H.R. 2267: Internet Gambling Reg., Consumer Protect., and Enforcement Act Passes

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
House Financial Services Committee Meeting on Internet Gambling Wednesday
A hearing on Barney Frank's bill to license and regulate the Internet gambling industry has been scheduled for Wednesday at 2 p.m. EST in the House Financial Services Committee.

In May, Frank had promised a committee markup, or vote, on the bill in July. This will not be that markup, rather an opportunity for discussion and testimony on the legislation.

John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, said it is typical for the committee to hold a hearing prior to a markup and expects a markup to follow next week.

There was one previous hearing on the legislation, referred to as HR 2267, in December. Since then, Capitol Hill has remained largely silent on the topic of Internet poker. In May, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) held a hearing on his companion bill to tax the industry in the Ways and Means Committee. Frank testified at that hearing, promising that his bill would receive markup in July.

2010 July 20, Matthew Kredell
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
The hearing was pushed back an hour because Annie Duke will be one of the witnesses




Financial Services Committee Hearing Features Annie Duke
Jul 20th, 2010

Wednesday’s hearing on internet gambling in the House Financial Services Committee has been pushed back one hour to 2:00pm ET. Also announced on Tuesday were the five witnesses that will present testimony in front of the Barney Frank-led group.

Included in the panel is Poker News Daily Guest Columnist, UB.com sponsored pro, and reigning National Heads-Up Poker Championship winner Annie Duke. The “Celebrity Apprentice” runner-up’s testimony was published on the House Financial Services Committee’s website earlier today and reads in part, “At its most basic level, the issue before this committee is personal freedom – the right of individual Americans to do what they want in the privacy of their homes without the intrusion of the government.”

Duke will speak on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the 1.2 million member strong lobbying group for the industry. After providing several personal freedom arguments, Duke will share a new vantage point on HR 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act: “To be clear, HR 2267 is not a bill that expands internet gambling in America. It simply provides the appropriate government safeguards to an industry that currently exists and continues to grow.”

By Dan Cypra
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
More stuff I found on this story.



Barney Frank & Annie Duke Vs the Republicans

Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act
Date: July 21, 2010
Time: 2:00PM
Location: 2128 Rayburn House Office Building
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Internet Gambling Regulation Takes Center Stage before House Financial Services Committee
Full Committee Hearing Reengages Members, Positions Bill for a Mark-Up

WASHINGTON, July 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to discuss the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267). The legislation, introduced by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), would regulate Internet gambling activity in the U.S. and require licensed operators to put in place safeguards to protect against underage and problem gambling.

"With the recent passage of financial reform legislation, it's great to see the Financial Services Committee now with the opportunity to focus its attention on other issues such as Internet gambling regulation," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "Today's hearing demonstrates that regulating Internet gambling remains a top priority for Chairman Frank. We're optimistic that this hearing will give the Committee the final push it needs to schedule a vote on the bill."
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


[Press Release] House Financial Services Committee Holds Hearing on Internet Poker Bill (07/21/10)
Link Removed (invalid URL)
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
Just to add some more to this story


The Monitor's View
Bill to legalize Internet gambling: No dice

The House financial committee will mark up a bill Tuesday to legalize Internet gambling. Even many in the US industry oppose it. It is largely foreign gaming websites that are behind this attempt to overturn the 2006 ban.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board / July 23, 2010

Fresh from fixing Wall Street’s casinolike ways in high finance, Congress begins work Tuesday on a bill to overturn a 2006 law banning Internet gambling in the US. The measure is being rushed through the House Financial Services Committee on a promise that it would create 30,000 jobs and billions in tax revenue.

President Obama hinted at his support for online gambling last year by delaying regulations under the 2006 law in order to give Congress time to change it. The regulations force American credit firms to block payments to offshore gambling operators.

What’s exactly behind this drive to expand gambling in the US, especially a type done privately in the home rather than in a casino? Obviously there is the lure of money for both the government and the campaign coffers of politicians supporting this bill. (The same lure drives efforts to legalize marijuana.)

But as former federal prosecutor Michael Fagan told the House panel marking up the bill: “Any parent who’s puzzled or despaired over their child’s trancelike playing of video games during the past 20 years can readily see why Internet gambling operators are drooling over the chance to legally expand their market base into the United States.”

This foreign lobby and its domestic supporters want Congress to gloss over the negative effects of allowing gambling on every smart phone and laptop, where even a 10-year-old with a parent’s credit card might be able to wage bets at any time of day.

“It’s ‘click the mouse, lose your house,’ ” states business professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois.

