Where is the Barney Frank Bill? APCW Perspectives Weekly: 19 June 2009

[winbig]

I do not see any documentation or any sources for what they claim to be 'facts'.

Why, Gambling911, of course.

 

[Tengil]

How are the taxpayers (gamblers or not) paying for this? It's not like it's costing them anything.

You're not even in America, at least you have the choice to gamble where and when you want.

The banks have already said time and time again that they simply CANNOT implement what the DoJ is asking of them in trying to enforce the UIGEA. They're in bad enough shape already, and have more important things to worry about, plain and simple.

It is costing. Read the links. At one way or another taxpayers will take the costs. Negative externalities.

And yes Im not in the states but trying to bring some balance in to the pro online gambling "propaganda". And trying to think that "if I were a politician". On regulating online poker Im positive.

Personally I would stop playing if it would be harder to deposit, I still could go to the B&M casino to get my gambling fix. So I wouldnt cry if I wouldnt be able to gamble online.

And UIGEA has decreased online gambling, altough its not a good system as the banks have to carry the costs. So something different would need to be worked out.

And the links I have provided have several pages of reliable sources. Once again read them.

 

[jetset]

By referring perhaps insultingly to " pro online gambling "propaganda" I take it you are referring to any opinion that does not happen to coincide with your own view of the industry's prospects in America?

And where do you see in this discussion the prospect that a legalised American market would make it harder for the player to deposit? Quite the contrary, I would suggest.

A visit to a B&M may well be your personal solution, but I would suggest that one of the reasons for the success of the Internet gambling sector has been its convenience and accessibility for those that want to play - either on the move or from their own private locations. If you add US legitimacy and proper regulation to that it is a solid combination, imo.

The industry certainly provides a wider choice for the player in terms of where to play (careful dd assumed) and the games that are available.

I'm not personally as sanguine about the prospects of Barney Frank's bill being successful as some out there, but I hold the view that, if it were, it would definitely be a benefit to players and a major step forward for the industry in terms of improved professionalism and integrity.

 

[winbig]

And let's not forget that the UIGEA had a snowball's chance in hell of passing on its own; that's why it was attached at the last minute to the safe port act - a bill that HAD to be approved.

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

he Act was passed at midnight on the day Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. Though a bill with the gambling wording was previously debated and passed by the House of Representatives,[4][5][6] the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) as passed by the House on May 4th (by a vote of 421-2) and the United States Senate on September 14th (98-0),[7] bore no traces of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act that was included in the SAFE Port Act signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13th, 2006.[8] The UIGEA was added in Conference Report 109-711 (submitted at 9:29pm on September 29, 2006), which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-2 and by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2006. Due to H.RES.1064, the reading of this conference report was waived.

 

[Tengil]

By referring perhaps insultingly to " pro online gambling "propaganda" I take it you are referring to any opinion that does not happen to coincide with your own view of the industry's prospects in America?

And where do you see in this discussion the prospect that a legalised American market would make it harder for the player to deposit? Quite the contrary, I would suggest.

A visit to a B&M may well be your personal solution, but I would suggest that one of the reasons for the success of the Internet gambling sector has been its convenience and accessibility for those that want to play - either on the move or from their own private locations. If you add US legitimacy and proper regulation to that it is a solid combination, imo.

The industry certainly provides a wider choice for the player in terms of where to play (careful dd assumed) and the games that are available.

I'm not personally as sanguine about the prospects of Barney Frank's bill being successful as some out there, but I hold the view that, if it were, it would definitely be a benefit to players and a major step forward for the industry in terms of improved professionalism and integrity.

What I consider as "pro online gambling" propaganda are the falsariums that it would boost the economy, that the states would benefit from the tax revenue and that the regulation actually would work.

And by making it harder for the player to deposit was in reply to Winbig about me having the possibility to play where I want. Was meaning that if it would be harder for me to deposit (UIGEA style law in Finland) I would stop playing. Im quite indifferent in that case. Should have said it clearer.

