Would Frank's Gambling Bill Favor U.S. Companies?

This month Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced the latest version of his bill aimed at legalizing online gambling. It authorizes the treasury secretary to license websites offering poker, casino games, racetrack betting, bingo, and lotteries. Sports betting, to which the professional and college sports associations vehemently object, would remain illegal. (The last version of the bill would have let each athletic organization decide whether to allow betting on its games.) Although gambling sites ostensibly would be federally regulated, the bill allows the treasury secretary to pass this authority off to "any State or tribal regulatory body with expertise in regulating gambling." According to gambling law expert I. Nelson Rose (in an analysis that has not been published yet), "the federal government will end up doing nothing, except for a little unnecessary duplication of effort to make it seem like there is federal oversight." Once licensed, a site could serve customers in all 50 states, except those that choose to opt out within 90 days of the law's enactment.

Although the American Gaming Association is staying neutral on Frank's bill (as it did with the prohibitionist Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [UIGEA]), Rose argues that the legislation favors domestic gambling businesses because it denies licenses to anyone who "is delinquent in filing any applicable Federal or State tax returns or in the payment of any taxes, penalties, additions to tax, or interest owed to a State or the United States." Rose warns that "every Internet gaming site that ever took bets from the U.S., whether or not they stopped when the UIGEA was passed," could be considered delinquent if the Treasury Department claims "an operator that had American players was doing business here" and therefore should have paid federal and/or state taxes. By contrast, "American companies, like Harrah's, which desperately want to get into the Internet gaming business, but have never had online gaming for money, would have no trouble." While a protectionist tilt may be politically inevitable, it would be not only unfortunate but ironic, given that Frank's effort to legalize online gambling is often presented as a way of correcting the protectionist aspects of the current gambling policy, which discriminates against foreign-based websites and has given rise to several trade complaints. 

The text of Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, is available here (PDF). More on Frank and online gambling here. My 2008 Reason story about the federal crackdown on Internet gambling here.

Comments

[shrike]

I love it.

Combine interstate commerce, foreign taxation of profits derived from US activity, repatriation of US casino overseas profits, internet obscurity, Visa/Mastercard lobbyists, bank card losses in the new credit card act, and various other entanglements and this should tie legislators into permanent gridlock.

[JW]

I think we can presume that he'll screw it up no matter what he does or tries to do.

[Episiarch]

Am I actually agreeing with shriek?

[shrike]

I think we can presume that he'll screw it up no matter what he does or tries to do.

And what has Frank screwed up outside his personal life (which should be none of your concern)?

I won't wait for a coherent answer - considering the source.

[Warren]

You know what? Fuck Barney Frank. I lay the Fannie/Freddie collapse, and the bailouts of 2008 right at his feet. Fuck the fucking fuck. That cocksucker is as responsible as anyone for the destruction of the American economy.

[JW]

And what has Frank screwed up outside his personal life (which should be none of your concern)?

Oh, just the global economy.

Nothing much.

[JW]

I won't wait for a coherent answer

For an over-sized marital aid, you sure are funny.

[shrike]

Oh, just the global economy.

Quit listening to fat, Oxy-ridden redneck AM radio.

It rots what is left of your brain stem.

Or you could link to a news source that claims that Barney Frank, as one of 435 House members without a majority chair during the housing bubble - wrecked the "global economy"....

Nahh - let your brain stem rot.

[R C Dean]

Oh, c'mon, shrike, you can't possibly defend Barney Frank's carrying water for Fannie and Freddie all these years, while suffering from massive conflicts of interest. Regardless of whether he held a majority committee chair, he was a ranking and influential Congresser on housing policy, and Congress royally, royally, screwed that pooch, with devastating consequences.

[shrike]

RC Dean -

A minority member of the House has no power, no filibuster, nothing other than one vote of 435.

Did Frank support the GSE's? Sure - one vote.

But the GSE Reform Act of 2005 actually PASSED the House - the intent was to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

(HR 1461).

Too bad the GOP killed it upstream in the White House.

By 2005 it could have been too late anyway.

These are verifiable facts with bill numbers - not Oxy-ridden angst.

[JW]

Quit listening to fat, Oxy-ridden redneck AM radio.

I'll have know that I never listened to Al Franken.

Shriek thinks that if you're a minority party that you have no power in Congress. Isn't that so gosh darn cute?

[JW]

A minority member of the House has no power, no filibuster, nothing other than one vote of 435.

A statement so vapid and ignorant as this automatically disqualifies it from commenting again.

[Seward]

I don't think Fannie/Freddie, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. really mattered all that much. I lay the blame at the feet of the central banks basically; the "crisis" illustrates why they are so damn dangerous.

