[bigboydan]

Congress Moves to Suspend Internet Gambling Ban

Current law unduly burdens U.S. financial services institutions

WASHINGTON, April 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Safe and Secure
Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI) announced its support for new
legislation, H.R.5767, that would prohibit the Department of the Treasury
and Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing or implementing any
regulations related to the current ban on Internet gambling, as required by
the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). The bill
was introduced yesterday by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul
(R-Texas).



"The Frank-Paul bill would stop the U.S. government from taking any
further steps on regulations that would require all of the country's
financial institutions to block Internet Gambling payments," said SSIGI
spokesman Jeff Sandman. "It's a bold move, but a necessary one, in light of
the warnings from the Treasury and Federal Reserve that they did not know
how to write regulations to solve the problems created by UIGEA. Further,
witnesses representing a broad spectrum of the financial services community
unanimously stated that the current ban on Internet gambling is dangerous
to the payments system and ineffective in stopping people from using the
Internet to play poker, make bets on horses, or engage in other types of
wagering."



The current Internet gambling ban creates significant additional
burdens for U.S. financial institutions, which say that it is unfair to
turn them into the Internet gambling police at a time when their undivided
attention ought to be on the economy.



Testimony before Congress last week offered proof that financial
services institutions would face serious regulatory burdens in attempting
to enforce UIGEA and related regulations, which is unlikely to stop
millions of Americans from gambling online.



Representatives from the Credit Union National Association, Financial
Services Roundtable, American Bankers Association and Wells Fargo & Co.
testified about the burden they would unnecessarily face before the House
Committee on Financial Service's Subcommittee on Domestic and International
Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology on April 2. The current UIGEA law is
ambiguous and allows for multiple interpretations of what may or may not be
illegal activities.



Their comments reflect the concerns echoed in the more than 200
comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve
System.



Frank introduced legislation last year, the Internet Gambling
Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), that would regulate Internet
gambling. The bill would require licensed Internet gambling operators to
put in place safeguards to protect against underage and compulsive gambling
and ensure the integrity of financial transactions.



A companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep.
Jim McDermott (D-WA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement
Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523), would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated
Internet gambling activities. According to a tax revenue analysis prepared
by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is
expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal
revenues over its first 10 years.

[guitarjosh]

Please let this pass and let Pinny come back!!!

[freeVICK]

im too lazy to read all that, can someone summerize?

[durito]

That title's misleading.

Not a chance in hell they vote on that in an election year.

I hate congress.

[jjgold]

Gambling is still running rampant on net

we won

[louisvillekid]

Originally Posted by durito

That title's misleading.

Not a chance in hell they vote on that in an election year.

I hate congress.

ain't that the truth.

about the article...
i hope they get that thing lifted, its true that the banking institutions should not have to try and be police for our government.

[durito]

Congressmen can introduce any bill they want, doesn't mean it 'll even get voted on.

As a comparison, Paul introduces legislation every year for the US to drop out of the UN. It (like most everything he does) goes nowhere. His rabid internet fans aside, a Ron Paul sponsored bill is unlikely to get any attention.

[bettilimbroke999]

The truth is for alot of compulsive gamblers making it so difficult to gamble has probably saved them money, I mean honestly picking 53% winners you need to pick JUST TO BREAK EVEN IS HARD ENOUGH MUCH LESS THE GREATER PERCENTAGE YOU WOULD NEED TO TURN A PROFIT ON A BUNCH OF LINES THAT MIGHT BE OFF BY A POINT IN A 100 PT GAME. It should be strictly for entertainment and fun, but compulsive gamblers would think of it as a source of income and end up sucking some 70 yr old man off to the cover their basement rent.

[treece]

you can't stop internet gambling. no matter how hard they try they'll never succeed

[curious]

If legislation like this does ever pass, you won't know about it ahead of time. It will be buried in some other bill titled "free milk for poor kids at school who will die otherwise", or something like that.

[ritehook]

Agree with Durito, JJ and curious.

Vegas has long had beta programs ready to go at a moment's notice. I'll stay at stable places like Pinny tho, at least for a few years, to see how much the govt will stick its long nose into any individual's business.

This is still at least a few years away. It will happen when an increasingly desperate-for-money fed govt

[minet123]

Why not tack it to troop funding the way Frist tacked it on to port security

[Mr Fury]

Personally I am all against the government passing
this or any other gambling law. Keep em the hell out of it.
If not, you will be will be paying the feds, the state and
some local governments eventually because they will
all want a cut from you and the house. The bonuses
that you now get will be going to Uncle Sam as well.

I see it as a bad deal.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Breaker]

Originally Posted by Mr Fury

Personally I am all against the government passing
this or any other gambling law. Keep em the hell out of it.
If not, you will be will be paying the feds, the state and
some local governments eventually because they will
all want a cut from you and the house.

If they allow US based (and thus taxed) gambling sites, they HAVE to allow foreign companies (WTO).

So you can stay with the book you're with right now, but without the hassle, or join a US based book.

US based books therefore will have to compete with foreign ones, meaning great juice and even better bonus incentives

[WileOut]

Originally Posted by Breaker

If they allow US based (and thus taxed) gambling sites, they HAVE to allow foreign companies (WTO).

So you can stay with the book you're with right now, but without the hassle, or join a US based book.

US based books therefore will have to compete with foreign ones, meaning great juice and even better bonus incentives

Right. The problem is that if the original Frank legislation goes through with the tax part, all the sports leagues will opt out and many states will too. Then there is the possibility that they will shut off access to offshore sites completely. The poker players will have a field day but the sports bettors will be left out and possibly in a worse position than we already are.

What we need to pass is this new bill that has come up to eliminate the UIGEA. Then money will start flowing more freely I believe. That bill will help sports bettors without a doubt.

[Scorpion]

and also more and more new books every yr just like 2-3 yrs ago!

[Breaker]

Originally Posted by WileOut

Right. The problem is that if the original Frank legislation goes through with the tax part, all the sports leagues will opt out and many states will too. Then there is the possibility that they will shut off access to offshore sites completely.

They could not shut off access now and they certainly will not be able to when they repeal the UIGEA.

Besides, the "They" will be more liberal minded Democrats instead of Holier Than Thou Conservatives by then.

If US sites won't take bets on pro sports, so be it, there is no way they can tell foreign sites not to do it.

[austintx05]

Originally Posted by bettilimbroke999

The truth is for alot of compulsive gamblers making it so difficult to gamble has probably saved them money, I mean honestly picking 53% winners you need to pick JUST TO BREAK EVEN IS HARD ENOUGH MUCH LESS THE GREATER PERCENTAGE YOU WOULD NEED TO TURN A PROFIT ON A BUNCH OF LINES THAT MIGHT BE OFF BY A POINT IN A 100 PT GAME. It should be strictly for entertainment and fun, but compulsive gamblers would think of it as a source of income and end up sucking some 70 yr old man off to the cover their basement rent.

just because you can't win long term, doesn't mean someone else can't win long term.

[thegreatdiatchi]

Originally Posted by austintx05

just because you can't win long term, doesn't mean someone else can't win long term.

I agree but the long term winners are few and far between. At the same time, I think the original ban was outlandish in the first place. Unfortunately though our country is in so much debt that they would stick their noses up your ass if they could smell profit up there.