Lobbying effort for Frank bill grows

[sdaddy]

Below is a typed copy of a letter I received recently from my representative regarding his position on H.R. 2046. This time I called his Washington office, rather than send an email, which didn't seem to get much attention in the past.

Given that he was a cosponsor last year of H.R. 4777 (the Goodlatte ban bill) I'm encouraged to see that he is at least remaining open to idea of supporting Frank's bill.

Dear sdaddy,

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to amend laws surrounding Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you.

This year, Americans are projected to send approximately $6 billion to unregulated, offshore, online casinos, and nearly half of those dollars will be bet worldwide on Internet gambling. As you know, an Internet gambling title was added to the SAFE Port Act of 2006 – signed into law this past October – which prohibits gaming businesses from accepting checks, credit cards and electronic transfers. More recently, H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, was introduced by Representative Barney Frank and would create an exemption to the ban, allowing properly licensed operators to lawfully be online. This measure has been referred to the House committees on Financial Services, as well as Energy and Commerce, where no further actions have been taken. While I am not a member of either of these committees, please know that I will continue to closely follow this issue and will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come before me on the House floor.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing to serve you in Congress.

Sincerely,

John E. Peterson
Member of Congress
5th District, Pennsylvania

[jetset]

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

The U.S. religious right and the National Football League join against Frank proposal to regulate online gambling

It would appear that the American National Football League is seriously concerned about legislation to regulate U.S. online gambling proposed by Congressman Barney Frank, which has received growing political support.

The Financial Times claims that the NFL has "...enlisted the support of the Christian right to help drum up opposition” to Congressman Barney Frank’s proposed internet gambling regulation, apparently not content with the existing carve-outs for fantasy football which it already enjoys.

The report reveals that Bill Wichterman, a top lobbyist and advisor to the former Republican majority leader Bill Frist who rammed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act through a late night session of Congress last year, is the point man in a new initiative. His objective is apparently to encourage conservative groups to co-sign a letter sent by Christian pressure group Focus on the Family to US politicians encouraging them to uphold and strengthen the widely unpopular UIGEA.

On a more positive note, the New York Post over the weekend supported the Frank regulatory moves in an article titled "Web Gambling - tax it, don't ban it" written by Representatives Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Peter King, a Long Island Republican.

The op-ed piece observes that the US Treasury department is charged with a number of law enforcement jobs - protecting the president, investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing and so forth, but remarks that these days, thanks to a "legislative ‘rider’ passed last year", Congress has told Treasury officials to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial - people who play cards from their home computers.

"Frankly, federal law enforcement officials have bigger fish to fry,” the article comments.

"Years ago, the Treasury’s Secret Service agents used to help President Harry Truman put poker games together in the White House. Now they’d be locking him up!”

[cynthial]

Hi Jet,
Could you help me to understand why the NFL would give a crap about this issue. How does this affect them?
Thanks

[jetset]

The NFL, together with the other major sporting leagues in the USA have been consistent and active opponents of online gambling despite the fantasy sports carve-outs.

That opposition has included combining with other bodies negative to Internet betting in calling for anti-online gambling legislation - there are several instances recorded in Casinomeister News archives of this. The NFL were among those who congratulated Congress on passing the UIGEA last year.

Its opposition is apparently based on the principle that gambling - especially gambling that is not licensed in Nevada - is bad for sport.

When (if?) the USA gambling industry corners the American online gambling market in a US-regulated environment, it will be interesting to see what position the NFL and others will take.

[cynthial]

Thanks for your time on this Jet. I had indeed read some of the archives but what I never understood and to some degree still do not is how is it bad for sport and why even more so if not from Las Vegas? Do they feel some players may "take a fall" so to speak and affect the outcome of the games like the White Sox scandal? Sorry to be a doofus but could you find the patience to explain further for me?

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by cynthial

Thanks for your time on this Jet. I had indeed read some of the archives but what I never understood and to some degree still do not is how is it bad for sport and why even more so if not from Las Vegas? Do they feel some players may "take a fall" so to speak and affect the outcome of the games like the White Sox scandal? Sorry to be a doofus but could you find the patience to explain further for me?

In the NBA, the FEDS just indicted one referee and it is going to get much nastier and you must know about Gretzky's better half,Ms. Jones and Phoenix's asst. Coach Tochett(sp) so lately it has not been the players but these are mute points as they relate to online gambling. The NFL position is all for show to the public with currently a bigger show as the new commish pretends to clean up it's image behind a false facade. If you only knew how powerful NFL(RE: TV CONTRACTS) is but still neither here nor there as far as OLG........ Let's just get a less corrupt industry than it currently is as it will always have some type of corruption but should be less as hopefully there will be no need for brainwashing affiliates, the crook casinos that hide behind T&C's et al(WTF is bonus abuse?, answer 100% BS),the unaccountable with no transparency software platforms, faux & brainwashing player watchdog sites & webmasters that are nothing more than marketers, on & on...........this can all be eliminated for new corruptions in lieu of the current. FTR, I play no more online until the old are gone and the new appear...........may be a good thing when all is said and done,time will tell.

[sdaddy]

Originally Posted by jetset

On a more positive note, the New York Post over the weekend supported the Frank regulatory moves in an article titled "Web Gambling - tax it, don't ban it" written by Representatives Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Peter King, a Long Island Republican.

The op-ed piece observes that the US Treasury department is charged with a number of law enforcement jobs - protecting the president, investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing and so forth, but remarks that these days, thanks to a "legislative ‘rider’ passed last year", Congress has told Treasury officials to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial - people who play cards from their home computers.

It's great to see members of Congress come out publicly to push for Frank's bill, but wait a minute here. Peter King was the same Homeland Security Committee chairman who sat by and let the UIGEA "rider" be attached to the must-pass Safe Port Act last year. Isn't it a little late and hypocritical for him to now criticize the UIGEA and the way it was passed?

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by sdaddy

It's great to see members of Congress come out publicly to push for Frank's bill, but wait a minute here. Peter King was the same Homeland Security Committee chairman who sat by and let the UIGEA "rider" be attached to the must-pass Safe Port Act last year. Isn't it a little late and hypocritical for him to now criticize the UIGEA and the way it was passed?

Is is called Politics. I THINK

[sdaddy]

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

Is is called Politics. I THINK

Yeah, at its finest.

[jetset]

http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/08142...peter_king.htm

Here's a link to the full article. As for Peter King, well I'm just glad to see his apparently road to Damascus conversion from the dark side of prohibition LOL!

Cynthia, I didn't ignore your second post above btw - I left on my daily chores after posting my answer to you and have just seen your second request for clarity.

I don't know what the real reasons are for the implacable opposition to online gambling exhibited by US sporting leagues, and there is significant speculation on what other agendas these bodies may have.

Spokesmen have repeatedly charged that unlicensed gambling on sports is dangerous to the integrity of those sports in general and college sport in particular, but if that were the case one would think that they would favour strict regulation over banning.

I personally suspect that as is usually the case it's all about the money....and they aren't getting any from online gambling, which may have been a strategic error by offshore gaming companies when they were riding high and thought they were untouchable.

I'm sure there are plenty of other views on this.