Internet gambling bill next week: Frank

michael777 · Apr 28, 2009

Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:08am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said on Tuesday he would introduce legislation next week to overturn a three-year-old U.S. ban on Internet gambling.

The legislation, likely to be opposed by anti-gambling Republicans, would overturn a law imposed during the Bush administration that has hurt U.S. trade ties with the European Union. Frank said the bill was being drafted this week.

"We'll be introducing it next week and I plan to move on it," said Frank, a Democrat, speaking at the Reuters Global Financial Regulation Summit in Washington.

kidman232 · Apr 28, 2009

and some people here hate democrats

letsgohoosiers · Apr 28, 2009

It's not a good thing. Read the bill.

Sec. 5386. Sporting leagues may prohibit internet gambling on league activities

(a) Sporting League Opt-Out- No Internet gambling licensee may engage, under any license issued under this subchapter, in the business of Internet betting or wagering in connection with any sport event or contest of any sporting league which prohibits such business if the chief executive officer of such sporting league informs the Director of such prohibition before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, or in accordance with subsection (c), until such time as any notice of any repeal of such prohibition becomes effective under paragraph (3).

(b) Establishment or Repeal of Sporting- The establishment or repeal by any sporting league of any prohibition referred to in subsection (a) after the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 shall apply, for purposes of this subchapter, with respect to the business of Internet betting or wagering in connection with any sport event or contest of such sporting league by any licensee beginning on the first January 1 that occurs after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the later of--

(1) the date a notice of such establishment or repeal is provided by the chief executive officer of such sporting league in writing to the Director; or

(2) the effective date of such establishment or repeal.

(c) Violation of Sporting League Limitation-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Director shall take effective measures to ensure that any licensee under this subchapter, as a condition of the license, complies with any prohibition imposed by any sporting league to which the licensee is subject under subsection (a) or (b).

(2) VIOLATIONS- It shall be a violation of this subchapter for any licensee knowingly to engage in the business of Internet betting or wagering in connection with any sport event or contest of any sporting league for which a notice is in effect under subsection (a) or (b).

You can bet on sports, but only in Vegas. You can bet online, but not on sports.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

kidman232 · Apr 28, 2009

what would u bet online outside of sports? trying to legalize exotics?

TheWolf · Apr 28, 2009

hmmm.

Sammy439 · Apr 28, 2009

letsgohoosiers said:
It's not a good thing.

If what the information says is true and it is a bill to overturn the UIGEA, then it doesn't matter if the internet poker/casino licenscee can't do sports. Because if the legislation works and the UIGEA is overturned, all the online sportsbooks will have an open avenue to transfer money to and from its customers. They just won't be regulated and taxed to death, which is a good thing.

The poker and casino online world would be regulated, which is good, and the online sports betting world will go on unregulated and unabated, which is great for offshore sportsbooks and people who like to be on sports online.

Online poker and casino needs regulating. Online sports gambling does not. This is actually a perfect situation. You can't script it any better if you are an online gambling advocate.

Sammy439 · Apr 28, 2009

The key part is that the language says the "licensee" can't be involved in sports gambling. Obviously the online sportsbooks won't be licensee's anyway. They will remain in the grey area which is where they should remain. Its better that way.

If this legislation goes through, which it probably won't, then online gambling of all kinds will increase exponentially.

moethepuppy · Apr 28, 2009

Sammy439 said:
The key part is that the language says the "licensee" can't be involved in sports gambling. Obviously the online sportsbooks won't be licensee's anyway. They will remain in the grey area which is where they should remain. Its better that way.

If this legislation goes through, which it probably won't, then online gambling of all kinds will increase exponentially.

What makes you think it won't make it through Congress? I would think Rep. Frank has the power to push this through....

patswin · Apr 28, 2009

Is this the bill Jay C was warning us about a few months ago that throw the sports bettors under the bus?

whalewager · Apr 28, 2009

Hey idiots. This kind of bill is the last thing you want. Wake the hell up.

louisvillekid · Apr 28, 2009

the bill will get fucked up somehow , or the only way it will pass is by some backdoor hidden agendas added to the bill to get certain people to vote for it.

