Ron Paul introduces bill calling for a moratorium on the Internet gambling "ban"!

TheEngineer · 04-11-2008, 05:35 PM

Great news! Today, Ron Paul introduced new legislation calling for a moratorium on UIGEA. The bill text is at http://pokerplayersalliance.org/pdf/Frank_Paul_Bill.pdf .

I wasn't sure if I needed to start a new thread, but it seems big enough to ensure the word gets out. This is a great opportunity for us to put out the word that we want our freedoms in all areas.

Frank, Paul Introduce Legislation to Stop Implementation of Antigambling Regulations

Washington, DC—House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and senior Financial Services Committee member Ron Paul (R-TX) have introduced legislation to prohibit the federal government from issuing regulations called for in the called for in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The legislation, H.R. 5767, will forbid the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.

“These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” said Rep. Frank.

“The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet. The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own,” said Rep. Paul.

Specifically, at issue is the fact that the regulations, like the underlying legislation, fail to define the term “unlawful internet gambling,” leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretation, when determining whether to process a transaction. Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks, either because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to provide it. At the hearing, the regulators themselves admitted that there are substantial problems in crafting regulations to implement the UIGEA that does not have a substantial adverse effect on the efficiency of the nation’s payment system.

Chairman Frank and Congressman Paul opposed the UIGEA, and the two have been working on legislation, H.R. 2046 that would license and regulate online gaming. However, it was clear at the hearing that the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry, and this bill would, therefore prohibit their implementation.

On Wednesday, April 2, the DIMP Subcommittee held a hearing “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?” to examine the regulations issued last year by the Federal Reserve and Treasury on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which garnered more than 200 comment letters.

TheEngineer · 04-11-2008, 05:38 PM

The all-new PPA letter is up to send to Congress to support this new bill. I hope we'll all write. It reflects last week's hearing (the one Ron Paul attended to stand up for our rights even though it meant having to step out of the Bernanke hearing). It's at

www.pokerplayersalliance.org/letter

TheEngineer · 04-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Dr. Paul and other friends of our freedoms (in this matter) at the hearing, getting ready to own the social con nanny-staters.

freedom-maniac · 04-11-2008, 05:45 PM

I hope this passes now that Dems are in Control of Congress. The non-RP GOP has long been trying to take away these rights, talking about how people might loose too much money gambling, while they are spending trillions away on an Imperialistic foriegn policy and gambling with our freedoms.

No1ButPaul08 · 04-11-2008, 05:46 PM

Thank You, TE. As a fellow poker player, I appreciate all your efforts to help keep poker free.

No1ButPaul08 · 04-11-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Dr. Paul and other friends of our freedoms (in this matter) at the hearing, getting ready to own the social con nanny-staters.

Who is the second guy from the left?

TheEngineer · 04-11-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1ButPaul08

Who is the second guy from the left?

That's Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. He chaired the hearing, and was generally on our side.

No1ButPaul08 · 04-11-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

That's Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. He chaired the hearing, and was generally on our side.

Thanks. If passed, would this re-open the market for Neteller like e-wallets? I will never do business with them again after holding everyone's $$ for six months, but would like to use something similar. Also wondering if Party would re-enter the market? Or is it too early to say?

homah · 04-11-2008, 06:12 PM

Someone pull me out of my stupor when it becomes safe to keep money in an e-wallet like Neteller without the government taking an interest free loan for half a year.

TheEngineer · 04-11-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1ButPaul08

Thanks. If passed, would this re-open the market for Neteller like e-wallets? I will never do business with them again after holding everyone's $$ for six months, but would like to use something similar. Also wondering if Party would re-enter the market? Or is it too early to say?

It's hard to say. A moratorium would put the market where it was prior to UIGEA. eWallets like ePassporte would be more assured of staying put, and the new echecks sites like Full Tilt and PokerStars have recently started won't have trouble.

My guess is that, if this bill passes, some state will license a poker-only site that will see how it fares against the Wire Act. Federal case law holds that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting. The Justice Dept., however, believes it applies to all online betting, and they bully anyone who gets involved with threatening letters.

I think the main thing we can do with this bill is demonstrate that we don't need big government to protect us from ourselves.

04-11-2008, 05:35 PM	#1
TheEngineer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 461	Ron Paul introduces bill calling for a moratorium on the Internet gambling "ban"! Great news! Today, Ron Paul introduced new legislation calling for a moratorium on UIGEA. The bill text is at http://pokerplayersalliance.org/pdf/Frank_Paul_Bill.pdf . I wasn't sure if I needed to start a new thread, but it seems big enough to ensure the word gets out. This is a great opportunity for us to put out the word that we want our freedoms in all areas. Frank, Paul Introduce Legislation to Stop Implementation of Antigambling Regulations Washington, DC—House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and senior Financial Services Committee member Ron Paul (R-TX) have introduced legislation to prohibit the federal government from issuing regulations called for in the called for in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The legislation, H.R. 5767, will forbid the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions. “These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” said Rep. Frank. “The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet. The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own,” said Rep. Paul. Specifically, at issue is the fact that the regulations, like the underlying legislation, fail to define the term “unlawful internet gambling,” leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretation, when determining whether to process a transaction. Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks, either because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to provide it. At the hearing, the regulators themselves admitted that there are substantial problems in crafting regulations to implement the UIGEA that does not have a substantial adverse effect on the efficiency of the nation’s payment system. Chairman Frank and Congressman Paul opposed the UIGEA, and the two have been working on legislation, H.R. 2046 that would license and regulate online gaming. However, it was clear at the hearing that the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry, and this bill would, therefore prohibit their implementation. On Wednesday, April 2, the DIMP Subcommittee held a hearing “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?” to examine the regulations issued last year by the Federal Reserve and Treasury on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which garnered more than 200 comment letters.

04-11-2008, 05:45 PM	#4
freedom-maniac Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: MI Posts: 2,214	I hope this passes now that Dems are in Control of Congress. The non-RP GOP has long been trying to take away these rights, talking about how people might loose too much money gambling, while they are spending trillions away on an Imperialistic foriegn policy and gambling with our freedoms. __________________ "...he who would enslave others ends only by chaining himself, for chains have two ends..." Robert F. Kennedy "Every marijuana smoker or pimp in prison uses a cell that could have been occupied by a mugger, a rapist, or child molester." Harry Browne R[ƎVO˩]UTION!

04-11-2008, 05:46 PM	#5
No1ButPaul08 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,940	Thank You, TE. As a fellow poker player, I appreciate all your efforts to help keep poker free. __________________ We need immigrants in this country. What we don't need is politicians. Get rid of them! - Peter Schiff

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-11-2008, 05:38 PM	#2
TheEngineer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 461	The all-new PPA letter is up to send to Congress to support this new bill. I hope we'll all write. It reflects last week's hearing (the one Ron Paul attended to stand up for our rights even though it meant having to step out of the Bernanke hearing). It's at www.pokerplayersalliance.org/letter

04-11-2008, 05:40 PM	#3
TheEngineer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 461	Dr. Paul and other friends of our freedoms (in this matter) at the hearing, getting ready to own the social con nanny-staters.

04-11-2008, 06:12 PM	#9
homah Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,087	Someone pull me out of my stupor when it becomes safe to keep money in an e-wallet like Neteller without the government taking an interest free loan for half a year.