UIGEA regulations proposed

[coosemaker]

Good news indeed.
I for one,am sick of being treated like a little kid.
Can't do this,that..etc.

Can't wait to have a real bet on English horse racing,football(soocer)


Looking on the bright side.
Since Bush brought in this pathetic gambling law.

Lots of $$$ we have saved because of it!

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by Stanford

That is certainly good news.

But even if the proposed Regs survive, does this pretty well mean that routes to play can be opened. I could see a foreign bank and then a Neteller type account through the foreign bank. All transactions to the US would be bank to bank. All transactions to the Web Wallet would be via the foreign bank account. Under the proposed Regs, I don't see a problem with that arrangement. The only problem I see is we need a replacement for Neteller like we had a replacement for Paypal.

Will it be time to come back soon? Any thoughts from anyone?

Stanford.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the charges and crap against NETeller 2 had nothing to do w/UIGEA but the old law in the books against sportsbetting. (You know, the one that keeps getting resurrected everytime the feds want to shut down a casino/sportsbook. And they scream online gambling is illegal.) JMO, but I think it would also have helped NETeller if they had supported other types of online transactions -- something other than gambling. Maybe if an ewallet didn't work at online sportsbooks it might skirt the DoJ and FBI hysteria?

[stepfordwife]

Originally Posted by jetset

FRANK LAUNCHES NEW ATTACK ON ANTI-ONLINE GAMBLING REGS

New bill seeks to stop implementation of unworkable UIGEA regs in its tracks

Following the recent Congressional hearings in Washington on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, few can doubt that government agencies and the financial services industry required to police it have a monumental task in thinking up practical ways to implement a flawed law passed by Congress in 2006.

This week that task may have been made tougher by new legislation - H.R.5767 - introduced by influential Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank and presidential aspirant Ron Paul.

According to a statement from Frank and Paul, HR 5767 introduced this week seeks to prohibit the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Treasury secretary from "proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block Internet gambling transactions."

If approved, the Bill will effectively curtail the further operation of the UIGEA.

It comes after intense criticism of proposed regulations drafted by government agencies to give teeth to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was designed to disrupt financial transactions with online gambling companies but places the burden of enforcement on the U.S. financial services industry.

Both Congressmen claim the UIGEA unduly infringes upon personal freedoms. "The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet," Representative Paul said.

Critics protest that the UIGEA is impossible to implement due to ambiguities in its language and a serious lack of definition, together with the impracticality of tasking an already stretched financial services industry with its complicated enforcement across a variety of financial and in many cases international instruments.

Congressman Frank has highlighted these flaws, saying: "I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations' impact," and pointing out that the recent Congressional hearing had showed that "the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry."

Federal government executive Louise L. Roseman to an extent confirmed that, warning that banks had expressed uncertainty about implementing the law at the hearing on April 2 (see previous InfoPowa report) and commenting on the difficulty in drafting effective supporting regulations.

"The payment system, frankly, isn't well designed to be able to identify this activity," Roseman said.

Congressman Frank has another card ready to play in his fight against the UIGEA. His HR 2046 Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act currently has 48 co-sponsors and seeks to regulate and licence online gambling in the United States, raising tax revenues at the same time as controlling the popular pastime of Internet gambling.

If eventually passed, this bill could effectively overturn the UIGEA, although it is still in need of more political support.

A spokesman for the anti-UIGEA pressure group Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, Jeffrey Sandman applauded the new bill, saying: "The Frank-Paul bill would stop the U.S. government from taking any further steps on regulations that would require all of the country's financial institutions to block Internet Gambling payments."

"It's a bold move, but a necessary one, in light of the warnings from the Treasury and Federal Reserve that they did not know how to write regulations to solve the problems created by UIGEA.

"Further, witnesses representing a broad spectrum of the financial services community unanimously stated that the current ban on Internet gambling is dangerous to the payments system and ineffective in stopping people from using the Internet to play poker, make bets on horses, or engage in other types of wagering."

I am hoping to god that this is a light at the end of this very long and dark tunnel. Barney Frank, I love you.

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by stepfordwife

I love you.

You know that he is gay.

[Mousey]

Originally Posted by GrandMaster

You know that he is gay.

I love him anyway -- even if he is 'happy'. I wouldn't give a rat's behind if he were Obama and Hillary's love child... He seems to be one of the few in Congress that has a little common sense.

[jetset]

BANKERS APPLAUD ATTACK ON UIGEA (Update)

"We certainly appreciate the interest," says banking association

The Washington DC publication The Hill reports that the banking industry is cheering the fresh assault on the UIGEA (see previous InfoPowa report) mounted by House Financial Services committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Congressman and presidential aspirant Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Congressman Frank has teamed up with the libertarian-minded Paul, who crusaded against big government during his recent White House bid, on legislation to block the contentious 2006 legislation by forbidding federal officials from writing rules to implement it. Those officials have already admitted that the regulations supporting the UIGEA are proving difficult to draft, with strong opposition from the financial industry that is required to act as policeman for the federal government.

“I don’t know what can be done or will be done legislatively, but we certainly appreciate the interest,” said the top lobbyist for the American Bankers Association , Floyd Stoner, of the Frank-Paul legislation.