[shrike]

JW - you are the most ignorant shitcan who has posted here - and that says a lot.

RC Dean posted a thoughtful reply - and backed off after confronted with factual data.

Just go to your next Teabag party armed with nothingness.

[B]

Shrike, are insults about Rush Limbaugh and insinuations that we get our talking points from him the only argument you have? You have used it so many times I have lost count, you fucking dimwit. Why don't you fuck off and not come back until you have some original fucking material and you can actually rebut an argument instead of using lame fucking insults from some shitty left wing blog. In short, you are an unoriginal fucking douchebag who hasn't had a new idea in ages, or at since least you started posting here.

"Just go to your next Teabag party armed with nothingness."

As opposed to the bracing and thought-provoking original thought you bring, right? Give me a fucking break. You are even using teabag insults. You are a fucking clown.

[B]

Yes, let us look at the facts about Barney Frank.

According to the Washingon Post, as far back as 1992, Frank was involved in opposing and or blocking reforms of Fannie and Freddie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302638_pf.html

During the Clinton administration, Frank was involved in Clinton's reinterpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were to be graded on the number of loans they gave, not the soundness. With Frank's encouragent, Fannie and Freddie then bought these up. According to Fed Guidelines, championed by Frank "lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor"; welfare checks and unemployment benefits were considered "valid income sources".

http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308185654524278

Frank said the following about Fannie and Freddie in 2003:
These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Frank also said the following in 2003 during consideration of a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie:
"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury."

Small wonder he was running interference for Fannie and Freddie. After all he was receiving tens of thousands in donations from them and was also having sex with a Fannie Executive.

Back in 2004 Frank's fellow Democrats were saying the following about Fannie and Freddie (follow the link below):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

The above video has Frank saying this:
"I don't see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Funny how a certain unoriginal dick on this site likes to use the 2005 bill proposed by Mike Oxley as evidence not only of Frank's supposed commitment to reform without mentioning that a) Frank fucking voted against it b)the reason the bill was killed is because the majority of Republicans supported a bill with a tougher regulatory structure, which Frank opposed, of course. When the Republicans in the Senate proposed a new, tougher bill, hey, what do you know, the Democratic opposition, led by Chris Dodd, killed the bill.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/12/responding-frank-ly--i-fire-back-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

After the Democrats obtained a majority in 2006, President Bush issued many warnings about the need to reform Fannie and Freddie.

During a Press conference in 2007, he said the following:
"...first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options..."
Frank responded by immediately marshalling a bill through congress...oh wait, no he didn't. He was too busy taking thousands of dollars from them.

Frank only considered reform after it was too late, and as late as July 2008, he said the following:
"I think this is a case where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from a long term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in the housing market."

Yeah, Frank sure was in the vanguard when it came to reforming Fannie and Freddie, wasn't he shrike, you arrogant dick? You better double down on your Rush and Teabag jokes to distract from the fact that you are a fucking dunce who thinks juvenile blowjob jokes are hilarious and witty. Bravo, douchebag.

[B]

Maybe Frank should use the Chas. Freeman defense and claim he was quoted out of context by "certain elements" out to destroy him. And if that fails, he can just insult Rush Limbaugh.

[Jordan]

That's gonna leave a mark.

[Mike]

I don't like the protectionism of this bill either, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. We really should be able to gamble online. If the Feds passed a law saying "It is legal to smoke pot, but it has to be grown in the US", that is a compromise I'd be willing to make.

[Paul]

Great, where's Frank on the important stuff, like taking my money and giving it to Chrysler, GM and AIG all the while extolling the virtues of the 'workin' man'?

[JW]

Oh, my goodness, I upset the clown shoes.

How will I go on?

[shrike]

Funny how a certain unoriginal dick on this site likes to use the 2005 bill proposed by Mike Oxley as evidence not only of Frank's supposed commitment to reform without mentioning that a) Frank fucking voted against it b)the reason the bill was killed is because the majority of Republicans supported a bill with a tougher regulatory structure, which Frank opposed, of course. When the Republicans in the Senate proposed a new, tougher bill, hey, what do you know, the Democratic opposition, led by Chris Dodd, killed the bill.

All a complete lie----

Straight from the Financial Times--

"The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatization, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

Oxley isn't too happy about all the criticism Congress is getting for letting Fannie and Freddie get too big.

"All the hand wringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this," he says. "What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.""

Chris Dodd? It was the White House.

You ignorant fucking redneck.

[Gary-from-Canada]

Bookmakers are regulated in Canada and Hong Kong , the united state would do better if a National (ALL STATES) Lone
Bookmaker offer bets to the public ,On
everything sport in Nafta Countries using american odds only .