There are not a great deal of quality resources as it relates to Intrastate G. As a result I have has to attend online gaming conferences and talk to other "experts" in this field in order to formulate an informed opinion.
HR 2267 Passes House Financial Services Committee
July 28th, 2010.
After postponing the hearing on Tuesday, the House Financial Services Committee met on Wednesday to discuss Rep. Barney Frank’s proposed bill H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Many representatives were on hand to file amendments and make their voices heard, and after several hours the bill was passed by a vote of 41-22, finalizing the first of many steps to be taken in order to regulate online poker in the United States.
The hearing got underway just after 10:00 a.m. ET and the committee began discussing provisions of the bill in the markup phase. This is the phase where a Congressional committee makes changes to a bill before it is voted on and eventually sent to the House of Representatives for another vote. Should the bill get the majority vote from the House of Representatives, it would then be passed along to the Senate for another majority vote, before being signed into law by the President.
Several amendments were made to HR 2267 on Wednesday. Each amendment was handled individually and voted on by the representatives in attendance. Here’s a recap of what was discussed:
Amendment 1 (Congressman Brad Sherman, Calif.): Sites that have intentionally broken Internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. This will likely affect larger online poker sites such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and the old Ultimate Bet, all of whom allowed players from the U.S. to play on their site after the UIGEA went into effect. Amendment is taken to a voice vote, where representatives are asked to motion whether they are in favor or against the amendment. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 2 (Congressman Peter King, New York): Prohibits sports betting, excluding horseracing. King and several other representatives strongly support the notion of keeping sports clean and away from anything that will undermine the integrity of the game. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 3 (Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio): Secretary of Treasury has the power to prohibit unsolicited emails and advertisements targeted to minors and problem gamblers. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 4 (Congressman Spencer Bachus, Alabama, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Minnesota): Forbids offshore sites that have illegally done business in the US, along with people who have been employed by said sites, from getting a license. Bachus aims to include everyone associated with an “illegally-run” online gambling site be banned; Frank disputes the provision, saying that a janitor or restaurant worker employed inside of a brick and mortar casino would not be held responsible for the mishandlings of upper management; the same should hold true for an online company. Bachus withdraws amendment and says he would like to resubmit. Bachus reintroduces amendment later in the day, stipulating that only those who knew they were working at an illegally-run Internet site will be banned from obtaining a license. Amendment is later voted on by roll-call.
Amendment 5 (Congressman Joe Baca, Calif.): Allows Indian tribes to participate in Internet gambling. Frank quickly denies the amendment as it is not germane, or relevant to the subject.
Amendment 6 (Congressman Joe Baca, Calif): Allow states/tribes to opt-in to Internet gambling. Frank emphasizes that the choice to gamble online should be up to the person, not to the state where they reside. Amendment denied by voice vote, but is later voted on by roll-call.
Amendment 7 (Congressman John Campbell, Calif): Includes several provisions: 1.) All facilities of licensees that operate and/or accept wagers be located in the US; 2.) States and tribes must have parallel authority; 3.) Bettors must be at least 21 years of age; 4.) Age and residence of bettors must be verified; 5.) Odds of winning at each game must be posted online, 6.) The identities of legal and illegal gambling sites must be verified by the treasury in order for banks to prohibit certain financial transactions; 7.) Owners must meet licensing requirements; 8.) Sites must provide loss limits for each bettor. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 8 (Congressman Brad Sherman, Calif.): States are given one full legislative session to opt out, as opposed to the original period of 90 days. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 9 (Congressman John Campbell, Calif): Internet sites who advertise towards minors will have their license revoked. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 10 (Congresswoman Melissa Bean, Illinois): Treasury is required to observe Internet sites and accordingly sanction fines and revoke licenses if minors are found gambling. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 11 (Manager’s amendment — the majority and minority member who managed the debate): Bets are to be made with prepaid cards and debit cards only; bettors will be restricted from using credit cards on Internet gambling sites. In addition, the House Financial Services Committee will have no jurisdiction on tribal rights. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 12 (Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Minnesota): Internet sites are forbidden from allowing people who are delinquent on child support from gambling on their site. Sites who don’t obey this rule lose their license. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Amendment 13 (Congressman Gary Peters, Michigan): State and tribal lotteries are exempt from licensing requirements, as long as they are intrastate activities. Currently, these lotteries are already subject to state licensing, and the Federal government should not get involved. Amendment passes by voice vote.
Following the passing of the final amendment of the afternoon, Rep. Bachus called for a roll call vote, which Rep. Frank scheduled for 3:20 p.m. ET. The first roll call vote was on the opt-in amendment by Rep. Baca, which was defeated by a vote of 37-22. The next in line was Bachus’ amendment, which was also voted down, by a vote of 43-22. Finally, HR 2267 came before the committee, and it passed by an overwhelming margin of 41-22.
we will POST your comments here how to send us your comments July 22nd, 2010
This website is all about Intrastate Gambling, and all you need to know regarding State to State gaming and the legality of it. To learn more about the person behind this site please visit Parimutuel LLC. For more information about the latest State to adopt Intrastate gambling click here.
My name is Harry Platis and I am the guy behind this site. I am a lawyer in the State of Washington (see Platis Law). I have been researching Intrastate gaming law as it relates to parimutuel wagering for almost six years, and it is this research that permits me to have the following comments on Intrastate Wagering.
The State of Washington is perfectly at liberty to authorize Internet Gambling from within its own borders AND from anywhere else that Internet gambling is permitted.
To begin with please refer to UIGEA, 31 USC section 5362 (10) (B), wherein it specifically States that Internet gambling which is authorized, licensed and supervised by State authorities, offered only within the bounds of that State, and only to residents of that State, will not be considered "unlawful Internet gambling".
Now as to offering Internet gambling to people outside of the state boundaries, that depends on which other jurisdictions it is offered to. You see, unlawful Internet gambling, as far as it is defined at all, supposedly means " to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly 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 or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made."
Therefore, if accepting the Internet wager is legal within the State of Washington, where it is received, and making it is legal in jurisdiction X ( let's say Australia), then it is perfectly obvious that it is also legal to transmit that wager BETWEEN Australia and the State of Washington.
Now it is alleged that the Department of Justice wrote "don't you dare" letters to several States, such as North Dakota, which were at the time considering legalization of online gambling. But it needs to be pointed out that if such letters were written and sent: (a) they could be construed as a form of overreaching - that is to say the Department of Justice has no business telling any state government what it's gambling policy should be, and (b) have been superseded by the UIGEA itself.
Up to that point, the DOJ had been pretending that its own unique interpretation of the Wire Act made all Internet gambling illegal. The UIGEA has precedence.
All Washington needs to do is; first, set up its own Internet gambling regime; and then second, put an addendum into its Business and Professions code (or equivalent) that any Internet bet which is made with a licensee of the State of Washington, shall be deemed to have been made within the State, provided that the person placing the bet is doing so from a location where making bets online is also legal.