Gambling Bill Passed

[TCSN]

Just finished watching it on C-Span. The house was quite empty & of course most sounded like they had no clue what they were talking about.

The usual BS spin bringing up terrorism & protecting children from gambling. One rep even compared the impact of children gambling to when crack first came around.

Personally I find it quite ridiculous to compare it to crack considering some of the people they claim to worry about are college students yet last time I checked, 18 yr olds & above are adults not children.


I'm pretty sure if you monitor 10,000 children, more would be smoking & drinking illegally then gambling.

 

[timbo]

Any transfer of revenue where the government isn't getting a "taste" is by definition a threat to our children and national security.

 

[TCSN]

A BILL

To prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of bank instruments, including credit cards and wire transfers.

(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent them.

(3) Internet gambling is a major cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.

(4) Internet gambling conducted through offshore jurisdictions has been identified by United States law enforcement officials as a significant money laundering vulnerability.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY BANK INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

(a) IN GENERAL- No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--

(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

(2) an electronic fund transfer or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of the other person;

(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of the other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or

(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of the other person.

(b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) BETS OR WAGERS- The term `bets or wagers'--

(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of greater value than the amount staked or risked in the event of a certain outcome;

(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);

(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28, United States Code;

(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds in an account by the bettor or customer with the business of betting or wagering; and

(E) does not include--

(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of such Act);

(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act;

(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;

(iv) any other transaction that is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;

(vi) any contract for insurance;

(vii) any deposit or other transaction with a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act);

(viii) any participation in a simulation sports game or an educational game or contest that--

(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual performance in any single sporting event;

(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge and skill of the participants with such outcome determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting events; and

(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is established in advance of the game or contest and is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants; and

(ix) any transaction authorized under State law with a business licensed or authorized by a State.

(2) BUSINESS OF BETTING OR WAGERING- The term `business of betting or wagering' does not include, other than for purposes of subsection (e), any creditor, credit card issuer, insured depository institution, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, stored value product transaction, or money transmitting service, or any participant in such network, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service.

(3) INTERNET- The term `Internet' means the international computer network of interoperable packet switched data networks.

(4) UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

 

[TCSN]

continued:



(5) OTHER TERMS-

(A) CREDIT; CREDITOR; AND CREDIT CARD- The terms `credit', `creditor', and `credit card' have the meanings given such terms in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act.

(B) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER- The term `electronic fund transfer'--

(i) has the meaning given such term in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act; and

(ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.

(C) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term `financial institution' has the meaning given such term in section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

(D) MONEY TRANSMITTING BUSINESS AND MONEY TRANSMITTING SERVICE- The terms `money transmitting business' and `money transmitting service' have the meanings given such terms in section 5330(d) of title 31, United States Code.

(E) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(c) CIVIL REMEDIES-

(1) JURISDICTION- The district courts of the United States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this section by issuing appropriate orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under this section.

(2) PROCEEDINGS-

(A) INSTITUTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-

(i) IN GENERAL- The United States, acting through the Attorney General, may institute proceedings under this subsection
to prevent or restrain a violation of this section.


(ii) RELIEF- Upon application of the United States under this subparagraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation of this section, in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(B) INSTITUTION BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL-

(i) IN GENERAL- The attorney general of a State (or other appropriate State official) in which a violation of this section allegedly has occurred or will occur may institute proceedings under this subsection to prevent or restrain the violation.

(ii) RELIEF- Upon application of the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State under this subparagraph, the district court may enter a preliminary injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or restrain a violation of this section, in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(C) INDIAN LANDS-

(i) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for a violation that is alleged to have occurred, or may occur, on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--

(I) the United States shall have the enforcement authority provided under subparagraph (A); and

(II) the enforcement authorities specified in an applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall be carried out in accordance with that compact.

(ii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- No provision of this section shall be construed as altering, superseding, or otherwise affecting the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

(D) BANKING REGULATORS- Before initiating any proceeding under this paragraph with respect to a violation or potential violation of subsection (e) by an insured depository institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), the Attorney General of the United States or an attorney general of a State (or other appropriate State official) shall--

(i) notify the appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in such section) of such violation or potential violation; and

(ii) allow such agency a reasonable time to issue an order to such insured depository institution under section 8(x) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

(3) EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS- In addition to any proceeding under paragraph (2), a district court may, in exigent circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order against a person alleged to be in violation of this section upon application of the United States under paragraph (2)(A), or the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State under paragraph (2)(B), in accordance with Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(4) LIMITATION- No provision of this section shall be construed as authorizing an injunction against an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934) unless such interactive computer service is acting in concert or participation with a person who violates this section and such service receives actual notice of the order.

(d) CRIMINAL PENALTY-

(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever violates this section shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(2) PERMANENT INJUNCTION- Upon conviction of a person under this subsection, the court may enter a permanent injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or otherwise making illegal bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers.