Trust me, by the time this bill goes to the final vote, it will have so many additions for shit not even remotely related to online gambling it will be silly.

letsgohoosiers · Apr 28, 2009

kidman232 said:
what would u bet online outside of sports? trying to legalize exotics?

It's designed for the poker/blackjack/cards losers who are foolish enough to believe they're getting a fair deal.

patswin said:
Is this the bill Jay C was warning us about a few months ago that throw the sports bettors under the bus?

Yes.

whalewager said:
Hey idiots. This kind of bill is the last thing you want. Wake the hell up.

Someone in here actually has a clue.

Sammy439 · Apr 28, 2009

patswin said:
Is this the bill Jay C was warning us about a few months ago that throw the sports bettors under the bus?

No this is not the bill he was referring to. That bill was a poker only bill that did throw sports gambling "under the bus" because of the language. It was not a UIGEA repeal.

This bill, although I have not read the exact language, is a repeal of the UIGEA. It is not the same bill JC said would throw sports betting under the bus. See my above post.

This bill says nothing about sports except that the companies that get liscenses to offer online poker/casino cannot offer sports at the same time. That is good because as I stated before, the online sports books don't want liscences anyway. They want to remain in the grey area.

The bill last year that JC was referring to had language in it that was bad for sports gambling. This bill does not from what I've seen.

I would love for JC to explain what he thinks of this bill, as it is a completely different bill than the one last year.

Actually there were 2 last year. The first was one like this one. A repeal of the UIGEA. That got voted down because of Bachus and his power in the financial committee. That was the bill we were hoping would pass. The second bill last year was the one that threw sports gambling under the bus.

RobFunk · Apr 28, 2009

Nice post Sammy.

Sammy439 · Apr 28, 2009

letsgohoosiers can you give a source for your quote up there?

Thanks Rob.

AR_23 · Apr 28, 2009

Little confused.. good or bad ? Either way shits gay

festeringZit · Apr 28, 2009

letsgohoosiers said:
It's designed for the poker/blackjack/cards losers who are foolish enough to believe they're getting a fair deal.

Yes.

Someone in here actually has a clue.

This blackjack player made a fortune bonus hunting online
casinos, and playing blackjack and video poker, while it was legal.

The fact is, most of the large software providers dealt a fair
game: real time gaming, micro gaming, bossmedia, cryptologic,
playtech, cytech...

Betallsports · Apr 28, 2009

Just wanted to add, that What sammy is saying is Right.

All though I haven't read the language of this Bill as well, that they are trying to pass this week. It is NOT the same as a few of you are talking about.

This could be Good.....that is if it will pass.

letsgohoosiers · Apr 28, 2009

I mixed up my dates. In 2007 he introduced a bill with lots of specific language about what was banned and what wasn't, and this bill included the sports betting clause. This was HR 2046 that included the specific banning of sports betting online. I'm not sure what happened to this bill.

In 2008 he came out with HR 5767 which didn't define what was and wasn't legal like 2046 did, rather just repealing the UIGEA. This was shot down by one vote because of not being specific enough of what was allowed and what wasn't. This would be ideal as they're not taxing us under this bill and the UIEGA is repealed.

What he's introducing I am not certain of, if he makes changes the new bill to fit 2046 and throw us under the bus, it would screw us over. 5767 DOESN'T throw us under the bus.

Sammy439 · Apr 28, 2009

hoosiers, I'm not 100% on this because I havent read the actual bill, but from the previews and summaries I've read this one is going to be like 5767. Which is going to be great for the industry.

I could have sworn HR 2046 was 2008 as well. That one was not good for sports but poker players were more than willing to screw us (sports gamblers) over so they could play cards online.