Weeding out gambling addicts on the Internet can also be very difficult. As Mr. Fagan points out: “At least responsible brick-and-mortar casino operators can look a gambler in the eye and make the human assessment of whether he is too drunk, mentally unhinged, despondent and desperate, or otherwise at a point where it is simply unfair to take advantage of him any longer.”

The proposed law would also likely prove weak in preventing gambling on sports. The pressure on athletes from gaming interests to throw a game would only increase under national Internet gambling.

The estimates of up to $42 billion a year in tax revenue from Internet gambling have been seriously challenged by the bill’s opponents. But beyond the advantage to the US Treasury, Spencer Bachus, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, asks: “How does raking in cash from gambling addicts differ from taking a cut from the heroin sold to drug addicts?”

Other problems may hopefully keep this bill from passage:

It sets down a federal right to gamble and undercuts the ability of states and Indian tribes to regulate gambling. It doesn’t require operators of such sites to reside in the US where they can be properly regulated – and prevented from using computers to manipulate online players. And while states would be able to opt out of this law, the bill calls on only the governor to make that decision, and within 90 days of the bill’s passage.

If foreign online gambling interests can easily influence passage of this bill, imagine what it might do to eventually water down regulations over their industry.

The House Financial Services chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, needs to drop this bill and find other ways to raise revenue and create jobs than open the door to redistributing wealth from mainly poor Americans to mainly foreign gambling interests.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

~~~~~~~
House Financial Services Committee Schedules Mark Up of Internet Gambling Regulation Bill
WASHINGTON, July 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Yesterday, the House Committee on Financial Services announced that the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), legislation introduced by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) that would regulate gambling in the United States, will be marked up on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:00 am in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The mark up, which comes on the heels of Wednesday's hearing on the legislation before the full Financial Services Committee, is a critical next step for the bill to become law.

"This mark up demonstrates that Congress is serious about moving Chairman Frank's bill forward and establishing a strict regulatory framework for Internet gambling activity," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "The passage of this legislation would be a win-win as it will protect consumers, create an estimated 32,000 new jobs over five years and provide federal and state governments with as much as $72 billion in new revenues over ten years."

The legislation, introduced by Chairman Frank in May 2009, would establish a framework to permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers from individuals in the U.S. In addition to mandating an array of consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary. Since its introduction, a bi-partisan group of 69 co-sponsors has signed onto the legislation. A recent analysis by H2 Gambling capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

silcnlayc

Just one more spin pleez!
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Left Hungary
rouletteguy If they "tax" casino's won't that lead to even "tighter" casino's ?
Not in reality...it will be monitored and we can feel much safer in being paid, a more fair game and a better regulation...no funny stuff as it is now...where one cannot quite put their finger on it...IMO

.
 

manofsteel

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Location
Philippines
If they "tax" casino's won't that lead to even "tighter" casino's ?

This is obviously a complex issue involving state, federal and international tax laws but the bottom line is that the casino's wouldn't be interested in entering U.S. markets if they didn't think they could be making more money from those markets.

So, theoretically, the casinos should be making more money, not less.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
This is all covered in Friday's Casinomeister News, btw folks, and CM has been following the evolution of this legislative proposal for years.

Legalised online gambling in the United States - which remains the biggest market in the industry - is the holy grail of all the major, well established and upfront online gambling groups, who would love to operate in the States (but have some fears that a commercially protectionist regulatory regime could be a threat).

If Barney Frank does finally manage to get this done - and there are huge obstacles to overcome - I believe it would be good for the player for the following reasons:

1) You can bet that the licensing requirements will prominently feature provisions to ensure fair play (tested software etc), blocking underage gamblers and strong responsible gambling requirements. That's going to discourage many of those duff operators screwing players around today.

2) Operators will probably be big companies with healthy wallets and a target of high volume player action, and that probably means some very attractive software, customer relations and promotions, enhancing the internet gambling experience. Think of the sort of online experience and comps that top US casino groups like MGM and Harrah's could lay on!

3) The competitive pressure (assuming that the legislation encourages fair competition and not political favourites) will be good for the player and bad for those crappy offshore operators and software providers (we all have our own lists of those) who have been treating players with contempt for years.

4) The downside is the still unknown impact on the player of taxation, but from an American national perspective legalising online gambling if handled sensibly by government could generate both jobs and state revenues.

5) Frank's HR 2267 contains provisions for states to opt out, so the autonomy of states is not diminished.

6) Players will no longer need to be jerked around by the UIGEA, midnight flit processors, delays and difficulty in getting paid.

7) Finally - and I write this tongue-in-cheek - it will get the WTO and Antigua off your backs!
 

gloria460

Meister Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Location
