PDA

View Full Version : President FUBAR has one more kick at gamblers...


Rookies
11-12-2008, 07:38 PM
before his sorry ass is retired !

WASHINGTON, Nov 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- NFL Lobbyist Turned Political Appointee Accused of Improper Involvement in Rush to Issue Regulations

The Bush Administration is working to finalize regulations to enforce a ban on Internet gambling despite concerns raised by leading financial service companies that the regulations are ambiguous, burdensome and not likely to stop millions of Americans from gambling online. It is expected that the regulations, issued to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), will be finalized at the last minute before they can be stopped by the Obama Administration - an orchestrated move being linked to a former National Football League (NFL) lobbyist now working in the Bush Administration. The NFL has actively campaigned against clarifying UIGEA and has opposed legislation introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to regulate online gambling in order to protect consumers and generate billions for critical State and Federal programs.

"At a time when the financial system is in crisis, it is irresponsible for the Bush Administration to rush through a fundamentally flawed regulation that even representatives of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have stated on record is unworkable," said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "We are skeptical of the Administration's motivation to get this done at the very last minute, especially given the apparent involvement of a NFL lobbyist turned Bush appointee."

Last week, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to detail what role Deputy Director of Public Liaison William Wichterman played in the Treasury Department's decision to send the proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review on October 20. In a November 7 letter to Mr. Fielding, Rep. Cohen said he had been told that Mr. Wichterman "has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through." The letter further stated, "The National Football League has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law. I am sure you will agree that, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest is undeniable."

As recently as March 2008, Mr. Wichterman was a paid lobbyist for the NFL, which has been a strong opponent of all forms of Internet gambling except for fantasy sports - an activity that generates more than $1 billion a year in revenues. Mr. Wichterman recently left the law firm of Covington and Burling, which represents the NFL, to serve as a political appointee in the few remaining months of the Bush Administration.

Movement on UIGEA comes despite a commitment by the Bush Administration not to issue final regulations after November 1, 2008 except in "extraordinary circumstances." A delay in issuance of the final regulations was also expected given the September passage of the Payment System Protection Act by the House Financial Services Committee. The legislation would have delayed UIGEA implementation in order to develop regulations that do not harm the payments system.

"The Bush Administration is setting a horrible precedent of pushing through flawed regulations at the very last minute to deliberately circumvent the in-coming administration," added Sandman. "The special interests, including the NFL, are clearly the big winners with this last minute maneuver, leaving already struggling banks and financial companies to implement costly and poorly crafted regulations."

A fundamental flaw in the proposed regulations to enforce UIGEA is that they leave U.S. financial service companies to interpret ambiguous State and Federal gambling laws, which do not clearly differentiate between legal and illegal Internet gambling activities or transactions, according to a report issued by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.

Representatives of the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System acknowledged the challenges U.S. financial institutions will face in attempting to comply with UIGEA in testimony before Congress in April. Since most payment systems are not designed to comply with this law, "it will be very difficult to shut off payment systems for use of Internet gambling transactions," said Ms. Louise Roseman, Director, Division of Federal Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. "The implementing statute will not be iron clad at all."

At the April hearing, representatives from the American Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable, Wells Fargo & Co. and Credit Union National Association unanimously opposed regulations proposed to implement UIGEA. They all questioned the fundamental approach taken by Congress in enacting legislation that forces financial institutions to implement unreasonable and costly solutions to achieve compliance.

"The UIGEA and the Proposed Rule do not provide a rational path towards halting unlawful Internet gambling," said Wayne Abernathy, American Bankers Association's executive vice president of financial institutions policy and regulatory affairs. "The path leads to an increased cost and administrative burden to the banks and an erosion in the performance of the payments system, but it will not result in stopping illegal Internet gambling transactions. Imposing this enormous unfunded law enforcement mandate on banks in place of the government's law enforcement agencies is not likely to be a successful public policy."

Mr. Leigh Williams, president of the technology division of the Financial Services Roundtable stated in his testimony concerns that enforcement of the proposed rules "could impose significant compliance burdens on financial institutions by increasing their role in policing illegal activities, determining whether a transaction is illegal, or by imposing ambiguous compliance requirements that could be subject to wide variations in interpretation by regulators and law enforcement agencies. We believe these functions are more appropriate for law enforcement agencies."

The testimony supports over 200 comments submitted to the Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve System on the burden and ambiguity in the proposed rules to implement UIGEA.

"The reality is that UIGEA is unclear, burdensome and doomed to fail," said Sandman. "It simply does not make sense to impose more costs and burdens on financial companies, while the activity they are expected to stop flourishes in an unregulated, uncontrolled and underground marketplace. Congress should look to regulate Internet gambling in order to protect consumers and collect billions of dollars that are being lost to offshore Internet gambling operators."

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046), introduced 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). According to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, taxation of regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate between $8.7 billion to $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first 10 years.

What an idiot !

Once again, this MorAn is on his moral high horse... except it's not a horse... it's an ass !!!

JustRalph
11-12-2008, 09:39 PM
I think if you check into it............Congress did this........this is just the directed follow up action

Rookies
11-12-2008, 10:47 PM
Ralph... come on.

It's literal Chicken Little time out there and this guy is focusing on punishing Internet gamblers ! I'm aware Congress pushed this through. It was tacked on like an earmark onto that Port bill. You know that.

It's just yet another example of misplaced/ wrongful energy spent.

lamboguy
11-12-2008, 11:08 PM
bush never liked gambling, horseracing too. maybe i am saying that wrong. he might have his good reasons why he opposes gambling on the internet. maybe he has a few friends that make money from gambling and internet gambling cuts into it.

if bush had it his way he would not let us discuss horseracing on a board like this. he claims he is a very moral and decent person.

ddog
11-12-2008, 11:18 PM
seems a little disengenuous even for junior to claim congress , those meanies made Bush do it. :lol: :(

On Wednesday the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department issued a final rule to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, passed by Congress in 2006.

"Took 'em till now , did they forget about it or what ???"


The ruling comes just two days after Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, accused the current administration of rushing the ruling through.

"This midnight rulemaking will tie the hands of the new administration, burden the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis and contradict the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee," Frank said, according to Reuters.

The 2006 act prohibited businesses from knowingly accepting payments -- made through checks, electronic fund transfers and credit cards -- that are connected to unlawful Internet gambling.

Wednesday's ruling to implement the 2006 act requires "U.S. financial firms that participate in designated payment systems to establish and implement policies that are reasonably designed to prevent payments to businesses in connection with unlawful Internet gambling," the Treasury Department said in a statement.

Frank's main objection to the ruling was that it failed to define exactly what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling, "leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretations when determining whether to process a transaction," Reuters reported.

"Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions will likely be unwilling or unable to provide it," said Frank, according to Reuters.

The House Financial Services Committee had passed a bill in September to prevent the Federal Reserve and Department of Treasury from issuing rules, requiring that they first define the term "unlawful Internet gambling." The bill hasn't been passed by the full Congress, however.

http://www.crn.com/government/212002231


Plus they are "giving" everyone until Dec1st to comply.
gezz , that should be plenty of time. :confused:

Just one of many "midnight rules" every admin rushes through.
They should not be allowed to do them.

If they can't do them before the election then that's it.
Although, this does seem in keeping with treasury and the fed these days.

What's that about the head and the fish????

rotten bastards, they have no shame anymore.
they lie right to people's face and still have their suckups to mop up the droppings.

DanG
11-13-2008, 08:36 AM
I think if you check into it............Congress did this........this is just the directed follow up action
That is originally true Ralph; 33 Republicans and 3 Democrats to be exact. Not to mention Mr. Hypocrisy / Mr. State Lottery / Mr. John Kyl’s effort to dictate adults rights. :mad:

H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

• Sponsor: Rep. James Leach [R-IA] :mad:

• Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-08]

• Rep. Mark Kennedy [R-MN]
• Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
• Rep. James Walsh [R-NY]
• Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
• Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
• Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI]
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
• Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
• Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI]
• Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
• Rep. James Ramstad [R-MN]
• Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
• Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
• Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]
• Rep. Thomas Osborne [R-NE]
• Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
• Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
• Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
• Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
• Rep. Sherwood Boehlert [R-NY]
• Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]
• Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE]
• Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
• Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
• Rep. Thomas Latham [R-IA]
• Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
• Rep. Bob Inglis [R-SC]
• Rep. Thomas Petri [R-WI]
• Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R-MI]
• Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
• Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
• Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
• Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
• Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
• Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]

Hank
11-13-2008, 01:07 PM
That is originally true Ralph; 33 Republicans and 3 Democrats to be exact. Not to mention Mr. Hypocrisy / Mr. State Lottery / Mr. John Kyl’s effort to dictate adults rights. :mad:

H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

• Sponsor: Rep. James Leach [R-IA] :mad:

• Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-08]

• Rep. Mark Kennedy [R-MN]
• Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
• Rep. James Walsh [R-NY]
• Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
• Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
• Rep. Frederick Upton [R-MI]
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
• Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
• Rep. Michael Rogers [R-MI]
• Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
• Rep. James Ramstad [R-MN]
• Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
• Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
• Rep. Addison Wilson [R-SC]
• Rep. Thomas Osborne [R-NE]
• Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL]
• Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R-NE]
• Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
• Rep. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
• Rep. Sherwood Boehlert [R-NY]
• Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]
• Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE]
• Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
• Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
• Rep. Thomas Latham [R-IA]
• Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
• Rep. Bob Inglis [R-SC]
• Rep. Thomas Petri [R-WI]
• Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R-MI]
• Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
• Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
• Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
• Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
• Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
• Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]

Bingo this pleases the RR.

delayjf
11-13-2008, 01:43 PM
I will have to plead ignorant on this issue. Why do they oppose internet gambling, on moral grounds, tax issues, etc.??

Dahoss9698
11-13-2008, 01:55 PM
Isn't it kind of ironic that this is a horse racing board dominated by Republicans, and almost all of the outspoken Repubs have nothing to say in this thread?

ddog
11-13-2008, 02:03 PM
I will have to plead ignorant on this issue. Why do they oppose internet gambling, on moral grounds, tax issues, etc.??



MONEY, they want to control it , no matter if the excuse is morals :lol:
or whatever.

Noone can seriously think they have any concern to protect the little guy, the sheeple can they???

:lol:

And if so, then isn't this NANNY STATE WRIT LARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

clowns and crooks , that's all you need to know.

shuffle along now.


:rolleyes:

JustRalph
11-13-2008, 02:14 PM
Isn't it kind of ironic that this is a horse racing board dominated by Republicans, and almost all of the outspoken Repubs have nothing to say in this thread?

it's old news. It doesn't matter. Once again gamblers will have to find a way around it. Standard operating procedure nowadays.............

Tom
11-13-2008, 02:38 PM
What's to say - it is a dumb move, never pass, and if it does, we get bookies back in business. Not going to stop gambling, drinking, drugs, prostitution. The people want them and damn well will get them.

DanG
11-13-2008, 04:03 PM
What's to say - it is a dumb move, never pass, and if it does, we get bookies back in business. Not going to stop gambling, drinking, drugs, prostitution. The people want them and damn well will get them.
You’re starting to sound Libertarian Tom! ;) :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

PaceAdvantage
11-13-2008, 06:55 PM
Isn't it kind of ironic that this is a horse racing board dominated by Republicans, and almost all of the outspoken Repubs have nothing to say in this thread?Dominated by Republicans...I love that....:lol:

More like defended...not dominated...Republicans have been on the defensive here since 2001. Attack-the-Republicans post after attack-the-Republicans post after attack-the-Republicans post has been going on here for the past seven or eight years....where you been?

wonatthewire1
11-13-2008, 07:10 PM
it's old news. It doesn't matter. Once again gamblers will have to find a way around it. Standard operating procedure nowadays.............


Quick question (not sure if someone on the board would know) is it a felony to bet on horses from a state where there are prohibitions against betting? thinking of Georgia or South Carolina for example.

Not always that easy to get around things - especially with the long arm of the law involved. For example, I've got to use NJ Bets and only can use it in state. Once out of state, not legal anymore...

delayjf
11-13-2008, 07:57 PM
Noone can seriously think they have any concern to protect the little guy, the sheeple can they???
I would say organized crime is a legitimate concern, is it not?

Dahoss9698
11-13-2008, 07:58 PM
Dominated by Republicans...I love that....:lol:

More like defended...not dominated...Republicans have been on the defensive here since 2001. Attack-the-Republicans post after attack-the-Republicans post after attack-the-Republicans post has been going on here for the past seven or eight years....where you been?

Haven't been here for 7 years. Rarely post here to be honest, as you can see. However, I have been following along the off-topic section and I'd disagree with your assessment of how it's been in the few weeks I've been reading. In fact, it looks like the complete opposite to me.

I just found the whole thing ironic. That's all. A bunch of guys on a horse racing board no less, "defending" themselves, when their party would like to take away gambling from them. Surely you or anyone else can see the irony in the whole thing.

ddog
11-13-2008, 08:21 PM
I would say organized crime is a legitimate concern, is it not?


wha???

if you equate organized crime with ???? internet wagering then you have a poor idea of organized crime.


I guess that's your point, organized crime moves funds around the internetts??? so we should shut down what exactly?


I am sure I don't get your point here, it can't be that.

PaceAdvantage
11-13-2008, 10:48 PM
Haven't been here for 7 years. Rarely post here to be honest, as you can see. However, I have been following along the off-topic section and I'd disagree with your assessment of how it's been in the few weeks I've been reading. In fact, it looks like the complete opposite to me.

I just found the whole thing ironic. That's all. A bunch of guys on a horse racing board no less, "defending" themselves, when their party would like to take away gambling from them. Surely you or anyone else can see the irony in the whole thing.The Republican party as it existed going into election day 2008 is not the Republican party many of us would like it to be...

ddog
11-14-2008, 06:50 AM
The Republican party as it existed going into election day 2008 is not the Republican party many of us would like it to be...


Now THIS I can agree with.........

:ThmbUp:

Tom
11-14-2008, 07:46 AM
The Republican party as it existed going into election day 2008 is not the Republican party many of us would like it to be...

Sara and the other Governors are working on that now.....