Legislation to Repeal Online Gambling Ban May Be Coming

bigboydan · 03-14-2007, 12:06 PM

Legislation to Repeal Online Gambling Ban May Be Coming

Quote:

The Financial Times online edition (subscription required for full article) has noted from an interview that Barney Frank, the democratic House Financial Services Committee chairman, is working on legislation to repeal the ban on online gambling in the US that was passed last year. "Working on" is hard to define without more information

It is not clear at all if this is a "total repeal" or just a loosening of the laws. It is also a question as to whether or not this legislation could even make it to the White House through Congressional votes, and it is unclear of this would be for 2008 and beyond or if it was sooner. But either way, you have to look no further than Cryptologic (CRYP) to see how this could impact other stocks in the sector (they make online gaming software) if there is any truth to this. CRYP has even managed to defy a weak market if you look at the shares.

In Australia, companies like Betcorp and Lasseters Corp were hit hard last year because of the ban. In the UK, companies like PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings were also hit in 2006 over such issues. Gigamedia (GIGM) and American Wagering (BETM) were also noted in a story late yesterday along with pari-mutuel horseracing company Youbet.com (UBET). We have all missed the PartyPoker commercials as well.

Once again, take heed that "an interview" and "legislation" can be taken way out of context and there is always the possibility that this could be dead before it even gets started. My own call in so far has partially confirmed this, but with no details yet known. Many of the European online gaming stocks also made some rather large moves last week because of some loosening of regulations in the EU. There is not even assurance that it will make it to the form of a bill, so if you take any of this as "gospel" or as "fact" then the point has not been stressed enough that there may be no follow-through in reality.

I did put in a phone call to Congressman Frank's office and was told that this is true, but I have not been able to get the details from the Financial Services Committee as of yet. I am awaiting a call back to give more details.

Jon C. Ogg
March 14, 2007

Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.

Seattle Slew · 03-14-2007, 12:52 PM

If we had 425 Barney Franks in Congress, this country would be a lot better off.

JC · 03-14-2007, 01:16 PM

How about everyone trying to do something positive now?

The day after the bill passed, there were probably a lot of people who wish they would have at least picked up the phone. Well here's your chance again.

Take this opportunity to call not just your own Representative and Two Senators, but also call Representative Frank and offer him a few words of appreciation. I am sure he would appreciate the positive feedback since so often people only call when they are angry.

(202) 224-3121

increasedodds · 03-14-2007, 01:26 PM

Sent him an email thanking him. Also sent one after he called the Iowa idiot a fool last year. (The idiot who got voted out)

If there were 425 Barney Franks in Congress the country would be a whole lot better off.

I cant wait till the fed res comes and asks for more money to enforce the UIGEA... I'm sure the finance committe will be happy to hear from them.

Sean

punchmaster · 03-14-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

How about everyone trying to do something positive now?

The day after the bill passed, there were probably a lot of people who wish they would have at least picked up the phone. Well here's your chance again.

Take this opportunity to call not just your own Representative and Two Senators, but also call Representative Frank and offer him a few words of appreciation. I am sure he would appreciate the positive feedback since so often people only call when they are angry.

(202) 224-3121

Done- made the phone call and got Frank's PR person and told her how grateful we were that he was "thinking" about it per her words . I also told her about neteller which she had never heard of and tried to fill her in on the fiasco.

SBR_John · 03-14-2007, 04:28 PM

What was the vote in the US Congress like 315-85? The majority of democrats and the current Speaker also voted for the ban. Guys, we are in the current enviroment for the next dozen years. I want to "feel" excited but the numbers dont lie.

vanzack · 03-14-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBR_John

What was the vote in the US Congress like 315-85? The majority of democrats and the current Speaker also voted for the ban. Guys, we are in the current enviroment for the next dozen years. I want to "feel" excited but the numbers dont lie.

But it was attached to the port security act.

Who is going to vote against the port security act to save online gambling?

It would have never passed on its own, and if somehow voted again on its own it will be repealed.

BuddyBear · 03-14-2007, 05:16 PM

That's great news.....And after Congress reconsiders online gambling and reverses that, they'll start working right away and into the night on animal rights issues and holding hearings on Native American reperations.

I don't think most of you guys realize just how conservative the United States Congress is. They are not changing it. No need to get your hopes up. Most members of Congress don't see a problem spying on people without warrants the sure as hell see nothing wrong with banning online gambling.

Best thing now is to figure out how to fund books....don't worry about legislation. It's pointless.

jjgold · 03-14-2007, 05:53 PM

no way will it be repealed

louis · 03-14-2007, 07:36 PM

First of all, it could in fact easily be appealed by being appended to another bill. Most of Congress voted for port security, not against online gaming.

But even if it is repealed so what? Will it convince the DOJ to stop arresting people? Will it convince the DOJ to stop seizing assets?

No. And it is the activities of the DOJ, not the law per se that is the problem.

Now if the DOJ would follow the law, that would be a different story.

But right now the founders of neteller have been arrested for what they did before the Port Act was even passed. So there must be some law that they violated, right?

Perhaps repealing the wire act would stop the DOJ from their war on gaming, but this is unlikely to be attached to any bill.

I really don't think a repeal of the financial legislation would do anything for us.

A decision by the DOJ to stop prosecuting online gaming would help. They made a decision to stop prosecuting illegal aliens; if they do the same with gaming regardless of the law there would be no problems.

tblues2005 · 03-14-2007, 09:34 PM

I think that the poker part could get repealed but the sports gambling part may not. I think that the EU and the WTO is putting pressure on the United States as well on this and that could change the whole thing here. I really believe that the United States is going to have to give in on this and they are going to have to regulate it sooner or later, it is just a matter of time before it is regulated, but I think that will be after the 2008 election before that is done here. I believe that is the Democrats way of not raising taxes is to regulate it and tax us on winnings and the business that want to have business with Amercians will have to pay some taxes on profits from Americans. There is billions of dollars that could be made here and I think these politicans know it too. It is too large of an industry to ignore to make more tax revenue.

Seattle Slew · 03-15-2007, 12:28 AM

I agree it has no shot to be repealed, but maybe Frank thinks the banking rules will prove to be too difficult and they'll use that to at least criticize the legislation.

Most Democrats also backed the bill, so to think the change in power will make a difference is foolish.

tacomax · 03-15-2007, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattle Slew

Most Democrats also backed the bill, so to think the change in power will make a difference is foolish.

Yes, most Democrats backed the bill. But, as mentioned earlier, the anti-gambling legislation was incorporated into the SAFE Port Act. Anyone opposing the act would no doubt be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. These people were not voting on the legality or otherwise of internet gambling.

ShamsWoof10 · 03-15-2007, 12:47 AM

It's not like Congress has that much of a say anyway... Sh*t from what I understand most of them didn't even get a chance to read the partiot act and some were pressured into voting for it...

Seattle Slew · 03-15-2007, 12:55 AM

That was on the Senate side. The House had a full debate on gambling legislation only, and it passed something like 325-85. The House bill had nothing to do with the Safe Port Act, so no excuse for voting to back it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacomax

Yes, most Democrats backed the bill. But, as mentioned earlier, the anti-gambling legislation was incorporated into the SAFE Port Act. Anyone opposing the act would no doubt be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. These people were not voting on the legality or otherwise of internet gambling.

Tchocky · 03-15-2007, 10:26 AM

Barney Frank? Isn't this the guy that sounds like Sylvester the Cat? Didn't his boyfriend run an escort service out of Frank's house? I have absolutely no faith in this cocksucker's ability to get the online gambling ban repealed.