US Moves To Implement Rules Banning Most Internet Gambling

[Nbadan]

Oh, oh, Manny's head is gonna explode...

US Moves To Implement Rules Banning Most Internet Gambling
By Corey Boles, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Treasury Department has finalized regulations that would effectively ban online gambling in the U.S. and is trying to have them implemented in the waning days of the Bush administration.

The controversial rules would make it illegal for banks to process credit card transactions from most Internet gambling sites.

Their implementation has been opposed by groups advocating individuals' right to gamble, the banking industry, Democratic lawmakers in Congress and even officials at the Federal Reserve.

The rules stem from a last-minute addition to a law passed in the final hours of the Republican controlled Congress in 2006. The provisions related to online gambling were included in an unrelated port security bill.

The Treausury Department forwarded the final regulations to the Office of Management and Budget on Oct. 21, a necessary step towards their implementation.

It's standard practice for outgoing administrations to finalize controversial regulations before leaving office, a practice known as a midnight drop.

The law as drafted by Congress includes some exemptionsfor horse race betting, interstate online lotteries and betting on fantasy sports.

But draft rules published by the Treasury in October 2007 don't define what would be considered an illegal transaction, and there has been much confusion as to what types of online gambling would be rendered illegal.

Banks have warned they may block all online gambling transactions rather than try to determine which ones are illegal. An official from the Federal Reserve testified before Congress in April that the draft regulations created considerable uncertainty.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, attempted to drum up support from fellow lawmakers for legislation that would amend the law to allow online gambling transactions to continue.

He was unsuccessful but pledged to return to the issue next year.

The Poker Players Alliance, a group formed to combat the law, has fought against its implementation. It argues that Internet poker should be exempted from the law.

"It's really remarkable that this administration would try to push this out given the burden it would place on financial institutions at this time of financial crisis," said John Pappas, the executive director of the group.

Pappas is meeting Friday with officials from the OMB, whose job it is to formally implement the regulations, in a last ditch effort to prevent them from being put on the books.

He wants officials to wait until President-elect Barack Obama's administration takes office in January to allow for a thorough review of the potential impact of the rules.

A Treasury spokeswoman did not return phone calls seeking comment for this report.

Nasdaq (http://www.nasdaq.net/publicpages/NewsDetailPublic.aspx?symbol=&storyId=20081106\ACQDJON200811061856DOWJONESDJONLI NE000987.htm)

[boutons_]

Repugs pandering, grovelling to the extreme right wing, Puritanical Christian supremacists.

[MannyIsGod]

Why can't this administration just go the fuck away already?

[kwhitegocubs]

Yes, we will allow gambling in Indian Reservations, in Vegas, in Atlantic City, at every roadside stop in many states. We will subsidize their construction in some cases, tax the shit out of them, and leave them alone. We will advertise lotteries in the vast majority of states despite the fact that doing so is encouraging financial ignorance.

However, TEH INTORWEBS IS BAD. NO TO NET NEUTRALITY, NO TO INTERWEB GAMBLING. Seriously, how does it make sense to them to ban internet poker and sportsbooks when they are also legal in some physical locations all over the country!?

Boutons, you are awfully caustic, but it does seem to be some sort of weird, compartmentalized morality that can justify this.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not so much as pandering to the religious right in this case so much as the administration actually wanting to accomplish the same agenda as the religious right regardless of how much it contradicts with true conservative. These guys love to legislate morality. That is, THEIR morality.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I don't know a ton about the online gambling community. How many of these sites have their HQ's set up overseas or in some way that they don't get taxed by the U.S. government?

[MannyIsGod]

They're all overseas and it has nothing to do with tax law but rather the overzealousness of the Justice Dept in pursuing them on the basis of gambling laws meant to target bookies taking bets over the phone although the passage of UIGEA a couple of years ago at least legitimately makes those sites actions illegal now.

I promise you these companies would love nothing more than to have a legit entry into the United States market and would pay taxes on their earnings.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh fuck anyone who wants to take away online gambling. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

And a REPUBLICAN administration is trying to get this done? Honestly? What the fuck will it take to get libertarians to leave the Republicans? lol

[MannyIsGod]

One of the reasons I liked the Biden pick was because he was one of the only senators who voted against the first incarnation of UIGEA and although I'm sure that had to do with added burden on CC companies I'm glad I had his vote in that matter.

