Poker Affiliate World - Poker Affiliate Programs Discussion and Forums

- General Poker Affiliate Discussion (http://www.pokeraffiliateworld.com/forums/general-poker-affiliate-discussion/)

- - Barney Franks New Bill (http://www.pokeraffiliateworld.com/forums/general-poker-affiliate-discussion/9889-barney-franks-new-bill.html)

Barney Franks New Bill

Not as great as I thought...maybe it has a better chance now?

Quote:

US Rep. Frank Calls For Regulation by Emily Swoboda
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, today introduced his long-awaited Internet gambling bill and it is not at all what people had been expecting.
For several weeks, media reports have had the industry and U.S. online gamblers anticipating a full repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), enacted October 2006, which prevents U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the United States.
Under the bill, titled the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, the UIGEA would remain in place, as would the Wire Act. Banks and credit card companies would still be prevented from doing business with illegal online gaming operators. However, Frank's bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., provides a defense against the regulations that will soon be set forth by the UIGEA by proposing federal licensing and regulation of offshore Internet gambling companies.
The legislation amends Chapter 53 of Title 31, United States Code (Monetary Transactions), by adding a new subchapter titled Regulation of Lawful Internet Gambling.
Frank's bill gives the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) exclusive authority to issue and enforce licenses and regulations. Companies would be subject to financial and corporate scrutiny--including criminal background checks of corporate officers--during the application process. Furthermore, companies would be required to establish a corporate structure in the United States for tax-and-fees purposes.
The bill requires licensed companies to adhere to federal- and state-income tax laws.
Addressing the concerns of those opposed to Internet gambling, the bill also stipulates that in order to gain licensure in the United States, companies must have appropriate safeguards in place for preventing underage gambling, fraud and money laundering before ever taking a bet from a U.S. resident.
Licenses are renewable each year under the proposed legislation and are subject to revocation if the company fails to comply with the regulations or any U.S. federal laws.
Frank's bill is gambling-neutral, in that it doesn't target any one form of gambling. It gives states the choice to opt out of regulating gaming entirely--or, states can choose to regulate certain forms of gaming and not others. In addition, if sports leagues don't want any form of wagering to occur on the sport within their league they can opt out as well. Furthermore, it recognizes tribes, giving them the same rights as states.
According to Congressional findings, Internet gambling is a $13 billion industry that continues to grow worldwide. Within the United States, gambling is a very popular activity, with some form being permitted in nearly every state. It is licensed and regulated in more than 50 countries and the global gaming market grossed $258 billion in 2005, of which 47 percent of North Americans were responsible. Furthermore, licensed and regulated Internet gambling in the United States would bring in additional tax revenue and reduce tax avoidance.
Internet gambling opponents, such as Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and former Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, tried for 10 years to push anti-Internet gambling legislation through Congress. Their colleague, former Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., managed to attach the UIGEA to a must-pass bill in the eleventh hour on Sept. 30, 2006--the last day of the session before mid-term elections.
Since then the industry has taken a several billion-dollar spill but has shown signs of recovery. Numerous companies bailed out of the U.S. market after the bill was signed into law on Oct. 13, sustaining losses in the millions.
"Why anyone thinks it is any of my business why some adult wants to gamble is absolutely beyond me," Frank said on Wednesday at an Independent Community Bankers of America conference.
Frank has also called the UIGEA a "great mistake" and "one of the stupidest laws ever passed."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D- Nev., is expected to introduce legislation calling for a year-long study of Internet gambling that would delay the enactment of the UIGEA, and Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., is also anticipating introducing a bill to create a carve-out for online poker on grounds that it is a game of skill.

http://www.igamingnews.com/index.cfm...sting&tid=7511

I think that's great. First you have companies that are not going to be setting up shop and than uprooting during the middle of the night anymore with everyone's money going with them. I am assuming they will also be made accountable for making sure people do get paid. The only thing I think is that these fess that they will encounter could be passed of to other people (affiliates)

I don't think lifting the ban completely could be possible. Obviously they have thier reasons for it being there to begin with. This at least is a comprimise and stands a greater chance of being passed.

This amazes me.

In summary of what it written above - it's basically just adding a get-out clause to the UIGEA as long as the gambling company pay the US government a 2% tax (or "license fee").

What I also find strange is it says the 2% is on deposits not profits or even revenue (rake). Surely a % of deposits could get very expensive?

I'm afraid this won't endear the US to the rest of the world, as from what I can see it just confirms the original suspicions that the rest of the world had that the US just wasn't happy at the revenue going outside the country to offshore companies, and want a way to get a piece of the pie.

What sucks about this whole thing is that it could have been avoided. If in fact that it does get passed and taxed than this could easily have been resolved without taking away the US players right to play.

If a plan was set forth first for regulation than implemented to the rooms letting them know that if they want the US players than they need to abide by it. I don't think any of this had to take place. Obviously they did their research prior to the ban and instead of finding ways to stop it they should have found ways to work with it.

I do have a question for the AM's if they read this thread. How are the rooms going to handle these players again when/if the doors are reopened? Are the players going to be able to reopen the same account under the same trackers or will they be opening new accounts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaus (Post 54896)

I do have a question for the AM's if they read this thread. How are the rooms going to handle these players again when/if the doors are reopened? Are the players going to be able to reopen the same account under the same trackers or will they be opening new accounts?

That's a great question. I really do not know. I don't see the Cryptologic network opening its doors to US customers anytime in the near future. In any event, this would be a poker room/software provider decision and I would have to go along with their decision.

Mark

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...nandanswer.pdf

Good read

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaus

Doylesroom reportedly sold their US player base to FT for $6m

Accounts were closed on transfer.

I doubt FT would be too happy if they re-marketed to the same players.

As for other sites, were US accounts closed or just moved to play money? If the later the trackers should still be in place.

I dont see why the US govt just set up their own regulated Neteller style company and ensure all US residents go though that to comply with their new gambling tax laws or whatever new laws they dream up. Then they can tax the shit out of their own country under their own rules instead of trying to extort money from sites that have sweet FA to do with them

Alot of them closed everything down...no entry at all from US players. I wonder what the response from these players will be if they can once again choose where they want to play. I know many were not happy with the way they were treated once the ban took place. Should be interesting to see if this takes place how the poker rooms will try to get these players back

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmc (Post 54912)

As for other sites, were US accounts closed or just moved to play money? If the later the trackers should still be in place.

At SunPoker.com, they sent checks to the players with their remaining balances and their accounts were closed.

Regards,

Mark

I think this brings a whole new element and that is allowing US based online gambling. This is what we, at least I, have been waiting for. Getting the land based casinos or even whoever to operate within the US. For us US affiliates that would be nice and the rest of world still has all rooms that exsist and these new rooms.

It's start in the right direction at least.

I hope to soon be pushing Wynn's online casino...:)