(e) CIRCUMVENTIONS PROHIBITED- Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2), a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting service, or any participant in such network, or any interactive computer service or telecommunications service, may be liable under this section
if such creditor, issuer, institution, operator, business, network, or participant has actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers and--


(1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; or

(2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made.

(f) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS- Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(x) DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNET GAMBLING- If any appropriate Federal banking agency determines that any insured depository institution is engaged in any of the following activities, the agency may issue an order to such institution prohibiting such institution from continuing to engage in any of the following activities:

`(1) Extending credit, or facilitating an extension of credit, electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting service with the actual knowledge that any person is violating section 3(a) of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act in connection with such extension of credit, electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting service.

`(2) Paying, transferring, or collecting on any check, draft, or other instrument drawn on any depository institution with the actual knowledge that any person is violating section 3(a) of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act in connection with such check, draft, or other instrument.'.

SEC. 4. INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- In deliberations between the United States Government and any other country on money laundering, corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government should--

(1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes;

(2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of foreign governments, through information sharing or other measures, in the enforcement of this Act; and

(3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering.

(b) REPORT REQUIRED- The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an annual report to the Congress on the deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling.
Union Calendar No. 220


107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 556

[Report No. 107-339, Part I]

A BILL
To prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.

 

[thisisbad]

What exactly does this bill do?

 

[TCSN]

From what I understand, it seems that they are trying to prevent credit cards & other forms of transfers to gambling related websites.

 

[theGibber1]

when does this go into effect?

i need to get my money out first?

:shrug:


what a joke this really burns my ass:thefinger :thefinger :thefinger

 

[hoya]

what a joke that was today....isnt the purpose of a representative to represent? where the fuk was everyone? there were like 6 people in the whole building. the senate better stop this bs...

 

[TDP]

They will not be happy until new people to sports betting are getting $5,000 or $10,000 in the hole to a bookie instead of losing $100 or $200 at a sportsbook ...

 

[Nolan Dalla]

I have been a vocal critic of Congress and the Federal Government for many years (perhaps readers will now understand that the two major American political parties are not for individual freedoms, they are liars and hypocrites -- the only party that will protect our rights are the Libertarians). I will keep my pontificating to a minimum here, because I will just get myself worked up and get angry.

The point of this post is to address the question -- WHAT DOES THIS BILL MEAN?

First, a similar version of the bill must also pass the US Senate. Then, it must be signed into law by the President. This numbnuck idiot of a President will certainly sign the bill if it reaches his desk, so the only chance of stopping it now rests in the Senate.

I believe Sen. Leach introduced the anti-Internet gambling bill this week (it essentially updates the 1962 Wire Act). There is some division of opinion whether this bill in its current form: 1. will reach the Senate floor for a vote (odds are about even according to reports) and 2. will pass by 2/3rds majority (needed for passage). The Senate is a little tougher on issues like this, since there is some measure of more principled opposition to tinkering with freedom of the Internet. Congressmen are whores, but the reputation of the Senate by its very nature takes more philosophical political approaches to major issues. That works in our favor (against passage). However, this is an election year -- so anything is possible.

I no longer view those who oppose the Federal Government and its abusive powers as "wackos" as has been portrayed in the media. Ruby Ridge and Waco may have been incidents that were led by less than desireable people, but we were warned that the Government would start first with the fringe element and gradually work towards more mainstream issues they oppose. Gamblers are now the next targets. Wrap a cause in the flag, and our civil liberties are fukked.

Grab your guns, people. Your government is coming into your homes and taking away your freedoms. And if you think it ends here, you've got more surprises coming.

Nolan Dalla

 

[acehistr8]

I can assure you here and now this bill will never reach the Presidents desk.

First of all, important to note, this is just a House vote on a bill. This is not a law and there are several huge steps it needs to go through before becoming one, many of which will never happen.

If you watched the C-Span coverage yesterday, it is truly ridiculous what they think this bill will accomplish. They think they can find a gambling banner on a web site, call an ISP and have it taken down. Do they have any idea what that will involve? Do they have any clue that the banners change every XXX seconds and they may never see it again? Realize too that Sen Goodlatte from Virginia is the main push behind all this anti-gambling legislation.

And how rich was it to see REP Tom Osborne get up there and talk about gambling on college sports. Do they really think this bill will stop gambling on college sports? Talk about campus bookies getting a shot in the arm, this would be HUGE for business.

My brother is the press secretary for a senior republican senator and he assures me this bill is going nowhere fast. The Senate has much better things to do right now. And when/if military action is launched in the Middle East, this goes right back to the bottom of the pile.

Dont rush to take your money out of the offshores just yet.

 

[dr. freeze]

although i am somewhat indifferent to internet gambling on its legality or not, i agree with what Nolan said about the intrusiveness of government....

we are in the process of setting up our own "secret police" force with Bush's new "operation civil awareness" or whatever he is calling it....it is composed of hundreds of thousands secret informants placed across the country.....this is nothing different than the gusteppo sp? or kgb informants we have seen in the past or the Red China informant system used to route out civil disobedience......

