Originally Posted by
jetset
The PPA were quick off the mark in refuting that one!
A couple years back it was money-laundering that the FBI chose to chastise online gambling, despite some well documented studies that there had been no such thing, and that in fact online presented better financial tracking mechanisms.
This was referred to again in the present hearings when Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the current ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security spoke up, asserting publicly that he is not aware of any money laundering or terrorism financing through Internet gaming. He pointed out that if financial crimes were a legitimate concern, then regulation and oversight as proposed in H.R. 2267 is the best way to mitigate that risk.
Then there's the repeated Bachus accusations that online gambling is more addictive than land gambling, something with he knows very well is BS following extensive studies from various respected outfits, not least of which is the Harvard study.
It seems these guys are so desperate that they are happy to perpetuate untruths that they know are exactly that, which doesn't say a lot for their much boasted religious morality.
I had to grin at Bachus accusing Frank over the 3 year delay in getting the UIGEA into force - blithely ignoring the fact that the Treausry and Justice bureaucrats under the Republican Bush Administration screwed around trying to draft same for over two years!
Then there was Robert Martin, tribal chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in California who claimed that legalising online gambling would be prejudicial to tribal gambling interests.
His objection was challenged by Congressman Frank, who noted that the Morongo had recently tried to engineer online poker legalisation state laws that would give them a degree of exclusivity.
"They are not against Internet poker in general and in fact are trying to get involved in the industry by passing legislation in California," Congressman Frank observed. "You want to be able to do it and have no one else do it, is that the issue?"
Martin did not respond to the challenge.
Samuel A. Vallandingham, chief financial officer and vice president of The First State Bank speaking on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America said the UIGEA makes impossible demands on community banking in the US. He testified that the attempt to block payment transactions by online casino operators is a burden the financial industry cannot handle.
"The added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of unlawful Internet gambling would drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, the plethora of new regulations emerging from the financial crisis and the daily operation of community banks to meet the financial needs of their customers," he opined.
He also drew attention to the imprecise definition of illegal online gambling provided in the UIGEA, commenting that because no overriding law exists, banks would have the problematic task of determining each customer's legality with regard to hundreds of state, federal, and local laws.
"ICBA strongly endorses H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act which establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework for licensing Internet gambling operators," concluded the banking representative, throwing the bankers' support squarely behind Barney Frank's bill.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Ueber Meister
Achievements:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks