Call Congress today and tell them you oppose HR 6870- It's anti-sports betting.

Search

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
Mama got it worded much better than i did.
In fact if anything this bill opens up sportsbetting to being declared legal at a later date ...Thats never going to happen and u can vote 56 Obamas in and it wont change that..
In fact this is the second time Barneys tried to get this thru..The 1st time it failed because 7 democrats who Barney thought would vote with him didnt when it came down to it. This is only a committe and i think it has more Dems than Reps in it but more DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST this bill than republicans and if ONLY 1 MORE DEM had voted for it it would be before the entire house by now..
 

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
688
Tokens
Here is where we get to watch the longtime sports gambling republican RX perverts dance. Nice
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
In the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, HR 6870, the second version of Barney Frank’s Payments System Protection Act, was passed by a 30-19 vote. After initially being discussed and voted on orally, Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus asked for a roll call vote. The Committee reconvened for the formal vote at 5:00pm ET, eventually passing the legislation comfortably. The measure may now move on to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
7,948
Tokens
So what you have to do is have a poker account at a sports betting site. Like Sportsbook.com, bookmaker.com, and others! Wouldn't that help the problem>?
 

Rx Wizard
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
11,731
Tokens
So what you have to do is have a poker account at a sports betting site. Like Sportsbook.com, bookmaker.com, and others! Wouldn't that help the problem>?


That was what i thought. I wonder if that will be the next thing. Poker becomes legal and now how will they will be able to tell where the money was won/lost at. What a complicated mess.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
47
Tokens
I watched the hearing earlier today...

Although Barney Frank voted for HR 6870 The Payments System Protection Act of 2008, he said he still OPPOSES the original bill.....

For that matter, he added, (something like) I don't think the government should be telling everybody what to do with their leisure time.......
 

"Here we go again"
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
4,507
Tokens
Flat out sickning. It doesn't matter what we tell "our" congressman or congresswoman either, they don't work for us. They work for the private bankers and big corporations who literally own them.

The country is gone folks.
 

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
823
Tokens
if we just deposit into a book that has poker, couldnt the book set it up so that U.S customers can only play poker and not the sportsbook? Im guessing that is what will happen. They arent that stupid
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Banking system in distress, largest insurer AIG going under, prominent 150 yr. old investment bank Lehman Bros. obliterated - House Committee on Financial Services focuses its attention on clarifying the UIGEA. Great job.

:ohno:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...2CCF29-2452-4D2C-A37F-F622A82D57CA}&dist=hppr

Key Congressional Committee Votes to Clarify Internet Gambling Ban


Last update: 7:11 p.m. EDT Sept. 16, 2008


WASHINGTON, Sept 16, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Legislation would ease burden for U.S. financial services institutions

A bill that would relieve a significant burden on U.S. financial services companies forced to implement a ban on Internet gambling passed a critical hurdle in Congress today. The Payments System Protection Act (H.R. 6870), approved today by the House Committee on Financial Services, would direct the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, to appoint a special Administrative Law Judge to define the types of unlawful online gambling and conduct an economic impact study on the costs for compliance. The enactment of the bill would have the practical impact of delaying implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) regulations through a process designed to ensure that the regulations do not impair the functioning of the U.S. payments system, or inappropriately prevent legal online transactions.

The Committee also approved an amendment to the bill that requires federal regulators to issue regulations to financial institutions within 60 days of enactment to block all Internet gambling wagers on sports, except for those involving horse racing, dog racing and jai-lai. Under the amendment, unlawful sports operators and sites would be specified by the U.S. Treasury on a list that would be consulted by financial institutions to implement the prohibition. The legislation and amendment were introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

"This important vote acknowledges that the previous attempt to prohibit Internet gambling was overly burdensome and unworkable," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "We hope this vote indicates a willingness of Congress to develop a more sensible approach towards Internet gambling. Rather than prohibit an activity millions of Americans enjoy in the privacy of their homes, just as they can do in a casino, Congress should create a framework to regulate Internet gambling as a way to protect consumers and collect billions in much-needed federal revenue."

Rep. Frank introduced the Payments System Protection Act in response to concerns raised by the financial services industry that the proposed rules to implement UIGEA forced banks and other payments services to determine for themselves what types of online activity are lawful and what are not, when the federal government itself was unable to specify the distinction between lawful and illegal online gambling activities. Rep. Frank stated that once the bill is passed "at least the banks will know what is and isn't illegal."

