and interstate commerce, the states themselves have no say unless the federal government expressly allows them to. So, an international treaty dealing with international commerce will trump any state law on the same topic, period. Utah, for example, has no right to prohibit international commerce from Antigua to be transacted within its borders if the federal government has decided otherwise.

Second, I don't see any other countries bringing a WTO action on this issue for some time. I think many are waiting to see how our case finally sorts out, many don't have the resources, political will or time to fight a protracted battle like Antigua has and many are too much on the renegade side to be able to argue effectively on the topic at the WTO. Further, Antigua believes in free trade as well, so we never expected that we were going to get some lifetime exemption from US gaming restrictions. But what we are looking for is some short-term advantage--where Antiguan firms can conduct their business without the shackles and nonsense that the Americans have imposed upon the industry for a good enough period of time that once the US decides to comprehensively open its doors to remote gaming, the Antiguan operators will have a decent chance at competing with the Harrah's and Bellagios of the Web that are bound to spring up.

All the best

[dherd]

emails are ignored because there are so many of them.

it is far better to CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS AT THEIR LOCAL OFFICE (THE T/P NUMBER IS IN YOUR PHONE BOOK).

AND VOTE DEMOCRATIC !!!!!!!!!!

[pough]

just about every day you read something dark and dirty about a republican politician. they see their public offices as personal accomplishments in life, as opposed to democrats, who see theirs as duty. it's night and day. now im not saying to go join gay pride marches or chain yourself to a tree. but what americans need in law are common sense and fairness. that's all i need from them.