Barney's Anti-UIGEA bill defeated

[Mousey]

There are probably more indepth articles out there, but I just don't have the heart to search any further right now.

Online gambling bill defeated
25 June 2008

By Vin Narayanan


The House Financial Services Committee rejected a bill Wednesday that would have prohibited the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve from proposing and implementing regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

In its mark-up session, the Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) that would not only stop the implementation of any UIGEA regulations, but would also force the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve to sit down and define unlawful Internet gambling. King said that this "was a banking issue, not a gambling issue" and that the banking industry shouldn't be in the position of determining what is legal and illegal.

The King amendment was defeated by the full committee with a vote of 32 for and 32 against. The original bill proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was defeated in a voice vote.

The defeat is a blow to both the online gambling industry,
...

[kcjoe8900]

So sad that our government can't see the benefits of making online gambling legal.

[MJackson]

Let's face it. The reason this bill got defeated is olde time rational argument.

Focus on the Family also supports prohibition of all gambling in America. This position has created some controversy within the Christian community, as gambling is not prohibited in the Bible[11]. This schism is evidenced by the fact that many churches hold gambling contests, especially bingo, to raise funds. Focus’ insistence on this position, as a result, has been interpreted as “extra-Biblical doctrine” that was created by some within the Christian Right who are personally opposed to gambling. At the November 14, 2007 House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”[12], Family Research Council Vice President Tom McClusky testified that his organization favored banning Internet poker in the United States. When questioned further by Steve Cohen [D-TN] on how much gambling FRC advocated banning, McClusky testified that FRC wished to ban all gambling in America, including even poker[13]. Upon hearing this, Rep. Cohen incredulously asked "is there any fun you are for?", leading many in the blogosphere to nickname FoF “Foes of Fun”[14].

Keep in mind that these folks know what's right for everyone, God told them.

If you could knock someone in the forehead on television and cure their cancer, or convince a homosexual that they made the wrong lifestyle choice, or prove that Darwin was a deeply religious hoaxster who all these crazy scientists now take seriously or steer huricanes away from call centers or talk with someone who's been dead for 2000 years...or know for a fact that Carbon 14 dating is a complete carnival scam then you might just be humble enough to speak the truth and let everyone else have the freedom to know what is right for them.

I hope they implement the UIGEA in all it's glory and it brings about the total collapse of the US financial system, that'll teach em...uh, maybe it'll teach them, uh, something?

"Monkeys are having babies all the time, why don't they have another human today?" -Kent Hovind, leading intellectual of the christian right

Actually scratch that thought.

[Mousey]

Lawmakers disagree over defining online gambling
By ERICA WERNER – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers failed Wednesday to agree on setting a clear definition of illegal Internet gambling to go along with a ban on online betting passed in 2006.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have been unable to finalize rules to implement the ban because Congress didn't clearly define online gambling when it passed legislation less than two years ago.

The House Financial Services Committee voted Wednesday on legislation to require federal regulators to write a uniform definition of which types of gambling should and should not be allowed on the Internet, followed by new rules implementing the ban. The tie vote, 32-32, meant the legislation failed under committee rules.

Senate Republicans, pushed by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, had attached the online gambling ban to an unrelated port security bill in a rush of year-end legislation in 2006.

Banks and other financial institutions have complained that they are being forced into a law enforcement role because the Internet gambling ban prohibits them from accepting payments to settle online wagers without giving them a clear set of rules.

"The financial institutions are in the position of being told not process bets, but it's not clear what is legal and what is illegal," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the committee's chairman. He said financial institutions had been given "a job that is undoable."

The committee's top Republican, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, argued ....

[MJackson]

The committee's top Republican, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, argued that gambling is the fastest-growing addiction in the United States and having it online makes it accessible to children.

Really? The fastest growing addiction, huh? In real numbers or percentage points? If last year 2 people were addicted to Skittles and this year 10 people are then I could plausibly argue that it is the fastest growing addiction.

Spencer Bachus from Alabama, a republican. Let's keep in mind again this is coming from the same camp who has 2000 year old dinasaur bones and who think the Old Testament is a good moral guide.

Spencer Bachus is a funny guy who has great comedic value. Problem is, all these republican pigs don't see the punch line.

Oh The Children!

I'm a big fan of "what about the children" arguments. They seem to work otherwise these flat-liner scum wouldn't keep laying them out time and time again over decades.

How many children are killed EVERY DAY in accidental gun discharges? We have to stop these horrible tragedies before they happen. We MUST ban gun ownership!

When young children are exposed to indecent sexual acts they are scarred for life (note no scientific evidence cited). We MUST BAN PORNOGRAPHY!

If children are not exposed to the word of god from a young age they may grow up to be godless heathens. We MUST HAVE PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

If marijuana was legal, what would stop a 5 year old from walking up to the gas station, buying a pack of joints and overdoseing and dying of ventricular fibrillation. We MUST KEEP MARIJUANA POSSESION CRIMINAL!

A marriage is between a man and a woman, it's what the Bible says. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies which all agree on one thing; children who are raised by homosexual couples have psychological problems when they grow up. We MUST BAN ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS!

