Poker US Legislation News

Originally Posted by Nick (Warning: I am not an expert in the US legal system) Just watched live footage from Congress where they were voting on a bill that would prevent UIGEA (basically the part where the banks can't process deposits - the reason why many people from the US can't use their credit cards to play online poker) from being enforced. After lots of discussion and then a break, they came back to vote and it was 32-32. They then did a voice vote and unfortunately the "No"s won. Back to the drawing board I guess

Originally Posted by FlyingStorm Maybe we ought to give them a bonus code

Originally Posted by zachvac Or we could just vote them the **** out of office.

Originally Posted by hypergized wait i've.. changed my mind all in favor?

Originally Posted by zachvac Anyone got a hard source? I can't find anything mentioning it, particularly interested in basically which 32 voted for and against, our Presidential nominees in particular (and 36 didn't vote at all?????).

Originally Posted by LeaveMeAlone I still dont understand this whole thing. Somone explain to me the difference in our legal system and countries in Europe that make online gambling illegal here. Is it just a cultural thing or what???

Originally Posted by woodwidgeon WTF is wrong with these people--- hipacritical morans-- It is really a shame that they can control what you can do with your money & yet they can can take all the payoffs they can get. Then there are those who bring there own religious beliefs to the table & want to impose them on every one else-- Now what else did i forget????????????

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']June 25, 2008[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']An amendment to develop new regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) was defeated today in a tie vote in the House Committee on Financial Services. The amendment to the Payments System Protection Act, H.R. 5767, offered by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), would have required the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop new regulations to implement UIGEA that are less burdensome for U.S. financial services companies. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']"It is disappointing that the Republicans would turn their back on the credit unions and banks at a time when the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve says the proposed rules to enforce UIGEA are unworkable," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "Given the freedom of the Internet, it is foolhardy to impose the current regulations and force U.S. financial service companies to police for illegal activity. Rather than prohibit an activity millions of Americans enjoy to do in their homes, just as they can do in a casino, Congress should create a regulatory framework for Internet gambling as a way to protect consumers and collect billions in much-needed federal revenue that is currently lost in an underground, uncontrolled marketplace."[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The King amendment responded to concerns raised by U.S. financial services companies about the burden and ambiguity in the proposed rules to implement UIGEA. The updated bill would have required federal regulators to adopt formal rulemaking processes to define unlawful Internet gambling activities, to create a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses, and to conduct an economic impact study on the costs for compliance. The bill would have also forced the agencies to take into consideration the Paperwork Reduction Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act, current laws the proposed rules to enforce UIGEA failed to address. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Rep. Frank stated before the Committee on Financial Services that Congress is putting the U.S. financial services industry at risk by not clarifying the regulations to enforce UIGEA and defining unlawful Internet gambling activities. "Hijacking the financial payment system at a time when it is under major stress and giving them the job of carrying out an unclear mandate doesn't make sense." [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Representatives of the U.S. financial services industry, including the Chamber of Commerce, The Financial Services Roundtable, Credit Union National Association, and National Association of Federal Credit Unions, pledged their support for the Payments System Protection Act and King amendment in letters to Rep. Frank and members of the Committee on Financial Services.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']"I wish to be clear that we do not support the notion that financial services companies should be ‘deputized' to police gambling activity in any form or function," wrote Mr. Steve Barlett, president and CEO of The Financial Services Roundtable. "While we would support the passage of H.R. 5767 as introduced, I agree that the King Amendment makes essential improvements to a deeply flawed law and therefore support its inclusion."[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Concerns about the impact of UIGEA were also raised by the Americans for Tax Reform (ATF) and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in a letter to members of the Committee on Financial Services, which said that "if implemented as proposed in current regulations, UIGEA would have a number of serious, negative consequences for the nation's economy."[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Concerns about the proposed rules to implement UIGEA were previously raised at a congressional hearing on April 2, 2008 ("Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?") and in hundreds of comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System. Representatives of the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System acknowledged at the hearing the challenges U.S. financial institutions will face in attempting to comply with UIGEA. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Last year, Rep. Frank introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046) that would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. States would also have the right to control what, if any, level of Internet gambling is permissible within their borders and could apply additional taxes and restrictions.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']A companion piece of legislation to the Frank bill introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), 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.[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] encourages you to contact your Representative now to thank them or ask for their support for regulated Internet gambling. Visit www.safeandsecureig.org and take action today.[/font]

Originally Posted by dj11 I'm getting really sick of hearing this "protect the Children at all costs" argument. If you want to protect your child, from all the things life is, far fracking out, but don't be messing with my interpretation of what life offers.

Originally Posted by dj11 I would love to think that now that we all have the individual right to bear arms, which will have to mean at any time, that these pansy ass protective politicos, will think a second thought. Alas, won't happen.

Originally Posted by KyleJRM Yes. In America, it's always a good election policy to ban "sins" such as gambling or raise taxes on them (such as cigarettes or alcohol.) It's weird, because we love our sins, but we keep electing people who run on platforms of banning them.

Originally Posted by wayschaff but they can take money from oil lobbyists legally.

Originally Posted by Nick After lots of discussion and then a break, they came back to vote and it was 32-32. They then did a voice vote and unfortunately the "No"s won.

Originally Posted by Dorkus Malorkus so it's basically whoever can shout the loudest?

Originally Posted by LeaveMeAlone I still dont understand this whole thing. Somone explain to me the difference in our legal system and countries in Europe that make online gambling illegal here. Is it just a cultural thing or what???

Originally Posted by Jefe Grandoso Basically it's the "We are the government, and We know what's best for you, and We know you can't take care of yourself so We have to babysit you." attitude of the "Elected Officials"