Altough today I started to wonder that IF online gambling were to be regulated how would it be done? Like how to minimizie the negative externalities, how high the Pigouvian tax would be etc. But thats for another thread. And that could be hghly interesting.

 

[Mousey]

While I may have grown rather disillusioned w/online gambling, I would still like to see it legalized and regulated if for no other reason than making the US AG and NY AG, etc. stop hijacking/kidnapping and holding for ransom businessmen who run perfectly legal businesses (like the NETeller 2, for instance).

 

[lots0]

What I consider as "pro online gambling" propaganda are the falsariums that it would boost the economy, that the states would benefit from the tax revenue and that the regulation actually would work.

Before Atlantic City legalized and regulated B&M casinos there were a LOT of people that were saying just what you are, it would not improve the economy there and only hurt the business and the people... That turned out to be completely absolutely and utterly false.

In the first ten years after legalization Atlantic City's Economy more than increased by 5x. After twenty years the results are conclusive... Gambling saved the City and the State from a slow decline into a depression.

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

Here is quote for you

NGISC (National Gambling Impact Study Commission) and it's contractors reported that legalized gambling, especially in casinos, has resulted in an increased number of jobs in communities and decreased the unemployment rate...

Here is another quote from the NGISC

In 1996 the legalized gambling industry employed more than one half a million people with total salaries of over $15 Billion.

And up until the economic collapse earlier this year that number just kept growing and growing...

Not to mention that the New Jersey State authorities have said repeatedly that legalizing Gambling reduced unemployment and increased the money the State could spend on social programs.

Now this is not some 'study' where some egg heads were burning brain cells SPECULATING... This is historical FACT and can be PROVEN

 

[jetset]

There is a difference between "speculation" and financial forecasts based on known and well researched fact, which form the basis for recent calculations by outfits like PWC.

 

[Tengil]

Before Atlantic City legalized and regulated B&M casinos there were a LOT of people that were saying just what you are, it would not improve the economy there and only hurt the business and the people... That turned out to be completely absolutely and utterly false.

In the first ten years after legalization Atlantic City's Economy more than increased by 5x. After twenty years the results are conclusive... Gambling saved the City and the State from a slow decline into a depression.

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

Here is quote for you

Here is another quote from the NGISC And up until the economic collapse earlier this year that number just kept growing and growing...

Not to mention that the New Jersey State authorities have said repeatedly that legalizing Gambling reduced unemployment and increased the money the State could spend on social programs.

Now this is not some 'study' where some egg heads were burning brain cells SPECULATING... This is historical FACT and can be PROVEN

From one of my links:

THE RESULTS IN THIS PAPER provide some important (updated) evidence for states considering the introduction or expansion of the casino industry. Our results indicate that the casino industry does not have an impact on economic growth at the state level. This is based on annual data from 1991 to 2005. These results contradict results from an earlier study that used quarterly data from 1991 to 1996. Together, these results may indicate that casino gambling has initial positive growth effects but that these die out over time. This is not to say that casinos do not positively impact economic growth in some states. We would be very surprised if states such as Nevada, New Jersey, and even Mississippi, once it has recovered from Katrina, did not show significant economic growth from casino gambling. It does say, however, that the average state should not expect any long-term growth effects from legalizing casino gambling.

And also it affects the other surrounding states economy negatively. An that study had no academic value as they completely neglected the negative extrenalities or didnt "set" a price for them.

And the links I have provided are no speculation but mostly academic studies. Try reading them.

 

[lots0]

And the links I have provided are no speculation but mostly academic studies. Try reading them.

I have read them and many many more just like them.
And come on what is with the 'jab' here... Can't we have a grown up discussion without throwing 'cheep shots' at each other?

BTW - That was my point. Academic Studies are nothing but speculation. Often times these studies are funded and carried out by people with anti-gambling agendas or pro-gambling agendas, so the results of these studies are often twisted by both sides of the argument. In others words.. most of these 'studies' are not worth the paper they are written on, no matter what their conclusions are.

As far as the long term economic effects of Gambling... there are many places around the world that have proven that over time Gambling is a long term sustainable addition to an economy. Again this historical fact... Not speculation, not a study... not even an educated guess... It is fact.

I saw Atlantic City, before gambling was legalized. It was a depressed Slum, a Getto with very high double digit unemployment and streets so dangerous not even the police would go there at night... Tens of murders every day.. gangs openly holding shooting wars. Drug addicts or gang murder victims laying dead on the street, sometimes for days.

Then I saw Atlantic City after gambling was legalized. It was a night and day difference.

After Gambling was legalized you could walk the Boardwalk in Atlantic City at night... and you sure as hell could not do that before... unless you wanted to die. People are working, unemployment below the National average(before the economic collapse), the streets are clean and most important the people that live there have hope that they will be able to improve their lot in life.

Legalizing Gambling Worked for the majority of the people in New Jersey... no doubt about it.

Nevada... Legalized gambling is the States largest source of income. Taxes and fees on legalized gambling support, daycares, hospitals, police, firefighters, schools and feed the hungry.

There are places all over the world that have directly benefited from legalized and regulated gambling.

Again not studies.. funded by people with agendas... But historical and economic fact.

 

[jetset]

ONLINE GAMBLING BILL ATTRACTS A FURTHER FIVE SPONSORS (Update)

Representatives from several states back Barney's Bill

HR 2267, a proposed bill introduced by Congressman Barney Frank to regulate and licence online gambling in the United States, has been backed by a further five members of Congress, bringing total political support to 47 since the bill was introduced in May this year.

The latest politicians to add their names as co-sponsors to the bill are:

Representative Joe Courtney (Connecticut)
Representative Frank A. LoBiondo (New Jersey)
Representative John H. Hadler (New Jersey)
Representative Paul D. Tonko (New York)
Representative Walter Minnick (Idaho)

Congressman Frank recently advised interested parties that the bill has been pushed back to September due to pressure of work in Congress on stimulus packages in a troubled economy. However, his staff confirmed that there continued to be significant interest in HR 2267, and Frank has repeatedly emphasised how important it is that US voters contact their representatives to urge them to support the bill and the legalisation of online gambling in America.

 

[jetset]

SPONSOR # 48 FOR HR 2267 (Update)

Californian Congresswoman signs up

Hot on the heels of last week's five new co-sponsors signing up for Barney Frank's proposed legislation to legalise online gambling in the United States comes news that a Californian Representative has become the 48th co-sponsor for HR2267.

Representative Linda Sanchez is the latest US politician to lend her support to the bill, which has been temporarily postponed until September due to pressure of other work in Congress.

 

[jetset]

FRANK BILL ADDS 49TH CO-SPONSOR (Update)

Michigan Democrat joins the initiative to legalise online gambling in the USA

Representative John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, has become the latest member of the US Congress to sign on as a supporter of proposed legislation to legalise and regulate online gambling in the United States.

Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced bill HR2267 in May this year, and the proposal has already attracted support from 48 other members of Congress.

Representative Frank has repeatedly urged American online gamblers to get behind his latest attempt to overturn the UIGEA by communicating with their politicial representatives and urging them to support the bill.

 

[Casinomeister]

....Representative Frank has repeatedly urged American online gamblers to get behind his latest attempt to overturn the UIGEA by communicating with their politicial representatives and urging them to support the bill.

US members can use this page to contact their rep:
Old URL

 

[lots0]

US members can use this page to contact their rep:
Old URL

It only takes a second and IT DOES MATTER.

 

[jetset]

Have you contacted your Congressional representative?

FRANK ONLINE GAMBLING BILL SUPPORT SURGES

50 Congressmen now on the side of online gambling regulation in the USA

Congressman Barney Frank's proposed legislation to regulate and license online gambling in the United States has reached the 50 co-sponsor mark.

HR 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act has built up an impressive head of steam since its launch in May this year, and is currently on hold pending a gap in the heavy Congressional workload brought about by the international economic crisis.

As indicated in prior InfoPowa reports, there are now many senior ranking politicians in the bipartisan co-sponsors group for the bill, including George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the Committee of the Judiciary, Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Pete King (R-NY), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and Ron Paul (R-TX), vice-chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee.

Earlier independent analyses showed that collecting taxes on regulated Internet gambling would allow the U.S. to capture much-needed revenue in an amount ranging from $48.6 billion (excluding online sports gambling) to $62.7 billion (including online sports gambling) over the next decade.

The following is a complete list of co-sponsors thus far:

Alaska
Don Young (R At-Large)

Arizona
Raul Grijalva (D 7th)

California
Michael Thompson (D 1st)
George Miller (D 7th)
Michael Honda (D 15th)
Linda Sanchez (D 39th)
Bob Filner (D 51st)

Colorado
Jared Polis (D 2nd)
Ed Perlmutter (D 7th)

Connecticut
Joe Courtney (D 2nd)

Florida
Robert Wexler (D 19th)
Alcee Hastings (D 23rd)

Hawaii
Neil Abercrombie (D 1st)

Idaho
Walt Minnick (D 1st)

Illinois
Luis Gutierrez (D 4th)
Bill Foster (D 14th)

Indiana
Andre Carson (D 7th)

Massachusetts
James McGovern (D 3rd)
Barney Frank (D 4th)
Michael Capuano (D 8th)
William Delahunt (D 10th)

Michigan
John Conyers (D 14th)

Nevada
Shelley Berkley (D 1st)

New Hampshire
Paul Hodes (D 2nd)

New Jersey
Robert Andrews (D 1st)
Frank LoBiondo (R 2nd)
John Adler (D 3rd)
Steven Rothman (D 9th)

New York
Tim Bishop (D 1st)
Steve Israel (D 2nd)
Peter King (R 3rd)
Carolyn McCarthy (D 4th)
Gary Ackerman (D 5th)
Joseph Crowley (D 7th)
Jerrold Nadler (D 8th)
Edolphus Towns (D 10th)
Mike McMahon (D 13th)
Charles Rangel (D 15th)
Paul Tonko (D 21st)

North Carolina
Melvin Watt (D 12th)

Ohio
Steve Driehaus (D 1st)
Tim Ryan (D 17th)

Oregon
Earl Blumenauer (D 3rd)

Tennessee
Steve Cohen (D 9th)

Texas
Ron Paul (R 14th)
Ciro Rodriguez (D 23rd)

Virginia
Bobby Scott (D 3rd)
Tom Perriello (D 5th)
James Moran (D 8th)

Washington
Jim McDermott (D 7th)

 

[lots0]

Not a lot of Republicans on that list.

Funny I thought they were supposed to be the party of Freedom and Personal Rights/Responsibility... Not the party of moral/religious enforcement.

Like I always said... judge these politicos by their ACTIONS not their rhetoric.

 

[pevangel]

oops so sorry i didnt read this i posted a new post :so sorry jetset, please forgive. love ya more then my luggage



pevangel :notworthy

 

[jetset]

Update

NEW YORK POLITICIAN 51st TO SIGN UP FOR LEGALISED ONLINE GAMBLING BILL

Representative Maffei joins a growing list of supporters

Another New York Congressman has signed on as a co-sponsor for Barney Frank's HR2267, which seeks to legalise and regulate online gambling in the United States.

Representative Daniel B. Maffei, a Democrat from New York, joins eleven other New York politicians - the largest contingent of supporters for the bill - and becomes the 51st co-sponsor overall.

Maffei represents the 25th Congressional District of New York, which embraces Onondaga County and Syracuse, Central New York, and Monroe County.

