Barney Frank Calls for "People Power"Congressman Barney Frank urged all Americans concerned about the right to gamble online to contact their local state representatives following a hearing this past Friday that would essentially repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act (UIGEA).
'Call your Representative and your Senators and tell them to get out of your life,” said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Not everyone believes that Frank's proposal serves the best interest of the powerful billion dollar online gambling industry.
One Harvard trained attorney told Gambling911.com, Barney Frank's proposal is nothing short of "protectionism"
"I read your article entitled: The Barney Frank Plan: Who Wins, Who Loses. What you are missing in your discussion of competition is the fact that the US government would be the sole determinator as to who get a license. Red Bull and Snapple didn't have to jump through legislative hoops to put their product on the market."
Likewise, World Sports Exchange founder, Jay Cohen, who served nearly two years behind bars for violating a 1962 "Wire Act" told Gambling911.com that Frank's proposed legislation "goes against the World Trade Organization ruling".
That decision makes it clear that the US must refrain from any form of "protectionism" when it comes to Internet gambling. Frank's proposal ensures that the vast number of current online gaming operators would not be able to obtain licenses due to a stipulation that individuals with prior convictions cannot apply. While on the surface, this seems to make sense, a large number of today's operators - especially on the lucrative sports betting side - have been handed down convictions for "illegal" bookmaking. Sportsbook operators will argue that they left the US in an effort to abide by local bookmaking laws.
Furthermore, Frank's proposed law for the most part blocks sports betting companies from participating in the US market since a provision would allow individual sports leagues to prevent gambling on such things as the NFL and NBA.
One of the highlights of last Friday's hearing came when an elderly woman from Indiana was brought forth as a witness questioning why it was all right for individuals to bet horses online but not play casino games or poker. Nobody in the room could answer that question.
Prior to the hearing a grassroots trade organization emerged, announcing they were seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" (UIGEA). This complaint would put a halt to the 270 day "discussion" period whereby banking institutions must develop policies for monitoring online gambling transactions. If successful, the banks may not have to enforce any policies, thus making the UIGEA worthless.
Others in Congress have come forward with their own Internet gambling-friendly legislative proposals last week, which seemed to coincide with Barney Frank's hearing.
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act (H. R. 2607) has generated the bulk of the buzz, according to Nelson Lardner of MajorWager.com.
"It delineates a level of taxation which could well prove palatable to everyone involved. As originally conceived, a license fee of 2% of all patron deposits into relevant betting accounts would be paid by individual operators, and channeled into the Treasury's general fund, leaving each customer's deposit intact until put into action.
"With Washington democratic Rep. Jim McDermott the primary sponsor, the bill was conceived as a revenue-generating companion for Rep. Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H. R. 2046), introduced in late April."
----
Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com
Originally published June 14, 2007 10:05 am ET