The anti-government "wackos" have a lot of credibility.....Ruby Ridge was a gross intrusion of the government as was Waco.....the Feds have way too much power already and those in power will NEVER give it up.....power is too addictive.....anyone knows that.....

As horrible as child abuse is, the lady caught by a mall camera the other day is a great example of the impending eye of big brother watching our every move. It is not a reach to say that someday someone may disagree with how you discipline your child -- maybe you make a small mistake as all parents do at one time or another and show a little too much rage -- and eventually your children get taken away.....

I already feel burdened by all these laws and feel like my freedom to do ANYTHING these days is intruded in some way or another by a bunch of needless laws making me either take a full day because of stupid paperwork which could take a couple minutes or going from point A through point G to get to point B....

Remember which candidates value smaller government and in the words of Jefferson -- govern best when they govern least.....

I think the government should supply transportation, defense, basic human rights -- which are timeless and not dreamed up with advancing technology, and not a whole lot more.....we should be able to be self-sufficient for everything else.....

 

[TCSN]

I agree with acehistr8, the Senate has way better things to deal with right now then this bill which probably won't pass anyhow.

The Senate already has the Johnson bill in it which addresses the same thing generally but with different language. Even if they pass his bill, it won't go to Bush since both bills have to have the same language. All this would do is make it go in circles & with bigger issues to fry, I wouldn't worry as of right now.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't voice out though & get our point across to our elected officials eventhough I know we'll feel skeptical but we got to anyway.

 

[acehistr8]

You should absolutely get your voice out.

For those without too much working knowledge on how a Bill ends up on the Presidents desk, the point is this:

The bill passed the House. So you now have a "House Version" of the bill. Now the Senate has to find a bill that they like. Good luck. The Senate is swamped these days and has at least a dozen things more pressing. But OK, lets assume that hurdle is passed, thats now the "Senate Version" of the bill - which by the way is completely seperate and not related in anyway to the House Bill HR 556. Now you take those two bills which are completely different and at this point in their lives represent a variety of special interests, now we take this bill "into committee" where representatives from the House and Senate try to hammer out compromise legislation to send to the President. Then he has to sign it.

I put the chances of this bill becoming law by the end of session this year at one in 100, and thats only because I hate saying something is impossible.

 

[thunderdoll]

I wouldn't be so sure it won't fly. This bill will be linked to terrorism as everything this President wants these days is.

 

[theGibber1]

as i totaly agree w/ everything being said...this bill is ridiculous!

i dont need the government to tell me what they think i shouldnt be spending my money on. ITS MINE!

but, i do get the sense there are not alot of bush supporters in here..

i am not a huge bush fan myself, but i am Glad as hell he is in office!!!!!!!! i cant imagine Al Gore handling the terrorists situation.. we need a pres with the nuts to take care of these scum bags! Actions speak louder than words, and thats all the Clinton administration ever did was talk!(that and sell nuclear technology to Communist China)

ill be a bush backer as long is there is still a threat..

 

[thunderdoll]

Thegibber1, I hate to disagree because you have been so helpful in my handicapping but why do you blame Clinton? You see the trouble Bush is having getting the world behind him even after 9-11. At last count I think he only has The UK. The criminals we put in power in Afaganastan won't even let us talk to prisoners they are releasing! As for having "nuts" at least Clinton spoke out about Vietnam. Gore served. Bush went into the National Guard which at that time in history was a haven for rich kids whose daddies had the pull to get them in. Certainly not a show of courage. Bush is wasting millions of dollars on airline security. Wasted because they couldn't pull off another hi-jacking if they wanted too. Times have changed the passangers and pilots will take care of any terrorists. Besides they can still get plastic or wooden weapons thru very easily. They could blow up bridges and subways very easy. There is a ton of stuff he hasn't addressed but he has put up a great smoke screen. Even Afaganastan was a failure for the most part. If we are to believe the Presidents own warnings the terrorists escaped and are planning new attacks.

 

[TCSN]

Bush is an absolute joke & your statement about supporting him as long as there is a threat is exactly what he & his administration want you to think. He is clearly riding 9/11 & the war on terrorism to reelection in 2004.

 

[JT]

To be honest, I am amazed people even vote republican or democrat anymore.

 

[acehistr8]

Just talked to my brother over lunch. With the current legislative session ending in a month or so, this bill is dead in the water. The Senate still needs to take up and pass more important things than a ban on credit cards to gamble. Thats job one. Then there is the small matter of Iraq and whatever comes out of that.

Remember that at the end of this session, all the work that the House did essentially goes "poof" if a bill hasnt come out of the Senate and gone to committee, been worked on and come out of committee. It would have to be reintroduced in the House after the new year as a whole new bill and this whole thing gets drawn out another year or two. So HR556 has about another month left in its lifespan.

Please stop worrying about this. I now revise my odds at this bill becoming law this year to 1 - 100,000.