Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Today is the last day to submit UIGEA regulation comments

Reply to Thread
  1. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,830
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 12th, 2007 (12/12/2007 4:57pm)

    <SPAN class=postbody>We have until midnight EST to get our UIGEA comments submitted (Dec. 12th) so let's please try to get something written. Please go to the PPA article on commenting for instructions on submitting your comments and for ideas on what to submit.</SPAN>

    <SPAN class=postbody>To comment:

    Click here to comment at the FRB site

    Click here to comment at the Treasury Dept site. Select "DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY*" at line 2 (the circled "2"), click submit, then click the comment icon to right of the UIGEA proposed rule.

    To review submitted comments:

    Click here to view comments made to the Federal Reserve

    Click here to read UIGEA regulations comments at the Treasury Dept site. Select "DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY*", click submit, then click the link to the far left of the UIGEA proposed rule ("TREAS-DO-2007-0015").</SPAN>
     
  2. uglyowl uglyowl is offline

    Ashburnham, MA
    United States

    Posts: 19
    Joined: Oct 06

    Dec 12th, 2007 (12/12/2007 10:20pm) in reply to TheEngineer

    I hope everyone took time to respond, it even states on the website:

    "Your voice in federal decision-making"
  3. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,830
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 12th, 2007 (12/12/2007 11:11pm) in reply to uglyowl

    Thanks. I got one more in:

    <SPAN class=postbody>December 12, 2007

    Jennifer J. Johnson
    Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
    20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20551

    Dear Secretary Johnson:

    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

    The opponents of Internet poker have written to you kind folks with comments like:

    “Internet gambling represents the most invasive and addictive form of gambling in history. Speed, accessibility, availability and anonymity make Internet gambling the perfect storm for gambling addiction. Internet gambling also creates fertile ground for criminal activity and threatens homeland security by potentially funding terrorist activity.” (1)

    It sounds scary…almost scary enough to justify taking from Americans the freedoms that are enjoyed throughout Europe and most of the rest of the free world. Fortunately, the truth is not so scary after all. Internet gaming does not lead to more gamblers, nor does it lead to explosions of compulsive gamblers. The recently released United Kingdom Gambling Prevalence Survey illustrates this. This UK government-sponsored study concluded that from 1999 to 2007 (the height of the Internet gaming boom in the UK), the percentage of people who had gambled in the country decreased four percentage points (from 72% in 1999 to 68% in 2007). This was despite the increase in available gaming products. During this time the percentage of problem gamblers increased a mere tenth of a percentage point (from 0.8% in 1999 to 0.9% in 2007). Unfortunately, these unimpeachable statistics are often ignored in favor of inflammatory statements made by some gaming opponents who lack data to back up their assertions.

    Additionally, Internet gaming has not been used for funding of terrorist activity (note that Mr. Wildmon says “potentially funding”). U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway stated this fact during her testimony at the November 14, 2007 House Judiciary Committee’s Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers.

    I share this with you so your agency will not feel tasked with saving Americans from the freedom to choose to play poker on the Internet. If that were the case, Congress would have passed a law banning all Internet gaming. As you know, Congress did no such thing. Rather, they passed a law deputizing banks and other financial institutions to enforce existing federal and state laws, not to create a federal prohibition on Internet poker and other online non-sports gaming via ambiguous regulations.

    Unfortunately, the regulations as written do not give sufficient direction to financial institutions as to the types of transactions they are to prohibit. As a result, banks will likely block legal transactions. Such overblocking would result in federal usurpation of the right of the states to control gaming within their borders. As such, I ask that the regulations be modified to eliminate this unintended consequence of this legislation.

    A primary problem area is interstate Internet poker. Federal case law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers only sports betting. There is no other federal law banning interstate Internet poker. At the state level, only a handful of states prohibit Internet poker. As such, the regulations should be careful to not impact Internet poker in states that have chosen to not pass laws prohibiting its residents from playing Internet poker.

    To preserve the rights of the states to determine what gaming they wish to permit within their borders, I ask that the regulations specify that state laws enforced by UIGEA must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gaming banned by that state. Additionally, states desiring federal assistance in enforcing Internet gaming restrictions should be required to request this assistance in writing from the Secretary of the Treasury.

    Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent, and our states should continue to have the right to choose what types of gaming they permit within their borders.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    ----------------

    1. December 7, 2007; Wildmon, Donald E., American Family Association UIGEA comment</SPAN>
     
    Thread Starter
  4. PurpleDrink PurpleDrink is offline

    Denver, CO
    United States

    Posts: 55
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 13th, 2007 (12/13/2007 8:04pm) in reply to TheEngineer

    How long does it typically take for the government to submit the regs? What kind of timeframe are we looking at?

    ryAn
  5. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,830
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 13th, 2007 (12/13/2007 8:18pm) in reply to PurpleDrink

    The draft regs provided for implementation in six months. Many commenters (banks, etc) requested two years. I think there is a very good chance that the implementation of the regs will be pushed out by that much.
     
    Thread Starter
  6. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,830
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 14th, 2007 (12/14/2007 7:02am) in reply to TheEngineer

    The NFL (TREAS-DO-2007-0015-0113.1) submitted a comment suggesting that gaming sites should be required to prove to financial institutions that they comply with all laws wherever they operate (guilty until proven innocent...banks outsourced to be judge, jury and executioner)!

    <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=genmed>Quote:</SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD class=quote>I. Shift the burden of distinguishing illegal from legal transactions to the gambling business.

    Numerous other commentators have noted that, because the definition of
    “restricted transaction” relies on the interpretation of underlying federal and state laws and the
    location of the gambler at the time the gambling transaction is initiated, it would be difficult if
    not impossible for payment system participants to determine whether any given financial
    transaction is a restricted transaction, even if one party is known to engage in the Internet
    gambling business. Some of these commenters have raised concerns that this will cause payment
    system participants to “overblock” any transaction with ties to Internet gambling, even if that
    particular transaction happens to be legal. We disagree with any suggestion that the possibility
    of overblocking would justify an exemption from the regulation.

    However, we believe the Agencies can illuminate a path for businesses that
    legitimately wish to avoid overblocking without creating undue burdens for payment system
    participants. Commercial customers engaged in online gambling business should be explicitly
    required to demonstrate to their payment service providers that they have taken adequate steps to
    ensure that they are not accepting bets or wagers from customers in jurisdictions where such bets
    or wagers are unlawful. In each jurisdiction from which a gambling business accepts bets or
    wagers, the gambling business should at least be able to cite the law or regulation that authorizes
    its online gambling activity. Because the conduct of an unauthorized commercial gambling
    operation is illegal in every state of the Union, a gambling operation that cannot cite its source of
    authorization can and should be presumed illicit. Conversely, it would be reasonable for a
    payment service provider to presume that a gambling business that presents authenticated
    documentation of authorization in each relevant jurisdiction is not engaged in restricted
    transactions. Even systems that rely on “coding” could avoid overblocking by using a different
    code for “authenticated” gambling businesses.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
     
    Thread Starter
  7. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,254
    Joined: May 06

    Dec 16th, 2007 (12/16/2007 12:02am) in reply to TheEngineer

    Thanks to everyone who submitted comments on the UIGEA regulations.

    Thanks to TheEngineer as well for his involvement on PocketFives!
     
  8. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,830
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 16th, 2007 (12/16/2007 11:10pm) in reply to Dan

    Thanks! It's really been a pleasure posting here. I hope everyone here will encourage other folks here on P5s and other places to stop by this forum to see what's up with the fight to keep poker legal.
     
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread