U.S. Legalisation - movement at last

[jetset]

MOVEMENT AT LAST - US LEGALISATION BILLS HEARING DATE SET

Barney Frank's bills HR227 and 2266 ready to go

After months of being delayed in the House Financial Services Committee by more pressing economic issues, it looks as if the legalisation of online gambling in the United States is about to come back onstage.

Two bills - HR2267 seeking to legalise and regulate online gambling, and HR2266 proposing to postpone the implementation of the UIGEA regulations by a year - are scheduled for public hearings by the committee in Washington DC on Thursday, December 3rd 2009 at 10 am.

The hearings will be broadcast over the Web with the link on the committee's website, whilst the hearings will be held in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building, covering HR 2266, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act and HR 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Both proposals were introduced in May 2009 by Congressman Barney Frank, who is also chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

HR 2266 has 53 bi-partisan co-sponsors, whilst HR 2267 has 63 co-sponsors.

The hearings are the first really major development in the United States legalisation of online gambling since September 2008, when Franks HR 6870 was approved by a 30-19 margin, but failed to complete the 110th Congress and lapsed.

The House Financial Services Committee is comprised of 41 Democrats and 29 Republicans, chaired by Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank.

Strong opposition to any legalisation can be expected from the leader of the Republicans on the committee, Representative Spencer Bachus, long an opponent of Internet gambling.

 

[Simmo!]

Link Removed (invalid URL) for those that want a link to watch the session next week For those that have never watched or listened to the HoR in session it's eye opening and debates are very well organised. Also should be some amusing comments from detractors I would imagine.

We should open up a spread bet on the first time "family values" gets mentioned by a rep from a State with land-based casinos

 

[lots0]

My 2 cents...

If your entertained by Hypocrisy... This hearing should be right up there with the music award shows...

 

[jetset]

Hopeful sign.

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner reportedly compromised on the December 1st implementation date for the UIGEA regulations following various petitions from organisations like the PPA, the horseracing industry, individuals and politicians (notable among them this week 6 Kentucky Representatives).

An announcement is expected this week, but it is understood from iMEGA and other sources that the regulations will be postponed for 6 months - a compromise on the 12 months proposed by Barney Frank, but still useful.

 

[Simmo!]

Hopeful sign.

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Geithner reportedly compromised on the December 1st implementation date for the UIGEA regulations following various petitions from organisations like the PPA, the horseracing industry, individuals and politicians (notable among them this week 6 Kentucky Representatives).

An announcement is expected this week, but it is understood from iMEGA and other sources that the regulations will be postponed for 6 months - a compromise on the 12 months proposed by Barney Frank, but still useful.

Presumably that means they can spend less time debating the Delaying Bill and more time on the Regulation Bill next week?

 

[jetset]

Speaking of which, the Fed and the US Treasury have agreed to postpone the implementation of the UIGEA regs by six months - to June 1st 2010.

 

[Mousey]

Frank's Statement

Got this from the FSDUpdate email...

For Immediate Release:

November 27, 2009



Frank Statement on Implementation of Internet Gambling Regulations



Washington, DCHouse Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank today made the following statement after the announcement by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve that it would delay implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) for six months:



The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors deserve a great deal of credit for suspending these midnight regulations promulgated by the Bush administration which would curtail the freedom of Americans to use the internet as they choose and which would pose unrealistic burdens on the entire financial community, said Congressman Frank. This will give us a chance to act in an unhurried manner on my legislation to undo this regulatory excess by the Bush administration and to undo this ill-advised law.

 

[greek39]

The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors deserve a great deal of credit for suspending these midnight regulations promulgated by the Bush administration which would curtail the freedom of Americans to use the internet as they choose and which would pose unrealistic burdens on the entire financial community, said Congressman Frank. This will give us a chance to act in an unhurried manner on my legislation to undo this regulatory excess by the Bush administration and to undo this ill-advised law.

Love those words so very true.

greek39

 

[DaveG39]

MOVEMENT AT LAST - US LEGALISATION BILLS HEARING DATE SET

Barney Frank's bills HR227 and 2266 ready to go

After months of being delayed in the House Financial Services Committee by more pressing economic issues, it looks as if the legalisation of online gambling in the United States is about to come back onstage.

Two bills - HR2267 seeking to legalise and regulate online gambling, and HR2266 proposing to postpone the implementation of the UIGEA regulations by a year - are scheduled for public hearings by the committee in Washington DC on Thursday, December 3rd 2009 at 10 am.

