What are some of the things million dollar pro-gambling companies can do to win the support of the US government? Please list things to do in order of importance. Ask, “if I had 500 million dollars how would I spend 3 million on helping to make online gambling legal?” If Bill Frist was bought out by anti-online gambling lobbyists, how much does the buy out of Barney Frank cost to the anti-protectionist? If the US continues to laugh at the WTOs ruling on internet gambling free trade, will the US government be seen as too pompous and anti-humble thus giving the US a bad reputation in the WTO? How can lobbyists win the WTO over on handing some jail time to those US officials who are responsible for not allowing free trade? Can we send US officials to jail for the not doing what the WTO is requesting regarding free trade? Is it possible to send US officials to jail given a ten million dollar defense team filled with good lawyers? What about stoning them to death? Can God legalize this?
online gambling bonus
Subscribes to this post comment rss or trackback url
sounds interesting dude ur smart and just give me the awnser cause i was first and funny lol nevermind.
It’s tough, because I don’t see enough benefit for a politician to make this stance.
I mean, the vast majority of the population has, at best, a neutral view of gambling. Bill Frist passing an online gambling ban was met with disdain from online gamblers, joy from James Dobson and people of his ilk, and overwhelming apathy by most people.
However, groups such as “Focus on the Family” are much more vocal than the pro-gambling people. Anyone trying to overturn the UIGEA will probably be labled as promoters of sinful activity by these groups and the people that run against them.
I guess the best method to go about overturning this would be to target those not in the good graces of these organizations anyway, mainly northern, secular liberals. Top emphasis would be placed on the facts that:
1) Taxation could bring in lots of revenue
2) Regulation could ensure the safety of people’s money
3) The law was passed behind everyone’s back
4) The law is putting strains on the banking system that is already trying to adapt to anti-terror regulations
5) The law has been rejected by the WTO, and continued enforcement could strain relations
6) The law has so many exceptions (fantasy games, horse racing, etc.) that they aren’t really keeping with the true spirit of the law
7) The law is currently unenforceable
A big downside is that these lawmakers have a lot of other items on the agenda. The good news is that Barney Frank says he will try to get it overturned soon (link below). I have my fingers crossed.
Several meetings were held this past week in Washington DC to strategize how to challenge the U.S. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which signals hope for online poker players that UIGEA repeal efforts are coming to a climax in the coming months.
A meeting between House Financial Services Committee politicians and online gambling lobbyists, was held Thursday to agree on a strategy to repeal of the UIGEA, according to Gambling911, who also broke the news of a meeting the same day between several major portals to discuss how to encourage massive US player and gaming industry support for Congressman Barney Frank’s efforts to repeal the UIGEA.
Frank, who is the new chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, said that he plans to introduce his UIGEA repeal proposal next week or the week after that.
He noted in an interview published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) on Thursday, that resistance is growing against the UIGEA ban which made it illegal for financial institutions to handle transactions between online gambling sites and US residents.
Congress passed the ban after it was attached to a ’sure-to-be-passed’ unrelated Safe Ports Act by then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Rep-Tenn.), with the support of Senator Jon Kyl (Rep-Az.).
Frank told the LVRJ, “I think a lot of members of Congress voted for that without having given it a lot of attention. And I think that there is growing opposition to it. I think that this may be a case where, after the fact of having voted for it, people don’t like it and they reconsider.”
Meanwhile, Nevadans Shelley Berkley (Dem.) and Jon Porter (Rep.) are planning to introduce legislation calling for a study of Internet gambling by the National Academy of Sciences within the next two weeks. They had formerly mentioned an 18-month study, and now are expected to propose a one-year study, which is another signal that pressure is mounting in Washington to address online gambling.
Frank said he may support the Nevadans’ bill, but stressed, “I want to go beyond the study.”
The Poker Players Alliance, chaired by former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, R-N.Y., has repeatedly stated that they may seek legislation to exempt online poker from the ban. (
But in statements during a European trip last week, Frank told Belgian reporters that he rejected any carve out for poker that is being lobbying for. Frank said he was “un-persuaded” to work for such a carve out to add to the existing carve outs already in the UIGEA for using the Internet to bet on horses and sports fantasy games or buy Lottery tickets.
“I am not going to draw a distinction between poker and blackjack,” Frank said.
Frank acknowledged Congress may not be ready to change the ban dramatically, “But I know (lawmakers) are hearing from people who don’t like it now. So I’d say the situation is very fluid.”
Although he said it would be “premature” to discuss details of his bill, Frank explained why he has described the Internet gambling ban as one of the “stupidest” ever passed.
“Because I like to tell the truth,” he said. “It has no valid public purpose in my judgment. It intrudes in people’s private lives.”
“One argument for it … was this activity [online poker] adds nothing to the GDP (gross domestic product). That’s a chilling principle; that if something doesn’t add to the gross domestic product we can ban it. That’s a kind of … corporatism that is very troubling to me.”
The ban made it illegal for financial institutions to handle credit card transactions or other bank instruments to pay for sports bets or any other form of online gambling (except for the carve-outs noted above for betting on horses and sports fantasy games or buying Lottery tickets).
The carve out for horse betting is what sealed the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) recent decision to uphold rulings in the case brought by Antigua against the USA for discriminating against online gambling companies located outside of the United States.
It had been estimated that US online gambling had been a $12 billion industry before the UIGEA became law last October.
It is interesting to note that Frank has been a persistent, consistent, and often lone voice objecting to efforts to regulate gambling.
“In a number of areas, I am a libertarian,” Frank told the LVRJ. “I think that John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ is a great statement, and I was just rereading it. I believe that people should be allowed to read and gamble and ride motorcycles and do a lot of things that other people might not want to let them do.”
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
