ONLINE GAMBLING REGULATIONS BILL APPROVED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE!!!

[CareyG]

ONLINE GAMBLING REGULATIONS BILL APPROVED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

28 July 2010
By Vin Narayanan

In a 41-22-1 vote, the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill Wednesday that would license and regulate online gambling in the United States.

The decisive vote is a sign of a how far the Democratic Congress has come since Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) attempted to halt the implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2008. Frank's first attempt to halt UIGEA implementation failed to get out of Committee on a 32-32 vote. A second bill which would have allowed UIGEA regulations for sports betting only passed Committee on a 30-19 to vote, but was never voted on by the full House of Representatives.

This year, Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (HR 2267) drew substantial bipartisan support with seven Republicans voting for the bill and 18 voting against it. Thirty-four Democrats voted for the bill and four voted against it. Republican Ron Paul voted present, and seven members of the committee failed to vote.

Two Californians -- Republican John Campbell and Democrat Brad Sherman -- played a significant role in amending the bill Wednesday and ensuring its passage.

Campbell authored a substantial amendment which called for changes on both the administrative and consumer protection sides of the proposed legislation. On the administrative side, Campbell's amendment gives "states and tribal authorities parallel authority to administer licenses and enforce these regulations."

"There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when many states have these structures already in place," Campbell added during the markup session.

Campbell's amendment also requires licensees to maintain all online gambling facilities targeting U.S. residents within in the United States.

Campbell added additional protections for consumer by requiring the odds of winning be posted for each game. His amendment also requires loss limits for players in addition to age and location verification.

Sherman's amendments added language that prevents bad "actors" from obtaining licenses, gives states a full legislative session to opt out of the federal plan and specified that that in order to get a license, the majority of that company's job had to be in the U.S.

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who was the chief opponent to Frank's bill in the committee, successfully strengthened Sherman's bad "actors" language by specifying companies -- and managers from companies -- that had deliberately evaded or violated U.S. law regarding online gambling could not obtain licenses.

The funniest moment in Wednesday's hearing came when Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) introduced an amendment that reiterated that sports betting on the Internet would be illegal.

"This is a full employment act for bookies," joked Campbell, before voting for the amendment. The amendment did pass.

Other amendments that passed include bans on inappropriate advertising, bans on ads targeting minors and the frequent testing of minor protection systems.

The Poker Players alliance was quick to praise the passage of the amended bill.

"The fact is, online poker is not going away," said former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, chairman of the PPA in a statement. "Congress has a choice - it can license and regulate it to provide government oversight and consumer protections, or our lawmakers can stick their heads in the sand, ignore it, and leave consumers to play on non-U.S. regulated websites in all 50 states. I'm glad the Financial Services Committee today overwhelmingly chose to act and protect Americans as well as preserve the fundamental freedoms of adults and the Internet."

Frank's bill still has several hurdles it needs to clear before it can become law. First the full House needs to vote on it. That vote is not likely to happen before the House's August break begins in two weeks (Aug. 9) and during the lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections. That means it has to pass a full floor vote between Sept. 7 and Oct. 8. In order for a full vote to happen, the Democratic leadership in the House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), needs to schedule it.

If the House passes the bill, then it needs to be taken up by the Senate. If it is passed by both the House and the Senate, then it will need to be signed by President Obama. All of this needs to happen this year, before the end of the legislative session. If it doesn't happen before the end of this year's legislative session, the process will have to start over next year -- when the makeup of both the House and the Senate will be different.

Source

[CareyG]

Woohoooooo we are halfway there!!!!!

[sorcer3ss]

Well that's fantastic

[Precious]

all i got to say is

thank you Carey

[judyb57]

Slowly but surely............

[vixen777]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO! Crossing my fingers!!

[pevangel]

Oh Lordy, I am afraid to ask, now does this have to go to the Senate for passing? I am sure it does, but sorry the republicans will block it as they did the extensions for unemployment for just about 2 months, sorry if I offend anyone, I do not mean to. this is IMO. Just a thought outloud so to speak. I apologise.


pevangel

[judyb57]

Originally Posted by CareyG

Frank's bill still has several hurdles it needs to clear before it can become law. First the full House needs to vote on it. That vote is not likely to happen before the House's August break begins in two weeks (Aug. 9) and during the lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections. That means it has to pass a full floor vote between Sept. 7 and Oct. 8. In order for a full vote to happen, the Democratic leadership in the House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), needs to schedule it.

If the House passes the bill, then it needs to be taken up by the Senate. If it is passed by both the House and the Senate, then it will need to be signed by President Obama. All of this needs to happen this year, before the end of the legislative session. If it doesn't happen before the end of this year's legislative session, the process will have to start over next year -- when the makeup of both the House and the Senate will be different.

Here you go hon, this last tells the rest of the story

[dipstick42]

At this point, it looks rather unlikely that the Senate will pick up the issue this term and, unfortunately, it seems almost certain that the Republicans will pick up seats in both houses. To be honest, though, I'm not altogether sure I want this particular bill to pass.