Other New York congressional representatives supporting the bill include:

Tim Bishop (D 1st)
Steve Israel (D 2nd)
Peter King (R 3rd)
Carolyn McCarthy (D 4th)
Gary Ackerman (D 5th)
Joseph Crowley (D 7th)
Jerrold Nadler (D 8th)
Edolphus Towns (D 10th)
Mike McMahon (D 13th)
Charles Rangel (D 15th)
Paul Tonko (D 21st)

 

[jetset]

Update

FRANK BILL CO-SPONSORS RISE TO 54 (Update)

Democrats from New Jersey, Colorado and Missouri support legalisation of online gambling in the USA.

Three more Democrat state representatives have joined the growing throng of politicians expressing support for Barney Frank's HR 2267 proposal to legalise and regulate online gambling in the United States, bringing to 54 the number of co-sponsors so far.

The latest political representatives hail from New Jersey (Representative Bill Pascrell); Missouri (Representative Russ Carnahan) and Colorado (Representative Betsy Markey).

Congressman Frank, who is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has again appealed to US voters to communicate their desire for a legal and regulated online gambling industry to their political representatives.

 

[MJackson]

Does anyone here have a feel for how the number of co-sponsors would affect a bill's chances? It seems like if 15 % of members are actively promoting a bill that it would have very good chances of passing. Have bills with this many co-sponsors historically passed the House?

 

[jetset]

NEW BID TO LEGALISE ONLINE POKER

New Jersey Democrat to launch new bill Thursday

A new bid to license and regulate online poker will be launched today (Thursday) by New Jersey Democrat, Senator Robert Menendez, a member of the senator's staff told the Dow Jones news service this week.

The proposal seeks to create a regulatory framework allowing online poker companies to register in the U.S. and subject to taxation and stringent regulation that includes consumer protections relating particularly to age verification, fair gaming, the prevention of fraud and money laundering, and problem gambling. There will also be requirements to ensure that the player is logging in from a jurisdiction where gambling is legal.

Taxation provisions of 10 percent on all deposits made by players to gambling sites are envisaged, with the proceeds split evenly between the state and federal governments.

One of the most vocal proponents of lifting the online gambling ban is the banking industry. Banks say the existing rules don't define what types of gambling are illegal, leaving them unsure whether to reject individual transactions. In some parts of the country, for example, betting on horse racing is legal, but in others it isn't, reports Dow Jones.

The difference between the Menendez bill and HR2267 introduced in May this year by Representative Barney Frank is that the former applies only to online poker and other "games of skill," while Frank's legislation aims to regulate other forms of gambling, including sports betting and online casino action.

Both bills have been careful to respect the rights of individual states when it comes to gambling laws autonomy.

 

[jetset]

UPDATE: S 8309, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act

Senator Menendez introduced his bill , and was applauded by Poker Players Alliance chairman, former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who said: "The PPA is pleased that Senator Menendez chose to introduce his bill to license and regulate Internet poker and include additional consumer protections. His continued support for protecting the Internet freedoms of poker players specifically, and Americans generally, is greatly appreciated.

"Today's action by Senator Menendez is yet another powerful step towards protecting Internet freedom, protecting consumers and protecting online poker. On behalf of the members of the PPA and online poker players nationwide, I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on this important issue."

Key provisions of the bill include:

Creation of a registry of unlicensed online gambling operators that will strengthen enforcement efforts of truly unlawful gambling;

Mandatory implementation of technologies to protect against underage gambling and to monitor and detect individuals with excessive gaming habits;

Dedicated funding to develop and implement prevention and treatment programs for problem gamblers;

Mechanisms to collect the billions of dollars in tax revenue that is currently being lost; and

Clarification of the Wire Act to create consistency in how online gambling activities, such as horse race betting, are treated under Federal law.

 

[Jeremy]

Lets pass this as Im itching top play....legally

Our US politicians are idiots if they dont pass this

 

[footdr]

I Hope It Does Not Pass........

If the U.S. Gov. gets involved it will be a mess. The last thing we need is their involvement. I don't want them to pass anything. It will just be another reason for them to intrude in to our personal lives and finances.