Florida
Before voting, the committee approved amendments to delegate enforcement duties to states and tribes, continue a ban on betting on sporting events, ban marketing aimed at children, and prohibit companies that violated the 2006 ban from obtaining licenses

It appears, if it passes, that most rivals and rtgs won't be allowed to obtain a license...good article
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
O M G no rivals :D
As the proposed federal licensing requirements are written, not any of the current off-shores would come close to being eligible for licensing. Subject to change but not based on any current casino whatever's BS.
 

yameater

Meister Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Location
USA, N.C.
HR2267 passed finance committee

I just received an e-mail from the PPA stating that HR2267 passed the finance committee 42-21. :D Most all of the opposition votes were Republican.
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
Bill allowing online gambling passes House test


A bill that would license, regulate and essentially condone Internet gambling and, in an unexpected development, ban the use of credit cards to placing online bets -- passed its first congressional test Wednesday.
The House Financial Services Committee voted 41-22 to approve the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), which moves the bill closer to consideration by the full House of Representatives.

In something of a surprise, the panel also voted in favor of an amendment that prohibits the use of credit cards for making Internet bets.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the committee's chairman, the bill's main sponsor and a leading supporter of online gambling, said the provision protects gamblers from getting in way over their heads -- and adding to the already substantial problem of unpaid credit card debts.

"We're saying you cannot make these bets with a credit card," Frank said. "You can do it with a debit card or prepaid arrangements.
By Martin Merzer
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



Online gambling regulations bill approved by House committee

28 July 2010 Vin Narayanan In a 41-22-1 vote, the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would license and regulate online gambling in the United States. The decisive vote is a sign of a how far the Democratic Congress..


Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
 

BingoT

Nurses love to give shots
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Location
Hartford,Ct
I like the New York Times Politics
Here is the story


Congress Rethinks Its Ban on Internet Gambling

WASHINGTON — With pressure mounting on the federal government to find new revenues, Congress is considering legalizing, and taxing, an activity it banned just four years ago: Internet gambling.

On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill that would effectively legalize online poker and other nonsports betting, overturning a 2006 federal ban that critics say merely drove Web-based casinos offshore.

The bill would direct the Treasury Department to license and regulate Internet gambling operations, while a companion measure, pending before another committee, would allow the Internal Revenue Service to tax such businesses. Winnings by individuals would also be taxed, as regular gambling winnings are now. The taxes could yield as much as $42 billion for the government over 10 years, supporters said.

The two measures — which are backed by banks and credit unions but have divided casinos and American Indian tribes — are far from becoming law. A bill to legalize online poker sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, has not yet had a hearing. The Congressional timetable has little spare room before the midterm elections, and the Obama administration has not taken a position.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

By SEWELL CHAN
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
As the proposed federal licensing requirements are written, not any of the current off-shores would come close to being eligible for licensing. Subject to change but not based on any current casino whatever's BS.

I think also there was an amendment that stipulated the operators had to have US domiciled offices and employ predominantly US people, although I didn't note if this got included in the final draft.
 

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
I think also there was an amendment that stipulated the operators had to have US domiciled offices and employ predominantly US people, although I didn't note if this got included in the final draft.
I am not aware of that amendment if so.

Here is a link to the entire "Text of H.R. 2267: Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Offshores Out= ‘(3) UNSUITABLE FOR LICENSING- An applicant or any other person may not be determined to be suitable for licensing within the meaning of this subchapter if the applicant or such person--

‘(A) has failed to provide information and documentation material to a determination of suitability for licensing under paragraph (1);

‘(B) has supplied information which is untrue or misleading as to a material fact pertaining to any such determination;

‘(C) has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment of more than 1 year; or

‘(D)is delinquent in filing any applicable Federal or State tax returns or in the payment of any taxes, penalties, additions to tax, or interest owed to a State or the United States.


Interesting=(2) SUITABILITY FOR LICENSING STANDARDS DESCRIBED- For purposes of this subchapter, an applicant and any other person associated with the applicant, as applicable, is suitable for licensing if the applicant demonstrates to the Secretary by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant (or individual associated with the applicant, as applicable)--

‘(A) is a person of good character, honesty, and integrity;

‘(B) is a person whose prior activities, reputation, habits, and associations do not--

‘(i) pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation and control of the licensed activities; or

‘(ii) create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices, methods, and activities in the conduct of the licensed activities or the carrying on of the business and financial arrangements incidental to such activities;

‘(C) is capable of and likely to conduct the activities for which the applicant is licensed in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and any regulations prescribed under this subchapter;

‘(D) has or guarantees acquisition of adequate business competence and experience in the operation of Internet gambling facilities; and

