New Congressional Support for Legalized Online Gambling

[JeffreyS]

Momentum for regulated Internet gambling is continuing to gain speed as another three members of Congress joined Congressman Barney Frank in his efforts to pass the Internet Gaming Regulation and Enforcement Act. These well respected members include Robert E. Andrews (New Jersey), Adam Smith (Washington) and John B. Larson (Connecticut). This brings the total co-sponsors of the legislation to 44.

Here is a link to media coverage on the story:

http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news5813.asp

To learn more about this issue and to contact your elected representative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

[curious]

Momentum for regulated Internet gambling is continuing to gain speed as another three members of Congress joined Congressman Barney Frank in his efforts to pass the Internet Gaming Regulation and Enforcement Act. These well respected members include Robert E. Andrews (New Jersey), Adam Smith (Washington) and John B. Larson (Connecticut). This brings the total co-sponsors of the legislation to 44.

Here is a link to media coverage on the story:

http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news5813.asp

To learn more about this issue and to contact your elected representative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative

Bush will veto it. No way a right wing nutjob religious wacko is going to let this fly.

[SBR Lou]

Hi Jeffrey,

Would Frank's bill being accepted be the primary step toward legalizing online gambling? I ask because I've heard that he allows sports leagues to opt out if they wish, and is primarily interested in poker players rights. What about us sports gamblers, is anything specifically being mentioned about us? All I hear about are pro poker players coming forward to speak out on this to congress.

[dwaechte]

Bush may veto it, but he's gone soon. It's actually a little surprising, but the whole democratic/republican vote will have a huge effect on America's stance on this in the coming year.

[curious]

Bush may veto it, but he's gone soon. It's actually a little surprising, but the whole democratic/republican vote will have a huge effect on America's stance on this in the coming year.

You people are dreaming if you think this is ever going to pass.

[ShamsWoof10]

I think it's coming... be patient...

Taxed and Regulated but I think we'll have it... Remember guys.. graaaaaaadual...

[DrunkenLullaby]

I'll pinch hit for Jay C here...

Jeffrey, how will the Frank bill help sports bettors?

[jon13009]

Sandman, your angle here is for the benefit of on-line poker players NOT on-line sports bettors.

If the Frank proposal passes the "opt-out" clauses for the sports leagues and the States will kill any hope US sports bettors have of legal on-line sports betting.

Your own site states this fact:

"Sports Leagues
Any sports league could opt out of the regulatory framework and prohibit any Internet gambling on their games or events."

Source:

http://www.safeandsecureig.org/regulatingandlicensing.html

So you want people on this site to support legislation that would still force sports bettors to go offshore so that poker players will have a chance at betting legally in the US?

Thanks, but if you want to do something useful with that PPA money try to get the UIGEA repealed instead - so it will benefit all on-line gamblers not just the poker community in the US.

[SBR Lou]

Jon just nailed it, until something else develops to suggest salvation for us sports bettors, there's no reason to sit here and be excited about Franks bill. This would receive a better response over at poker forums.

[thagame24]

let's be realistic, if this were to pass and the gates were open again for easier money transfers we'd EASILY be able to use all available options for getting sports bets down offshore. So we'd have no online sports betting offered by US shops, big deal. The Frank bill isn't ideal, but it would still be great for us.

[SBR Lou]

Still man, it's about more than convenience, it's about legitimacy. The added protection we'd have. Just imagine how awesome it would be to have these major casinos set up shop for us, people like Pinny would serve us again too. We'd be like kids in candy stores if that happened.

[DaveRabbit]

You people are dreaming if you think this is ever going to pass.

Crackheads?

[JeffreyS]

Rep. Taucher Makes It 45 For IGREA – Online-Casinos.com - http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news5869.asp – December 14, 2007

[JeffreyS]

We believe that the Frank bill will move us towards complete regulation of all online gambling activities. It is true that sports leagues could opt-out, but the hope is to get our foot in the door, promoting the benefits of regulation.

The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative commits to keeping up the fight until all online gambling activities are allowed.

[jon13009]

Sandman, Why don't you work to Repeal the UIGEA instead?

That law is unenforceable, a mockery to the WTO, and has resulted in various lawsuits towards the US Govt.

Why don't you show Congress how legalized, regulated and taxed sports books in Vegas could benefit the American taxpayer instead of pushing more legislation that is full of loopholes and for the benefit of poker players only on behalf of the PPA? Getting YOUR PPA foot in the door will just shut the door in the face of US on-line sports bettors due to the "opt out" clauses.

I want to know what you think the level of involvement is regarding lobbying efforts of the sports leagues are, and were they the ones really responsible for pushing the UIGEA in to law?

I want to know if you REALLY think sports leagues will ever conform to allowing legalized sports betting in the USA, because if they won't then congress will have to get off their ass and legislate it by themselves - something that is just a pipe dream for now.

GL on your efforts to legalize on-line poker in the USA, but IMO legalized on-line sports betting in the US will just be hurt by your efforts.

[louis]

I don't necessarily think bush would veto it. Remember this is likely to be one piece of a big piece of legislation with all types of things attached. The way things are done in Washington, they don't just vote on one thing at a time. Bush may have no choice but to sign it because he wants unrelated legislation that is part of the same bill.

[thebigguy]

No chance!