- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Details released for Barney Frank's new online gambling bill
- Thread starter winbig
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2008
- Location
- Buckeye Nation
Proposal
Man, that's sound great! Its really clear cut. #4 gives me hope of eliminating new seedy owners
Man, that's sound great! Its really clear cut. #4 gives me hope of eliminating new seedy owners
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Location
- where the taxes are the highest
If this were to happen, and God I hope it does. How long do you think it would take. To pass and be reinstated.
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
IMO, If something like this passes, you'll see about 90% of the online casinos go unregistered... just like they do now.
But hopefully this will allow some of the best outfits back into the USA.
Lets hope they don't do like they did with Machine Guns and Pot... They have the licenses but never issue any to anyone.
But hopefully this will allow some of the best outfits back into the USA.
Lets hope they don't do like they did with Machine Guns and Pot... They have the licenses but never issue any to anyone.
DETAILS OF FRANK ONLINE GAMBLING BILL RELEASED (Update)
New title but similar precautions
The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Barney Frank released details of his new legislative proposal aimed at legalising online gambling in the United States Wednesday ahead of a delayed press conference re-scheduled to late afternoon Washington time.
Titled the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act the proposal seeks to overturn the controversial and much villified Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in 2006, which outlawed financial transactions with online gambling companies and has caused billions in damages to European companies forced to withdraw from the US market.
The bill seeks to issue licenses to online gambling operators, but only those who are in good financial and legal standing and of good character, honesty and integrity, and whose prior activities, reputation, habits and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of of the licensed activities.
Pre-licensing checks are likely to be stringent, and would be operators will have to demonstrate that they possess the requisite expertise to professionally manage Internet gambling operations. There will be an insistence on operators having the technology and systems necessary to effectively combat money laundering and fraud, exclude underage and problem gamblers, meet tax requirements and comply with US federal and state laws.
Applications are open to all entities, who will have to supply detailed financial records and personal details of directors in order that credit and criminal histories can be checked.
The nature and depth of background checks will be decided by the Secretary for the Treasury, who will be charged with the approval and monitoring of licensees and may call on the US Attorney General for enforcement and compliance issues.
Licensing terms will be for five years, renewable conditional on good conduct and efficiency, and the Secretary for the Treasury will have authority to terminate the licenses at any time if a licensee does not comply with requirements. Terms of imprisonment of up to five years are provided for under the Act.
Congressman Frank later told reporters that he intends to move the bill before the House's August break, but that he will be introducing special legislation titled the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act of 2009 aimed at delaying for a year the implementation of the highly controversial and much delayed regulations supporting the UIGEA, which were rushed through in the twilight months of the Bush administration and are due to finally go into effect on 1st December.
This will allow the new Democrat controlled Congress to decide a national policy.
Representative McDermott is also re-introducing a companion bill aimed at ensuring that individual and corporate taxes owed on regulated Internet gambling activities are collected.
There are already rumblings from Republican politicians like Spencer Bachus, and from national sports leagues and conservative Christian groups, which indicate that the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act is unlikely to enjoy a trouble-free passage.
New title but similar precautions
The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Barney Frank released details of his new legislative proposal aimed at legalising online gambling in the United States Wednesday ahead of a delayed press conference re-scheduled to late afternoon Washington time.
Titled the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act the proposal seeks to overturn the controversial and much villified Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in 2006, which outlawed financial transactions with online gambling companies and has caused billions in damages to European companies forced to withdraw from the US market.
The bill seeks to issue licenses to online gambling operators, but only those who are in good financial and legal standing and of good character, honesty and integrity, and whose prior activities, reputation, habits and associations do not pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of of the licensed activities.
Pre-licensing checks are likely to be stringent, and would be operators will have to demonstrate that they possess the requisite expertise to professionally manage Internet gambling operations. There will be an insistence on operators having the technology and systems necessary to effectively combat money laundering and fraud, exclude underage and problem gamblers, meet tax requirements and comply with US federal and state laws.
Applications are open to all entities, who will have to supply detailed financial records and personal details of directors in order that credit and criminal histories can be checked.
The nature and depth of background checks will be decided by the Secretary for the Treasury, who will be charged with the approval and monitoring of licensees and may call on the US Attorney General for enforcement and compliance issues.