We need to keep our country secure for our children so that they can grow up having the freedoms and opportunities that we all had. That's why we must MAKE PHONE COMPANIES IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN CASES OF WONTON PRIVACY VIOLATION, TORTURE FOREIGN CITIZENS, COMMIT WAR CRIMES INCLUDING AGGRESSION AGAINST SOVEIRGN CONTRIES, VETO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS BY THE HUNDREDS,...

These pieces of rat sh*t read 1984 and apparently got some good ideas.

F*ck these swine.

Maybe instead of gambling for a living we can all do something constructive like getting together and chanting mindless recitations out of some hokey 2000 year old fairy tale. We can burn Jazz cd's and biology books and Einsteins photograph then maybe even throw a witch or two into the flames. Then let's eat some doughnuts and go shoot an abortion doctor. I'm talking about keeping our morals straight, u know?

[MJackson]

Spencer Bachus says:

Today’s vote was a victory for young people because illegal Internet gambling brings the casino into their bedrooms and dorm rooms, sometimes with tragic consequences.

No footnotes, no studies, no expert testimony, no evidence.

Implicit in the argument is that the testimony of some stupid reverend who testified before congress about the weak will of his poker addict son proves that the ultimate consequence of gambling online is financial strife and eventually, suicide.

In what percent of cases does this occur? We don't know. No evidence was cited and apparently none is needed.

MJackson says:

The hospital's coronary care unit being completely destroyed by fire today was a victory for old people because it brought them from their bedrooms and nursing homes for treatment, sometimes with tragic consequences.

My argument is more logical because far more old people by percent die, are financially harmed and suffer grave consequences from medical treatment than do from gambling online.

I like the Representative's logic though. You can make arguments of the most implausible kind appear legitimate when you pay no attention to evidence and reject any kind of risk-reward analysis.


Do you want to ban seatbelt use? Just find one case of someone who was ejected from a vehicle before it was consumed by fire.

Do you want to get rid of nuclear power? Just keep talking about Chernobyl over and over and over.

Do you want to ban air travel? Look what happened to that Airbus at the Sao Paolo airport.

Let's ban eating. Someone choked to death yesterday.

Let's ban sunshine. Look at all the cases of Melanoma

Etc.

[MJackson]

Actually he did go on later to cite one study that I couldn't find anywhere claiming that a third of teen compulsive gamblers commit suicide and another saying that online gambling among college students had decreased by 75% since the UIGEA (highly doubtful). If you could find these studies you could explain to him that correlation doesn't imply causation but it doesn't do any good if the study doesn't exist.

That's not to mention the points CM made in another post recently about the benefits of regulation etc.

A study by McGill University found that nearly one-third of teenage compulsive gamblers attempted suicide.

Couldn't find it.

I did find the other one he referred to.

Weekly use of the Internet for gambling among college-age youth also declined, going from 5.8 percent in 2006 to 1.5 percent in 2007, a statistically significant drop. Use of the Internet among high school-aged male youth was already very low in 2006 and did not change this year, going from 0 percent to 0.8 percent.

No word on methodology but this was a survey and the jump from 0 to .8 percent was considered statistically insignificant. Also no word on when this survey was taken and thus how long the poker rooms had time to work out the new payment kinks. Obviously there would have been a precipitous drop in the months immediately following the UIGEA's passage and the Neteller incident.

That aside, without proving a net adverse effect when comparing regulation with prohibition the point about the 75% decline, even if true, has no merit.

[footdr]

UIGEA made it easier for me to use Credit Card so I think the statement regarding teens is bull

[maxd]

Don't know if you guys saw this but the vote was apparently a tie, but under 'the rules' that means it failed. Interesting that it ended up in the tie situation, gives you some idea how many people actually oppose the religious and moral rhetoric used by people like the FoF to fob off their fear-mongering.

[jetset]

A point well worth noting, Max.

Bachus even used that now weary cliche: "You click the mouse and lose your house," in his address to the committee.

Typical generalisation and emotive Republican rhetoric that ignores both the facts and the impracticality of the UIGEA.

And it was trotted out yet again despite the renewed concern by the banks about the lack of precision in the regulations, and Rep. King's explanation that the intent was to halt implementation of the regulations because noone in government has actually defined what the banks should define 'illegal transactions.' This is something government has deliberately avoided doing because it raises the inequities and grey areas in US gambling policy.

The PPA chairman best summed up the opposition view when he said:

""It was clear today that those who oppose this bill chose to focus on emotional and non-germane issues, such as the harmful impact of gambling on children, instead of on the merits of the bill itself," he said, commenting that as it presently stands the UIGEA is "a completely unworkable and unenforceable bill that would do little to address the main concerns of its sponsors – namely, protecting underage and compulsive gamblers as well as cracking down on money laundering."

“Unfortunately, debate over the morality of gambling trumped debate on the fact that UIGEA is completely ineffective and unenforceable."

The other quote I felt hit the UIGEA nail on the head was that from Congressman Melvin Watt, who said: "We [Congress] kicked the ball over to the regulators. They don't know how to figure this out so they kicked it over to the banks. That is not responsible legislating on our part."