Rep. Frank listed representatives of the U.S. financial services industry, including the Chamber of Commerce, The Financial Services Roundtable and the Credit Union National Association, as all supporting the bill. Each had previously criticized the proposed regulations implementing UIGEA, describing them as unworkable and burdensome.

Sources present at the Committee mark-up of the bill stated that the language exempting sports prohibitions from the further rule-making and mandating sports-only regulations to go forward within sixty days from enactment appeared to have been developed in consultation with the sports leagues. Accordingly, the last-minute objection made by the leagues to the bill immediately before the committee vote came as a surprise.

According to Sandman, at the mark-up Rep. Frank expressed his disappointment with the sports leagues, stating that he was working to do "everything that they wanted." Sandman said, "Congressman Frank felt it was inappropriate for the sports leagues to tell other people they can't do what they want to do."

During debate on the bill and amendment, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) stated his view that the position of the sports leagues was disingenuous. Further, Rep. Clay asked what was different between wagering on sports via the Internet and wagering on sports in a land-based casino in Las Vegas.

Additional Internet Gambling Legislation
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046), introduced last year by Rep. Frank, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. A companion piece of legislation that would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2008 (H.R. 5523), was introduced by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).

Rep. McDermott also introduced, the Investing in our Human Resources Act (H.R.6051), which would direct new revenue generated by regulated Internet gambling activities to be spent on job training for those in the declining sectors of the economy and educational assistance for youth in foster care. The bill also includes provisions to encourage responsible Internet gambling behavior and an awareness of unsafe practices, something problem gambling advocates praise.

About Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative promotes the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions. For more information on the Initiative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. The Web site provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.
SOURCE Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

</PRE>
http://www.safeandsecureig.org</PRE>Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
"During debate on the bill and amendment, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) stated his view that the position of the sports leagues was disingenuous."

I love this statement. Not one of those "sports league" representatives could deny that gambling contributes significantly to their financial prosperity.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
2,369
Tokens
All this seems so confusing to me. I read somewhere the bill was approved to move forward 30-19. To help us understand every congressman that voted should give a brief explanation to why they voted that way.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
3,741
Tokens
Confusing to me also. I'll take JC's word that it's bad news. I mean playing poker on the internet. Give me a break. There is absolutely no way to know the game is not rigged.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
28,775
Tokens
Now that this has passed, I'd like to hear from Jay regarding exactly what it means. He's always on top of the legislative issues & pretty much always knows them inside & out.

As it stands, I'm with the rest of you as far as being a little confused about exactly what this does & doesn't mean.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
it's completely legal in every free country that I know of

I think u would find u are incorrect..While it may be legal in some countries to HOST an internet site in those same countries it is ILLEGAL for its own people to use them...
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
987
Tokens
The bill passed the committee. What happens from here is anyone's guess. They are breaking at the end of next week. It is still up in the air whether or not they come back for a lame duck session in early December. If Obama wins, I cant imagine why they would. I know the poker players are hoping they "Port Security" it on something.

Barney Frank is a hypocrite. He has made statements how the UIGEA is the dumbest law and adults should be able to spend their money as they see fit. then he comes up with this bill which advances the UIGEA in relation to sports. I have no problem with him sponsoring a pro poker bill and offering nothing for sports. What he didn't need to do was try to go out of his way to run over sportsin his quest to liberate poker. In doing so, he made himself no better than the architets of the UIGEA.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
987
Tokens
Thanks again for the Sticky.

I think we can pull it now, I don't want to abuse the courtesy.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
The bill passed the committee. What happens from here is anyone's guess. They are breaking at the end of next week. It is still up in the air whether or not they come back for a lame duck session in early December. If Obama wins, I cant imagine why they would. I know the poker players are hoping they "Port Security" it on something.

Barney Frank is a hypocrite. He has made statements how the UIGEA is the dumbest law and adults should be able to spend their money as they see fit. then he comes up with this bill which advances the UIGEA in relation to sports. I have no problem with him sponsoring a pro poker bill and offering nothing for sports. What he didn't need to do was try to go out of his way to run over sportsin his quest to liberate poker. In doing so, he made himself no better than the architets of the UIGEA.
Alfonse D'Amato + Barney Frank = :hump:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,858
Messages
13,574,195
Members
100,877
Latest member
businesstalkmag
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com