I abhor the UIGEA and its authors, both due to its content and the way it was enacted, and I admire what Barney Frank is trying to do. But, having said that, there are a few things in this bill that I have major problems with.

All internet gambling in the U.S. has always had an ambigous state of legality. However, mostly due to pressure from the NFL, Frank added a provision to this bill that specifically makes it a crime to bet on sports over the internet.

Also, individual states would have the right to opt out and ban all internet gambling within their borders. Living in a conservative Southern state myself, I'm fairly sure I would be included in that ban.

Plus, many of the casinos we currently know and love would NOT be granted licenses under this bill due to language that a) requires any licensed gaming operation to have the majority of its employees located in the U.S. and b) denies a license to any company that has "knowingly violated" the UIGEA.

I admire Barney Frank for his ideals, but unfortunately, I fear that the ultimate result of this bill would be that many of us would lose what little gaming freedom we currently have. I would much rather see a simple repeal of the UIGEA.

[Mouche12]

Mmmm, well let's see how it all works out in practice. I hope with all my heart that all American players will be able to play again at all MG casinos, if that is the outcome I am happy! If it is required that MG should hire an x% of US located employees, then I hope they will do so without delay. And let's see how it works out for the banned states...

[labell]

Plus, many of the casinos we currently know and love would NOT be granted licenses under this bill due to language that a) requires any licensed gaming operation to have the majority of its employees located in the U.S. and b) denies a license to any company that has "knowingly violated" the UIGEA.

No bill can be perfect, but this is a major hurdle for the casinos who have been loyal to us.

I'm sick to death of Washington looking for another way to control us!

Personally I think it's just another revenue source for the government to tax us with...

And as for the bad rap the Republicans took on unemployment extensions, it was the funding they opposed - adding it to the debt - they just wanted to use the billions in unused stimulus money.

[kayjay70]

I'm sick to death of Washington looking for another way to control us!

Personally I think it's just another revenue source for the government to tax us with...

And as for the bad rap the Republicans took on unemployment extensions, it was the funding they opposed - adding it to the debt - they just wanted to use the billions in unused stimulus money.
__________________

Thank you labell. I soooo totally agree.

kayjay

[Aleastorm]

is it true or false that it was a Republican that took our rights away for gambling on the internet and started this whole mess by slipping what law he wanted into a bill that bush signed?and are most of the Republicans the ones who want to tell us how we are aloud to spend the money we worked for and on what we can and can not spend it on.just asking

[CareyG]

That would be correct Alea!

[labell]

is it true or false that it was a Republican that took our rights away for gambling on the internet and started this whole mess by slipping what law he wanted into a bill that bush signed?

That is false... The original bills, HR 3125 and the Senate bill IGPA were proposed under Democrat Bill Clinton, and co sponsored by the congressmen listed at this page: Bill Summary & Status - 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) - H.R.3125 - Cosponsors - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
many of which you'll recognize as Democrats.

The bill was defeated by the efforts of a paid lobbyist. It was re written and passed as the UIGEA, 419 to 2 in congress with all 100 Senators voting to pass the bill. So it would have been veto proof even had President Bush wished to veto it. And at the time it was passed the Democrats controlled the congress, so it is clearly false to blame the Republicans.

and are most of the Republicans the ones who want to tell us how we are aloud to spend the money we worked for and on what we can and can not spend it on.just asking

Actually I think it's just the opposite. The major news media paints the Republicans in the most negative terms, and so much you hear is truly false. A republican wants limited government control over our lives. Lower taxes so we can use our dollars as we want, which create jobs through our spending.

Think of it this way, if all your money goes to income taxes, you have nothing to spend in the private sector. But if more of your money comes home weekly, you'll shop, buy pizzas, clothing etc... each of those purchases creates jobs, whether it's the pizza maker, the delivery person, the food supplier who sells them the flour and sauce, the box company, and each of THOSE purchases starts the ball rolling over again.

That is actually what trickle down economy meant, leave more money in OUR hands, as we spend it trickles into the economy creating jobs and opportunity.

Sorry this is so long, but as you can see I feel kind of passionately about it.

[lkvikings]

Although I respect everyones opinion on this and everyone has the right to post their opinion I personally don't think pointing fingers on who's mess this is (Rep vs Dem) is the correct way of going about this. Politicians are dirty no matter if they are Democrat or Republican. The only thing they care about is the money..bottom line. They could not care less about the ramifications of legalizing on line gaming vs keeping it illegal. I, like everyone else, have my own political views but it doesn't do us any good to go back and fourth about who is at fault.

[beaches3572]

Thanks for the research, Labell. It all boils down to us have the freedom to spend our money as we wish. As government grows larger, it seems we have less.

LK - your point is well said. We have to all work together to get this done.

[judyb57]

I am with you lk, I stay far away from debates on sex, religion and politics, lol I just want to have the freedom to spend my money however I want!

[labell]

well said lk

[mthanatos]

This is wonderful news. Everybody say