Licensing terms will be for five years, renewable conditional on good conduct and efficiency, and the Secretary for the Treasury will have authority to terminate the licenses at any time if a licensee does not comply with requirements. Terms of imprisonment of up to five years are provided for under the Act.
Congressman Frank later told reporters that he intends to move the bill before the House's August break, but that he will be introducing special legislation titled the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act of 2009 aimed at delaying for a year the implementation of the highly controversial and much delayed regulations supporting the UIGEA, which were rushed through in the twilight months of the Bush administration and are due to finally go into effect on 1st December.
This will allow the new Democrat controlled Congress to decide a national policy.
Representative McDermott is also re-introducing a companion bill aimed at ensuring that individual and corporate taxes owed on regulated Internet gambling activities are collected.
There are already rumblings from Republican politicians like Spencer Bachus, and from national sports leagues and conservative Christian groups, which indicate that the Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act is unlikely to enjoy a trouble-free passage.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
True, BUT They will also lose 99% of their USA business when/if this does pass. I can't speak for anyone else, but once this passes, I will no longer play at any casinos that won't get a license, unless they treat me like gold, and have for some time already...
But hopefully this will allow the some of the best outfits back into the USA.
Yep, that's what I'm expecting, at least....plus I would almost expect Harrah's and PartyGaming to either merge or work out some sort of agreement..
Nah, there's too much money at stake, plus the USA is in debt for $10 trillion +, so they need all they can get.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Just got in on lunch break. Haven't had a chance to look at these. These are PDF files...
********
P.S..... I heart Barney
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
********
P.S..... I heart Barney
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
I
too!
And no, I'm not a man-whore.
And no, I'm not a man-whore.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
Just as a sort of complementary thought .... here's I. Nelson Rose
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Location
- usa
from fox news
Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Peter King, R-N.Y., unveiled legislation Wednesday that would enable Americans to legally gamble online.
"The government should not interfere with people's liberty unless there is a good reason," Frank said. "This is, I believe, the single biggest example of an intrusion into the principle that people should be free to do things on the Internet. It's clearly the case that gambling is an activity that can be done offline but not online."
The law currently prohibits credit card companies and banks from processing bets placed on online gambling Web sites.
The legislation will repeal language passed in 2006 and signed into law by President Bush that made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to process bets made on the Internet.
Opponents argue that this will serve as a "clear danger to our youth" and encourage gambling addiction at a young age.
"If you put a computer in a teenager's bedroom, or in a student's dorm room at college, it's a temptation that many fall prey to," Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said in a statement. "In fact, studies have shown that the earlier one begins gambling, the more likely it is he or she will become a compulsive problem gambler."
But Frank said his bill will include safeguards to prevent underage or compulsive gambling and other illegal activity.
"The notion that a society should prohibit something entirely because of the possibility that children will abuse it is a terrible blow to liberty," Frank said.
Among the safeguards in the bill is that any Internet gambling operator would be required to: ensure an individual placing a bet is of legal age (as defined by the law in the state or tribal area) and physically located in that jurisdiction, combats compulsive Internet gambling and money laundering, and protects privacy.
Frank added that he feels this will lift the burden off banks, which are compelled under the current legislation to regulate gambling activity.
The Poker Players Alliance, chaired by former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, supports the bill. D'Amato said Wednesday in a press release that he is "grateful for Chairman Frank's leadership and will be activating our grassroots army made up of over one million members to help him drive legislation."
Michael Brodsky, head of Youbet.com, an online gambling Web site, praised Frank's bill.
"Banning Internet gambling has the same effect as the ban on alcohol had during Prohibition," Brodsky said. "It merely drives the activity underground, forgoes massive tax revenues and makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
"Chairman Frank's bill realities and would bring this underground activity into the light," he added.
Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Peter King, R-N.Y., unveiled legislation Wednesday that would enable Americans to legally gamble online.
"The government should not interfere with people's liberty unless there is a good reason," Frank said. "This is, I believe, the single biggest example of an intrusion into the principle that people should be free to do things on the Internet. It's clearly the case that gambling is an activity that can be done offline but not online."
The law currently prohibits credit card companies and banks from processing bets placed on online gambling Web sites.
The legislation will repeal language passed in 2006 and signed into law by President Bush that made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to process bets made on the Internet.
Opponents argue that this will serve as a "clear danger to our youth" and encourage gambling addiction at a young age.
