Poker US Legislation News

Nick

Nick

CC
Administrator
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Total posts
8,704
(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 :(
 
Poof

Poof

Made in the USA
Joined
May 21, 2008
Total posts
14,419
wow they really need to get with the times. Maybe someday......
 
H

hypergized

Guest
Joined
May 18, 2008
Total posts
23
doesnt matter, places like ultraprepaid dot com and take payments.. there is always going to be loop holes

ultraprepaid is FTP work around
 
Monoxide

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Total posts
3,657
(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 :(

Wow.

Just wow.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
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?????).
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Or we could just vote them the **** out of office.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Lawmakers disagree over defining online gambling | Technology | Star-Telegram.com

It didn't actually make it to the floor, this was a house committee, and as Nick mentioned, it failed to get out of committee because it did not have the necessary votes. I will be doing my best to find out who voted for and against this bill and publishing this list here, and basically anywhere anyone will read it. Let you know if/when I find it, and if anyone else has it I'd be glad to see it.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
Note that the vote in committee was over an amendment on defining unlawful gambling (not sure on the details, couldn't find the text anywhere), and that tied 32-32 thus failed. The voice vote was on the actual bill. The ayes should have yelled louder imo :).

But in all seriousness I can't believe they do those kinds of votes with absolutely no accountability.
 
L

LeaveMeAlone

Rising Star
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Total posts
5
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???
 
KyleJRM

KyleJRM

Visionary
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Total posts
735
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???

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.
 
woodwidgeon

woodwidgeon

Rock Star
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Total posts
196
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????????????
 
woodwidgeon

woodwidgeon

Rock Star
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Total posts
196
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????????????
And as a quote from a famous MrMuckets "Kill them Kill them Kill them all
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
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.
 
buckster436

buckster436

Cardschat Hall of Famer - RIP Buck
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Total posts
15,125
Awards
2
Dam,Dam,Dam,:mad: this Dam Goverment we got,, its unreal when adults cant do what they want,,,,:mad: :( buck:mad:
 
jolubman

jolubman

Visionary
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Total posts
768
safesecure.jpg
June 25, 2008
Key Congressional Committee Reaches Stalemate on New Regulations to Enforce Internet Gambling Ban
Republicans Said ‘No' to Amendment Helping Credit Unions, Banks
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.
"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."
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.
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."
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.
"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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative 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.
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
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.

Yep:

1. Federal government != parents

2. current way doesn't protect minors anyway, whether they use a parent's card, get cash from a friend, I've known tons of minors playing online poker. In fact if I get this right this bill would actually go towards helping regulate the market and force online sites to do more to make sure those depositing are not minors (require ID scans and such basically I think).

3. Said this before, won't go into detail, but I think if a minor can spend the money on a movie, to go bowling, etc., they should be able to spend the cash on gambling. It's their own money, and if they're not responsible enough to handle money, they shouldn't be allowed to buy anything. Not positive on all the legal implications of minors, and I'm pretty sure technically the cash they have belongs to their parents or guardians, but in that case why is a parent/guardian not needed for a kid to buy something? If they had the cash would a minor be able to buy a car? A house?
 
KyleJRM

KyleJRM

Visionary
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Total posts
735
If I'm old enough to be asked by a recruited to take a job that might involve dying for my country, I'm old enough to decide what to do with my own money.
 
MrMuckets

MrMuckets

Legend
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Total posts
2,379
Awards
2
One of those idiots actually said " we are trying to put casinos in our children's nurseries.":confused::confused::confused:
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
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.
:(
 
zachvac

zachvac

Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Total posts
7,832
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.
:(

At least the Supreme Court seems to have some sense (or else just Kennedy), they've been 3/3 imo in the recent decisions (habeus corpus, death penalty, gun control) although they were all 4-3, assume DC v. Keller is the one you're referring to?
 
wayschaff

wayschaff

Visionary
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Total posts
758
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.

what's even wierder then that is that anyone who smokes pays and average of $1.50-$3.00 depending on local per pack in taxes. yet everywhere you go they are taking your freedom away to smoke in public. and its ok for senators to solicite gay sex in public restrooms. its ok for the former president to solicite sex in the white house. i don't vote so i usually don't express my political opinion but i personally think instead of trying to limit online activities for hard working adults they should be trying to figure out why the hell the average gallon of gas is $4.59. we can't play poker online legally but they can take money from oil lobbyists legally. wtf is wrong with that? whats even more amazing is that when oil prices go up, gas goes up the same day or the next day. even though the oil isnt going to be used for days, weeks, or even months. what good does it do to call it future prices when the gas goes up immediately. everyone gave bill clinton shit about monica but the budget was balanced interest rates were down unemployment was down. and gas prices were down.
 
Top