Anybody know what happend, or can you post a link? Thanks.

 

[AuntieIdiot]

Anybody know what happend, or can you post a link? Thanks.

You might check out

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

and

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

...

 

[greek39]

Anybody know what happend, or can you post a link? Thanks.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve on Friday delayed the implementation date for a new Internet gambling payment ban for six months, a move that gives lawmakers time to overturn it or end confusion over illegal practices.
source:

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

source: Link Removed (invalid URL)

The FBI's unrelenting pursuit of continuing its' crusade against online gambling.

Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Internet-based poker games can be subject to manipulation, a top Federal Bureau of Investigation official said.

There are several ways to cheat at online poker, none of which are legal, Shawn Henry, assistant director for the FBIs cyber division, wrote in a letter to Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama.

source:

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

Makes me wonder if the FBI is under anyone's control lol. Read carefully the FBI contradicts themselves. According to them online poker is illegal as is cheating the game. But how can one illegally cheat the game if its already illegal to begin with.

I don't know just find it amusing lol.



greek39

 

[4 of a kind]

Link Removed (invalid URL)


Just saw this same address above.

 

[Mousey]

Bachus is babbling now... worried about "our young people" ... *sigh*

Would someone please gag and hogtie this moron? and NO I didn't vote for him....

 

[jetset]

The FBI's unrelenting pursuit of continuing its' crusade against online gambling.



Makes me wonder if the FBI is under anyone's control lol. Read carefully the FBI contradicts themselves. According to them online poker is illegal as is cheating the game. But how can one illegally cheat the game if its already illegal to begin with.

I don't know just find it amusing lol.



greek39

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.

 

[greek39]

Awesome post Jetset you nailed it my feelings exactly!

Thanks

greek39

 

[Mousey]

I'm at work and am missing parts of this... will probably have to leave before it's over .... someone (JetSet LOL) please post an update when possible.

Thank you!

 

[greek39]

Amazing debate more in our favor IMO!

Bachus is way off base.

greek39

 

[Simmo!]

Amazing debate more in our favor IMO!

I meant to tune in but was out...I read that the main line of attack from opposition was over the possibilities of identity theft! If that's truly the main argument against, I'd say things are looking up! The same article suggested that the debate didn't really achieve anything other than re-introducing the topic into the arena, but having not listened I'm not sure how accurate that report is.

 

[greek39]

Simmo!,

I was viewing this in mp format

Link Removed (invalid URL)

Best debate I heard in years, inching closer to regulation. Roughly hour and half long grab a coffee, beer or whatever.

greek39

 

[lots0]

I watched it... twice.

I was truly amazed how logical and realistic the legalization and regulation side of the debate was.

Some good points from my perspective:

1. Rep. Peter King (a Republican), who is the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Has said that in several years he has seen no evidence of a connection between Terrorism and Online Gambling and that he supports Rep. Frank's two bills... (this is huge politically as King has dissed Bacus, one of his party leaders and sided with Frank, one of the Liberals most disliked by the conservative leadership.)

2. The opposition has not been able to provide evidence that online gaming has increased the rate or percentage of gambling addicts. The evidence and studies presented all show that gambling addiction levels have stayed about the same (as a % of population) for a very long time.

 

[jetset]

I'm at work and am missing parts of this... will probably have to leave before it's over .... someone (JetSet LOL) please post an update when possible.

Thank you!

Check out the latest Casinomeister News - there's an extensive report on the hearing there.

 

[jetset]

The testimonies of Harvard's Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow (who is not only an academic but has empirical knowledge from years as a London police detective officer) and Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety was particularly objective and powerful.

And Youbet's Brodsky was pretty forceful, too.

 

[Tengil]

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.

Worth to note that its online poker that has been studied. Not casino gambling. Poker is totally different than casino games.

So online poker seems to have a good chance to become regulated. For casino gambling it doesnt look good.

 

[4 of a kind]

Worth to note that its online poker that has been studied. Not casino gambling. Poker is totally different than casino games.

So online poker seems to have a good chance to become regulated. For casino gambling it doesnt look good.

I would think that if we get at least one foot in the door, the other will eventually get in also.

What would happen to poker sites that also offer gaming?

 

[jetset]

The long-running Bwin-Harvard study covers more than just poker.