"If you put a computer in a teenager's bedroom, or in a student's dorm room at college, it's a temptation that many fall prey to," Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said in a statement. "In fact, studies have shown that the earlier one begins gambling, the more likely it is he or she will become a compulsive problem gambler."
But Frank said his bill will include safeguards to prevent underage or compulsive gambling and other illegal activity.
"The notion that a society should prohibit something entirely because of the possibility that children will abuse it is a terrible blow to liberty," Frank said.
Among the safeguards in the bill is that any Internet gambling operator would be required to: ensure an individual placing a bet is of legal age (as defined by the law in the state or tribal area) and physically located in that jurisdiction, combats compulsive Internet gambling and money laundering, and protects privacy.
Frank added that he feels this will lift the burden off banks, which are compelled under the current legislation to regulate gambling activity.
The Poker Players Alliance, chaired by former New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, supports the bill. D'Amato said Wednesday in a press release that he is "grateful for Chairman Frank's leadership and will be activating our grassroots army made up of over one million members to help him drive legislation."
Michael Brodsky, head of Youbet.com, an online gambling Web site, praised Frank's bill.
"Banning Internet gambling has the same effect as the ban on alcohol had during Prohibition," Brodsky said. "It merely drives the activity underground, forgoes massive tax revenues and makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
"Chairman Frank's bill realities and would bring this underground activity into the light," he added.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Location
- In the Beautiful South !!
Itoo!
And no, I'm not a man-whore.
uh huh, sure Win, i believe you
.........I do believe there is alot of money out there that could be brought into the U.S economy in taxes and alot of good things could be done with this..........Barney Frank.............laurie
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
You know it's going to pass when FAUX news doesn't come right out and slam the bill and compare Barney Frank to the devil
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Location
- Pasadena, Texas
Has anyone ever read if this bill includes online casinos on the whole or only poker rooms ? I keep seeing his comments about online poker, poker rooms but never really a statement it would be for online gambling in general. I know that sportsbooks would be excluded.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
The way I read it, it includes both online casinos and poker rooms, but specifically excludes sportsbetting - obviously to reduce the venom of opposers like the national sports leagues.
And the PPA seems happy with it, pledging that their members will help promote the bill to politicians - probably through another "contact your representative" campaign, lobbying and personal political contacts.
The proposed bill looks to have tried to address most political concerns, with strong vetting of potential operators and demands for strict oversight, requirements for systems to safeguard the vulnerable and underaged and anti-money laundering measures.
It also tries to put the minds of the individual states at ease by including stipulations designed to reassure them that as a federal act it does nothing to challenge their autonomy of decision on Internet gambling.
McDermott's companion bill could be a major revenue raiser as promised, suggesting a 2 percent levy on all deposits.
And the financial services sector will be pleased if the burden of UIGEA enforcement can be lifted from their shoulders (the Treasury will monitor the new law, aided by the AG on the enforcement and compliance side). The UIGEA is already causing major problems for the banks and for various state lotteries and horseracing bodies impacted by their 'legal' or 'illegal' decisions on transactions....as was predicted by many US experts.
It's going to be an interesting fight, and this bill seems well enough designed to present a good debating platform imo.
And the PPA seems happy with it, pledging that their members will help promote the bill to politicians - probably through another "contact your representative" campaign, lobbying and personal political contacts.
The proposed bill looks to have tried to address most political concerns, with strong vetting of potential operators and demands for strict oversight, requirements for systems to safeguard the vulnerable and underaged and anti-money laundering measures.
It also tries to put the minds of the individual states at ease by including stipulations designed to reassure them that as a federal act it does nothing to challenge their autonomy of decision on Internet gambling.
McDermott's companion bill could be a major revenue raiser as promised, suggesting a 2 percent levy on all deposits.
And the financial services sector will be pleased if the burden of UIGEA enforcement can be lifted from their shoulders (the Treasury will monitor the new law, aided by the AG on the enforcement and compliance side). The UIGEA is already causing major problems for the banks and for various state lotteries and horseracing bodies impacted by their 'legal' or 'illegal' decisions on transactions....as was predicted by many US experts.
It's going to be an interesting fight, and this bill seems well enough designed to present a good debating platform imo.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Location
- Pasadena, Texas
Another view of the bill by Barney
The bills by Barney Frank and Jim McDermott include measures to tax online gambling sites two percent of gross revenue and to assure all winnings are taxed as income.