I think with the looming deficit you absolutely need to look to sources such as this in order to generate more tax revenue. I would not be surprised one bit if we see a move towards open legalization of online gambling during this administration.

[2centsworth]

this one is a punch to the gut and reminds me of what I dislike about the republican party.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

They're all overseas and it has nothing to do with tax law but rather the overzealousness of the Justice Dept in pursuing them on the basis of gambling laws meant to target bookies taking bets over the phone although the passage of UIGEA a couple of years ago at least legitimately makes those sites actions illegal now.

I promise you these companies would love nothing more than to have a legit entry into the United States market and would pay taxes on their earnings.

That's about what I figured. Thanks Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

What sucks is the underhanded way in which they pass these things. This is being rushed by an admin on the way out. UIGEA was passed as a rider on of SAFE Port act. Yeah, I'm sure some fucking congressman who is up for reelection is going to vote against that because of an internet gambling provision within the act. Yeah fucking right and I don't blame them for not voting against it.

Man, so many things that the GOP has done in the past 8 years that I disagree with but none of them make my blood boil like this for obvious reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and who introduces legislation to strike down UIGEA? Barney fucking Frank!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Well, Treasury passed this shit today so now the banks have 1 year comply. Its not clear whether it just covers credit cards or what the deal is. I haven't used a credit card in a long time so I'm not sure how big this is.

[LnGrrrR]

Assuming Obama doesn't strike it down, that is. (No idea what his stance would be on this.)

[sabar]

Government of the people? Yeah right. How many people are actually morally against gambling these days? I can't imagine it is a majority.

[MannyIsGod]

Assuming Obama doesn't strike it down, that is. (No idea what his stance would be on this.)

There is going to be a lot of striking down of last minute regulations by Obama but most of the focus is on environmental stuff and thats fine with me. I'm hoping these regs get lumped in but really I'm hoping that Barney Frank's bill gets reintroduced in the next congressional session and gets passed even if it just gets passed along party lines.

Its time to come through for me Dems. I worked my ass off for your election, now you could throw a bone my way.

[MannyIsGod]

Government of the people? Yeah right. How many people are actually morally against gambling these days? I can't imagine it is a majority.

Its absolutely not a majority. This is simply foolish moral legislation from a minority.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh, and who introduces legislation to strike down UIGEA? Barney fucking Frank!!!!!

He must be banging someone from one of the offshore casinos these days :lol

[dg7md]

At least the spam emails about FREE ONLINE GAMBLING!!!! will stop.

[MannyIsGod]

He must be banging someone from one of the offshore casinos these days :lol

No, its because these regs are bad for the banking industry. Take a look at the committee he chairs.

But if you look at the voting history Democrats have been against this type of shit while the GOP keeps pushing it. One look at the PPA's rating of my reps explains it. Cornyn gets an F from them which requires active campaigning or co sponsorship of legislation against online gaming. Charlie Gonazales and Ciro Rodriguez both get an A which requires prety much the opposite.

I really fucking hate John Cornyn right now. I voted against that fucker and even though he won at least I have that.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Is poker considered gambling? I thought it was considered a game of skill and immune from gambling restrictions. Or is that a state-level issue and not a federal distinction?

[MannyIsGod]

State level issue but the reason they don't point that out is because they want to use as broad a stroke as possible. Poker most definitely is a game of skill and there has been testimony from the DoJ on the congressional level that there is no law making online poker illegal but this administration doesn't let those details get in their way.

The PPA (Poker Players Alliance) had been actively lobbying for a poker specific carveout from these regulations but they were not successful. I'm not sure if the final regulations spell out exactly what unlawful gambling is, but it woudln't suprise me if they didn't. I'm trying to find out as as I type this but I don't have a copy of the final regs yet.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

So there is basis for poker players to challenge the Constitutionality of the law.

I don't know a lot about internet gambling. But isn't there at least some legitimate concern that most of the sites are fronts for organized crime? Or is that an urban legend I picked up somewhere?

[MannyIsGod]

So there is basis for poker players to challenge the Constitutionality of the law.

I don't know a lot about internet gambling. But isn't there at least some legitimate concern that most of the sites are fronts for organized crime? Or is that an urban legend I picked up somewhere?

Total urban legend. And making them illegal isn't exactly going to improve anything on that front. The biggest site when this went down was a publicly traded company on the (I believe) London Stock Exchange. Since then most of the companies have simply packed up and left the US market with the exception of a couple of big ones and some smaller ones. Online poker around the world is currently flourishing and while UIGEA did see a sharp reduction in the amount of players from the US and a long period where there was extreme difficulty in withdrawing funds (I had thousands tied up for quite some time) they've started to grow once again.

There are WTO cases pending against the US because of this legislation. This is a completely legit industry across the world but the religious right would rather I not make money with my math skills because I might join Hagey in hell if I do.

I don't know if there is an actual legit consitutional challenge and in fact I'm almost sure there is not because of the way things are worded. The online poker community reaches into quite a few places and we have lawyers and people who work on the hill who have commented on this at the legislation forum at twoplustwo.com who have shot that down in the past if I remember correctly.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL I just noticed NBA Dan's first line in this thread.

:(

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

[MannyIsGod]

BTW one of the people supplying the pressure to push this through?

William Wichterman

Who did William serve as chief of staff for when this legislation was being pushed through? You got it! Bill Frist!

I thought Frist was done bending me over but I guess not.

[MannyIsGod]

I hate these people. Literally hate.

Bush aide pushes gambling ban
By: Patrick O'Connor
November 8, 2008 09:02 AM EST
The Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15442.html


A Tennessee Democrat is charging a top Bush adviser with exerting “considerable political pressure” to benefit one of his former lobbying clients.

Rep. Steve Cohen asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to investigate whether William Wichterman, a top political aide to the president, disclosed his “potential conflict of interest” in pushing the administration to enact new requirements to enforce an Internet gambling ban, according to a letter the congressman sent Friday.

As late as March, Wichterman was a registered lobbyist with Covington & Burling where he represented the National Football League, according to the Senate lobbying disclosure database. In that role, he worked on the Internet gaming laws, one of the league's top legislative priorities.

The Cohen letter marks the latest turn in a long-running fight over Internet gambling regulations. The online poker industry has partnered with a wide range of financial institutions to slow the administration from implementing rules Congress passed in 2006 as part of an unrelated bill.

Wichterman and other White House officials are trying to rush these rules changes through the administration’s normal approval process during the final months of the Bush presidency.

The new rules would require banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to block all financial transactions with Internet gambling sites. Online gambling is illegal in this country. Supporters of the new requirements argue this update would allow the federal government to enforce the pre-existing ban.

Opponents, who include House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), argue the law is too vague and places onerous requirements on these financial institutions—at a time when many are struggling to rebound from the slumping economy.

Wichterman and others backers of the bill, like Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), have been pushing the administration to enact these changes before Nov. 17, in the narrow window before the new administration could make any changes, according to people familiar with these deliberations.


The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve must sign off on the language of the law before the administration can implement these new rules. There is a 60-day review process, so current administration officials want their recommended language to take effect before the next administration takes over.

In his letter to the White House, Cohen suggests Wichterman “has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through finalization.”

The former lobbyist with Covington & Burling represented the NFL, which, says the letter, “has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law.”

Opponents fear OMB will push these rules changes through, even though administration officials testified before the Financial Services panel earlier this year that the law is overly vague.

OMB needs the Federal Reserve to sign off on the new rules before the administration can implement them as law, according to people familiar with the implementation process.

The financial services industry has opposed the Internet gaming law since former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) inserted it in a port security bill during his final days in office. Administration officials and industry representatives have since criticized the rules during congressional testimony.

“The way to get a better reg[ulation] is to get a better law,” said Andy Barbour, who oversees Internet issues for the Financial Services Roundtable. “We’re interested in pursuing that cause, as is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.”

Religious organizations, on the other hand, are steadfast in their support of the measure. Critics argued that Frist moved the legislation to bolster his bona fides with religious conservatives in anticipation of a potential White House bid, though he never did launch a bid.

Cohen asks Fielding whether Wichterman—who worked for Frist before heading to K Street—disclosed “to you or your office his potential conflict of interest on this matter.”

“If so, was he nonetheless allowed by the White House to work on this issue?” the congressman asks.

In the letter, Cohen asks the White House counsel to spell out for him the Bush administration’s policy on aides working in issue areas they covered as paid lobbyists.

The congressman wants to know if “there is a defined period during which employees who served as lawyers or lobbyists in the private sector must recuse themselves from matters affecting their former clients.”

The Tennessee Democrat also wants to know whether Wichterman plans to return to the lobbying firm. He further asks for a catalogue of contact between the White House office of Public Liaison with Treasury, OMB and the Federal Reserve.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the Cohen letter. On Thursday, spokesman Tony Fratto said his office does not comment on administrative rules that remain under consideration.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and MAKG there is an organization pursuing the unconstitutionality of the entire statute as you suggested. I've not followed these proceedings very closely over the past six months and basically just kept up with whatever the PPA sent me via email. I'm now trying to read as much as possible so I can actually understand what we're looking at now and how many blowjobs to my reps I have to promise to get them to vote for me. I have a feeling no amount of blow jobs will help me with my stupid GOP senators.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Well, if the new administration doesn't reverse this, someone could make a mint establishing a middle man payment system.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if the new administration doesn't reverse this, someone could make a mint establishing a middle man payment system.

Except the middle men are all afraid to do business here now. That was how most of this was conducted prior to the UIGEA passage. The major ewallet doing this was Neteller but there were others who have now also pulled out. These guys are afraid of the DoJ coming after them.

Right now I get a check from a payment processor when I withdraw from my accounts. Its a much slower process than it was a few years ago (A few years ago I had virtually instant access to the funds in my accounts) but its safe and its reliable which is the most I can ask for today.

[RGMCSE]

So I love to Gamble but I like going to Casinos and such. However I get an itch every once in a while were I just want to chill, drink a beer and place a few 2$ tri's on dogs and ponys and just watch online. I read online that Texas may finally be back on track to approve a bill that would enable online wagering benefitting charities and Law enforcement.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB3926
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/220444/texas-considering-adw-and-purpose-driven-gaming
http://www.usonlinebetting.com/tx/

But who know when this will finally be approved into law if it even passes all the stages. Does anyone use an offshore gaming site that they feel comfortable with? What has your experience been with using an off shore betting account?

[AaronY]

Whoa MannyisGod..that takes me back

[Winehole23]

money talks:


The U.S. Justice Department’s decision to expand a federal prohibition on internet gambling will cast a pall on the industry as businesses and state lotteries evaluate the implications of the change and the government’s plans to enforce it.

The U.S. now says the U.S. Wire Act bars all internet gambling that involves interstate transactions, reversing its position from 2011 that only sports betting was prohibited under the law passed 50 years earlier.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/u-s-now-says-all-online-gambling-illegal-not-just-sports-bets

[Winehole23]

A coalition (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-30/adelson-backed-lobbying-against-web-gaming-makes-sessions-fold) backed by billionaire (https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/) casino executive Sheldon Adelson (https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/id/1918161) lobbied the Justice Department in 2017 to reconsider its 2011 decision that cleared the way for states to allow online gambling.

The businesses that will be most directly affected are interstate lotteries that have become well established after 2011, said Dennis Gutwald, an attorney with McDonald Carano LLP in Las Vegas. The Justice Department’s new reading of the law won’t affect intrastate online wagering, where patrons bet only from within a single state.

[boutons_deux]

"A coalition (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-30/adelson-backed-lobbying-against-web-gaming-makes-sessions-fold) backed by billionaire (https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/) casino executive Sheldon Adelson (https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/id/1918161)"

more irrefutable evidence that the oligarchy buys, and gets, whatever it wants that protects/promotes its Capital (even during govt shutdown)