‘(E) has or will obtain sufficient financing for the nature of the proposed operation and from a suitable source.......=INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ARE ROGUE AND HOPEFULLY ONE DAY PROVEN TO BE CRIMINAL!! ALSO SEE (B)(ii) ABOVE
 
Last edited:

rouletteguy

Experienced Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Location
Ontario
It might be irrelevant for U.S. player's but your getting taxed when you get paid from your job, risking it, then getting taxed again on a slim odds bet?
seems to me there should be a method to offset all losses from taxes as well.

If you win 10 grand but over the years you "invested" 9 grand you should only be taxed on 1 thousand. That should not be open to "professional" gambler's only.

If I had any brains I'd be learning the laws and loop holes and opening a business that catered exclusively to helping gambler's get all their winnings
when this all comes into effect because it'll be big business.
 

love2winalot

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Location
Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
Hiya; Right now, the only people watching all of this is us, the on line players in America. It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the general public will be when, and if, it gets close to coming up for the actual vote.

Gambling releated ventures are very hard to actually pass into law. There are several states that have tried to make a State Lottery, and they always get shot down, because the public, as a whole, does not want it, because the public, as a whole, do not gamble.

Lets face it, it will come down to this question, from the congress. "What will get me the most votes at election time, voting for, or voting against legal on line gambling?
 

P.V.

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
Break down, enjoy.

A few points to add, might have been addressed above but not sure. It does break things down a bit.

Amendment 1 (Congressman Brad Sherman, Calif.): Sites that have intentionally broken Internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. Amendment is taken to a voice vote, where representatives are asked to motion whether they are in favor or against the amendment. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 2 (Congressman Peter King, New York): Prohibits sports betting, excluding horseracing. King and several other representatives strongly support the notion of keeping sports clean and away from anything that will undermine the integrity of the game. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 3 (Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio): Secretary of Treasury has the power to prohibit unsolicited emails and advertisements targeted to minors and problem gamblers. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 4 (Congressman Spencer Bachus, Alabama, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Minnesota): Forbids offshore sites that have illegally done business in the US, along with people who have been employed by said sites, from getting a license. Bachus aims to include everyone associated with an “illegally-run” online gambling site be banned; Frank disputes the provision, saying that a janitor or restaurant worker employed inside of a brick and mortar casino would not be held responsible for the mishandlings of upper management; the same should hold true for an online company. Bachus withdraws amendment and says he would like to resubmit. Bachus reintroduces amendment later in the day, stipulating that only those who knew they were working at an illegally-run Internet site will be banned from obtaining a license. Amendment is later voted on by roll-call.


Amendment 5 (Congressman Joe Baca, Calif.): Allows Indian tribes to participate in Internet gambling. Frank quickly denies the amendment as it is not germane, or relevant to the subject.


Amendment 6 (Congressman Joe Baca, Calif): Allow states/tribes to opt-in to Internet gambling. Frank emphasizes that the choice to gamble online should be up to the person, not to the state where they reside. Amendment denied by voice vote, but is later voted on by roll-call.


Amendment 7 (Congressman John Campbell, Calif): Includes several provisions: 1.) All facilities of licensees that operate and/or accept wagers be located in the US; 2.) States and tribes must have parallel authority; 3.) Bettors must be at least 21 years of age; 4.) Age and residence of bettors must be verified; 5.) Odds of winning at each game must be posted online, 6.) The identities of legal and illegal gambling sites must be verified by the treasury in order for banks to prohibit certain financial transactions; 7.) Owners must meet licensing requirements; 8.) Sites must provide loss limits for each bettor. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 8 (Congressman Brad Sherman, Calif.): States are given one full legislative session to opt out, as opposed to the original period of 90 days. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 9 (Congressman John Campbell, Calif): Internet sites who advertise towards minors will have their license revoked. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 10 (Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Illinois): Treasury is required to observe Internet sites and accordingly sanction fines and revoke licenses if minors are found gambling. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 11 (Manager’s amendment — the majority and minority member who managed the debate): Bets are to be made with prepaid cards and debit cards only; bettors will be restricted from using credit cards on Internet gambling sites. In addition, the House Financial Services Committee will have no jurisdiction on tribal rights. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 12 (Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Minnesota): Internet sites are forbidden from allowing people who are delinquent on child support from gambling on their site. Sites who don’t obey this rule lose their license. Amendment passes by voice vote.


Amendment 13 (Congressman Gary Peters, Michigan): State and tribal lotteries are exempt from licensing requirements, as long as they are intrastate activities. Currently, these lotteries are already subject to state licensing, and the Federal government should not get involved. Amendment passes by voice vote.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Admin Note: renamed thread

Renamed thread to "H.R. 2267: Internet Gambling Reg., Consumer Protect., and Enforcement Act Passes" since it has passed the Committee :thumbsup:
 
Top