While much of the online casino industry considered this week a huge step forward, with the release of US legislation to license and regulate Internet gambling, there are some rumblings about the potential tax structure. The bills by Barney Frank and Jim McDermott include measures to tax online gambling sites two percent of gross revenue and to assure all winnings are taxed as income.
Industry officials say a similar giddy mood erupted when the United Kingdom agreed to regulate and license online gaming, only to find that Prime Minister Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, established such a high tax rate that many operators refused to apply for licensing.
OCA gaming analyst Sherman Bradley says Internet casino owners had hoped taxation would be placed on profits, rather than total intake. Meanwhile, frequent online players wonder how the recording of their results will affect their personal taxes.
"A major reason people play online slots is because the payout is so advantageous to land casinos," says a long-time online gambling insider who insisted on anonymity. "Now, government gets involved, and jacks the cost of running Internet casinos up, to where the return on machines has to be lowered."
Bradley notes that at least online patrons won't have the misfortune of having to prove their losses, as they do with land casino gaming. Because all transactions will be preserved, there will be an accurate record of both losses and wins. At land casinos, big paydays are taxed, and then it's up to the player to prove losses.
"Bureaucrats will drain the excitement from the games, taking so much money for tax that players will leave the sites," says online regular patron Tommy P. "After all, what's the worst return in all of gambling? The state-run games, like lotteries. Government gambling is the one type of gaming that truly fits the picture of evil, oppressive gaming beating down the average guy."
Published on May 9, 2009 by Tom Weston
The bills by Barney Frank and Jim McDermott include measures to tax online gambling sites two percent of gross revenue and to assure all winnings are taxed as income.
While much of the online casino industry considered this week a huge step forward, with the release of US legislation to license and regulate Internet gambling, there are some rumblings about the potential tax structure. The bills by Barney Frank and Jim McDermott include measures to tax online gambling sites two percent of gross revenue and to assure all winnings are taxed as income.
Industry officials say a similar giddy mood erupted when the United Kingdom agreed to regulate and license online gaming, only to find that Prime Minister Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, established such a high tax rate that many operators refused to apply for licensing.
OCA gaming analyst Sherman Bradley says Internet casino owners had hoped taxation would be placed on profits, rather than total intake. Meanwhile, frequent online players wonder how the recording of their results will affect their personal taxes.
"A major reason people play online slots is because the payout is so advantageous to land casinos," says a long-time online gambling insider who insisted on anonymity. "Now, government gets involved, and jacks the cost of running Internet casinos up, to where the return on machines has to be lowered."
Bradley notes that at least online patrons won't have the misfortune of having to prove their losses, as they do with land casino gaming. Because all transactions will be preserved, there will be an accurate record of both losses and wins. At land casinos, big paydays are taxed, and then it's up to the player to prove losses.
"Bureaucrats will drain the excitement from the games, taking so much money for tax that players will leave the sites," says online regular patron Tommy P. "After all, what's the worst return in all of gambling? The state-run games, like lotteries. Government gambling is the one type of gaming that truly fits the picture of evil, oppressive gaming beating down the average guy."
Published on May 9, 2009 by Tom Weston
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Tommy P. needs to get a grip. Using the UK as an example of what the tax structure will look like is highly misleading because there Gordon Brown flatly stated that he was against online gambling and that he would jack up the tax in order to deter gambling activity in the first place.
Also, no one is saying anything about the government _running_ the casinos which is what they most certainly do in the case of state lotteries.
And finally this "evil, oppressive gaming beating down the average guy" stuff is just paranoid puffery. Show me the poor "average guy" who has been "beaten down" by "evil, oppressive gaming" and I'll show you someone who's lost their grip on reality.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Location
- USA, N.C.
You know, I think that's the first time I've seen Barney's tie on " straight"!
I've always liked this fellow. He gets things done.
I've always liked this fellow. He gets things done.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Location
- Up$hitCreek
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
6:00 am May 15, 2009, by Bob Barr
In 2006, the Congress which was then still controlled by the Republican Party, passed legislation (then signed by President George W. Bush) that explictly restricted internet gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UNIGEA) did this by prohibiting banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions from processing or transferring gambling-related funds. While the 2006 law has made it virtually impossible ...