Frank’s new legislation attacks the practical hurdles regarding the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, rather than its legitimacy.

“While I do disagree with the underlying objective of the act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” Frank said in a statement. He argued that the regulations proposed by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury were “...impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions.”

Supporters of banning online gambling have been quick to respond to the latest attack on the UIGEA, vowing to beat back the new effort to undo the law.

“Our office will vigorously oppose any efforts to repeal or water down any parts of the [federal law],” said Ryan Patmintra, a spokesman for Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who was a chief sponsor of legislation to ban online gambling in the Senate.

“It’s another attempt to take apart a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House,” said Tom McClusky, the vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council , which had pushed hard for the federal crackdown. He noted that 48 state attorneys general had pushed for the federal law to enforce their state bans.

The National Football League and other professional and amateur sports organisations are also gearing up to fight Frank's new law, threatening to “vigorously oppose” the legislation, said Martin Gold, a lawyer at Covington & Burling and a longtime lobbyist for the NFL.

Federal law is murky on what constitutes illegal gambling online. Congress stopped short of defining it clearly in the 2006 law, directing the federal government instead to enforce state laws restricting such activities. It also excluded online horserace betting from the crackdown.

Now, writing rules to implement the law is bedeviling regulators. “The challenge we have is interpreting … federal laws that Congress itself isn’t sure what they mean,” Louise Roseman, a Federal official, testified on April 2 before Frank’s committee.

The banking industry has flooded the Treasury and the Fed with complaints about their proposed rules, arguing that it is too difficult for banks to sort out payments for legal wagers — such as on horse races — and those that are illegal.

“The banking system is just not set up to sort out whether one payment is a legal payment and one payment is not,” said the director of congressional affairs for the Independent Community Bankers of America , Steve Verdier. “We think the [Frank-Paul] bill would give everyone the chance to take a breath.”

Charles Rothfeld, a lawyer at Mayer Brown who has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said that the Frank-Paul legislation is not likely to pose any constitutional problems. “Congress gets to say the way in which its legislation is implemented. If it wants to issue legislation to preclude the promulgation of regulation, it can do that,” he argued.

The Hill reports that aside from the banking industry, the Frank-Paul bill also has support from gambling aficionados and firms.

However, the American Gaming Association , which says its members do not include online gambling operators, has not taken a stance on the bill and remains "neutral" on the 2006 law. However, the association supports a bill sponsored by Representative Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) to commission a one-year study of online gambling by a third party.

[Mousey]

“It’s another attempt to take apart a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House,” said Tom McClusky, the vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council

Don't you love it? A bill that makes no sense, has the logic of something written by a roomful of monkeys, was rammed thru in the midnight hours, tacked on to an essential port security bill ....

grrrrr

[winbig]

Originally Posted by Mousey

Don't you love it? A bill that makes no sense, has the logic of something written by a roomful of monkeys, was rammed thru in the midnight hours, tacked on to an essential port security bill ....

grrrrr

Yep...not everyone knows that it was a leaflet attached to that bill though....

Maybe the likes of CNN or someone needs to get this otherwise well known fact out to the public more. We know FOX won't spill the beans.

[silcnlayc]

Hope this hasn't been posted already...

Congress moves to suspend internet gambling ban



WASHINGTON, DC -- (PRESS RELEASE) -- The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI) announced its support for new legislation, H.R.5767, that would prohibit the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing or implementing any regulations related to the current ban on Internet gambling, as required by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). The bill was introduced yesterday by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas).

"The Frank-Paul bill would stop the U.S. government from taking any further steps on regulations that would require all of the country's financial institutions to block Internet Gambling payments," said SSIGI spokesman Jeff Sandman. "It's a bold move, but a necessary one, in light of the warnings from the Treasury and Federal Reserve that they did not know how to write regulations to solve the problems created by UIGEA. Further, witnesses representing a broad spectrum of the financial services community unanimously stated that the current ban on Internet gambling is dangerous to the payments system and ineffective in stopping people from using the Internet to play poker, make bets on horses, or engage in other types of wagering."

The current Internet gambling ban creates significant additional burdens for U.S. financial institutions, which say that it is unfair to turn them into the Internet gambling police at a time when their undivided attention ought to be on the economy.

Testimony before Congress last week offered proof that financial services institutions would face serious regulatory burdens in attempting to enforce UIGEA and related regulations, which is unlikely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online.

Representatives from the Credit Union National Association, Financial Services Roundtable, American Bankers Association and Wells Fargo & Co. testified about the burden they would unnecessarily face before the House Committee on Financial Service's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on April 2. The current UIGEA law is ambiguous and allows for multiple interpretations of what may or may not be illegal activities.

Their comments reflect the concerns echoed in the more than 200 comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System.

Frank introduced legislation last year, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), that would regulate Internet gambling. The bill would require licensed Internet gambling operators to put in place safeguards to protect against underage and compulsive gambling and ensure the integrity of financial transactions.

A companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523), would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. According to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first 10 years.

[bagofmaggots]

It sounds like a great idea...but I don't think it will get any serious attention from congress. Barney Frank and Ron Paul are are the sponsors. Neither are taken seriously. I'm tempted to say a fruit and a nut...but I won't