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
6:00 am May 15, 2009, by Bob Barr
In 2006, the Congress which was then still controlled by the Republican Party, passed legislation (then signed by President George W. Bush) that explictly restricted internet gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UNIGEA) did this by prohibiting banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions from processing or transferring gambling-related funds. While the 2006 law has made it virtually impossible ...
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- LaLa Land
In LaLa land where I reside, we are having a special election comming up, one bill has to do with the lottery - now mind you we already have the lottery which was touted originally to help fund the schools, but now that we are virtually almost bankrupt, teachers are being laid off left and right, funding is all but disappearing, someone bonehead put this bill together:
LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT.
Allows the state lottery to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management.
Requires the state to maintain ownership of the lottery and authorizes additional accountability measures. Protects funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues. Increased lottery revenues will be used to address current budget deficit and reduce the need for additional tax increases and cuts to state programs.
Summary of Legislative Analysts Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Impact on 200910 State Budget: Allows $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance the 200910 state budget.
Impact on Future State Budgets: Debt-service payments on the lottery borrowing and higher payments to education would likely make it more difficult to balance future state budgets. This impact would be lessened by potentially higher lottery profits. Additional lottery borrowing would be allowed.
Maybe I am so blond the hair dye has done something to my brain cells. You don't want me sitting in my den gambling on line in my jamies, in fear I become addicted, and will be contributing to the decline of morality. If I write my State Rep, and I have emailed him a LOT about legalizing On Line Gambling I just get canned responses that reflect Terrorists, Homeland Security, Money Laundering, Organized Crime.
But you want me to pass a bill so you can legally encourage me to gamble MORE so I can help you balance the budget (like I don't pay taxes up the wazoo as it is), and a LOT more, cause you are going to be immediately borrowing 5 million from money on lottery tickets I haven't even bought yet the day after the polls close.
Honestly, just from a common sense viewpoint, people are going to gamble on line, some how, some way if they like to gamble...period. There is a LOT of money, tax the dang thing and be done with it. The government gets money, the states would get money (and wouldn't be depending on me to get their hineys out of the hole a dollar at a time)
Enough of a rant my blood pressure is starting to go up.
Marcie
LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT.
Allows the state lottery to be modernized to improve its performance with increased payouts, improved marketing, and effective management.
Requires the state to maintain ownership of the lottery and authorizes additional accountability measures. Protects funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues. Increased lottery revenues will be used to address current budget deficit and reduce the need for additional tax increases and cuts to state programs.
Summary of Legislative Analysts Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Impact on 200910 State Budget: Allows $5 billion of borrowing from future lottery profits to help balance the 200910 state budget.
Impact on Future State Budgets: Debt-service payments on the lottery borrowing and higher payments to education would likely make it more difficult to balance future state budgets. This impact would be lessened by potentially higher lottery profits. Additional lottery borrowing would be allowed.
Maybe I am so blond the hair dye has done something to my brain cells. You don't want me sitting in my den gambling on line in my jamies, in fear I become addicted, and will be contributing to the decline of morality. If I write my State Rep, and I have emailed him a LOT about legalizing On Line Gambling I just get canned responses that reflect Terrorists, Homeland Security, Money Laundering, Organized Crime.
But you want me to pass a bill so you can legally encourage me to gamble MORE so I can help you balance the budget (like I don't pay taxes up the wazoo as it is), and a LOT more, cause you are going to be immediately borrowing 5 million from money on lottery tickets I haven't even bought yet the day after the polls close.
Honestly, just from a common sense viewpoint, people are going to gamble on line, some how, some way if they like to gamble...period. There is a LOT of money, tax the dang thing and be done with it. The government gets money, the states would get money (and wouldn't be depending on me to get their hineys out of the hole a dollar at a time)
Enough of a rant my blood pressure is starting to go up.
Marcie
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
In my humble opinion.
The US State Lotteries are nothing more than a tax on the Naive...
Have you ever looked at the odds on us lotteries... Outrageous!
Powerball Jackpot odds
1 in 195,249,054.00
Mega Millions Jackpot odds
1 in 175,711,536.00
The US State Lotteries are nothing more than a tax on the Naive...
Have you ever looked at the odds on us lotteries... Outrageous!
Powerball Jackpot odds
1 in 195,249,054.00
Mega Millions Jackpot odds
1 in 175,711,536.00
Similar threads
