"I'm so scared."

These are final acts of office, all filed to take effect Jan 20th. Loophole or not, this is rearguard scorched earth politics. Its not just poker. Ugly **** is going down at the EPA as well. Clinton did some of the same crap. Im not sure its as simple as a law blocking them, as publishing the regulations is an executive branch function. I think the best that can be done is to restart the whole process over again, which has established timelines. Not allowing OMB to publish new regulations within say 180 days of an election would allow
some democratic(small d) input into the item. Essentially, this is throwing a monkey wrench at a new administration.

On a side not, expect more and worse in terms of recess appointments, pardons, and whatever end runs around good governance and the Constitution Bush Inc can come up with. Last minute indictments against gaming entities as well.

We'll have lots of company. I wonder if the regulation classifying The Pill as an abortion method will get pushed through. The RFC for that one got thousands of comments. Poker player activism is small time compared to that. I'm guessing the proposed regulation was just a gesture for the radical base, and they won't finalize it.

Any which way, there's gonna be a big mess to clean up in January.

I understand your angst however Congress does not have authority to limit the Presidents term to less than four full years which is effectively what you are suggesting. You are also forgetting that congress passed the law that requires the regulations to be enacted in the first place.

You are correct about the new administration being able to restart the regulatory process and begin from scratch but that normally takes years and Obama's priorities will lie elsewhere for years to come. Before you ask a new President cannot otherwise suspend regulations which are both final and have gone into effect so that can't happen either. In 1999 congress also limited executive orders to a 30 day review timeframe except under specifically outlined emergency circumstances

The two choices left are the Congressional Review Act which has only ever been successfully used one time in history or the Courts which are naturally reluctant to overturn regulations that followed all the prescribed processes.



Jimbo

^

And the winner of the Understatement of the Year goes to...

lol worded very nicely. I also hope all your assessments are true.

I don't see the banks using resources to enforce something that when enforced is only going to cost them more money.

In that case the next thing you won't see is that bank still in business.

Jimbo

Just finished reading the entire thread. Basically what it sounds to me like is that online poker is f*cked. I'm about to start cashing out money now, thanks.

Thank you. I know modern man has a lot of faith in the validity of paperwork and the sheer power of bureaucracy, but the history of international commerce shows there's not a lot of defense against forged credentials, one way or the other.

"Oh, dear, that ship flying the white flag appears to be in distress. Let's go help."

(Comes within cannon range, "disabled" ship hoists the Jolly Roger)

OH SHI-



A quote from a man who lived just up the road from me once, for you more civilized 2+2ers, naysayers, who speak as if you were authorities on such matters:

So they are going to bail them out of all the bs thats gone on then shut them down because of internet gambling? over a law that most even in goverment think is a joke, and the ones that do want it are going to be out of office soon.

iMEGA is appealing the UIGEA and from their comments they seem very confident that they will overturn it. Will this appeal stall its implementation, and how much of a chance to you guys think iMEGA has to win the appeal?

Also, if they win the appeal will this mean the UIGEA will be just done away with or what?

What happened with Antigua and their ability to pirate software to US residents if the US didn't comply with their WTO win?

Seriously, should i be getting my money off sites now as well as awaring all my friends of whats going on?

Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is best and worst case scenario here?

We don't need to panic and take money off the sites, the chances of a legit site not paying out there US players every due to the UIGEA is almost non-existant

Alright, I'm going to try to be diplomatic here: your signal to noise ratio, imo, is not the greatest. While I agree we don't need to panic, the issue isn't so much FT and Stars not paying you as not being able to pay you. If they can pay you, without any problems (as in 'almost non-existant'), then the regs would be toothless, or focused only on outgoing payments. I'm certainly a glass is half-full kind of guy, as is evidenced by my posts in legislation, but there is in my opinion a greater then 'almost non-existant' chance that you will not be able to receive funds from a poker site in say a year or a year and a half if you are trying to cash at a US bank.

Presumably there would be some warning of this, either through the tubes or from the sites themselves. If dark clouds are brewing, I personally am not going to be one of the people at the back of the line when it comes to getting my money out.

I don't think there is any immediate concern, see my earlier post which I have quoted below. I welcome any and all comments on the timeline as I want to make sure, for my own protection if for no other reason, that I have a decent grasp on the facts.

All this speculation is pointless. We need to wait until we both read the actual regs and how the banks, the sites and their processors react to them. The only good thing about the regs coming out is that after seeing how the banks react to them, the sites will be able to make longer term plans to react and find other avenues of payment processing, even if that means a constantly changing mix of solutions.

Markets react better to actual conditions and not hypothetical uncertain ones. It could be that that such uncertainty causes more overblocking than the response of the banks to the final regs.

I've read the entire thread and I'm a bit confused. Could someone please clarify the following as simply as possible.

1. The regs are coming down the pipe, and we've got no avenue of stopping or altering them for the better at them at this time?

2. If/when they come through, and if we assume they are worst case scenario, will we be able to start doing anything about them come January?

3. Is there anything individuals can do to help? Call people, etc?

This is a good point.

Everybody seems to be worried about best case and worst case hypothetical that may or may not even happen.

IIRC, the regulations that came out last year for comment were really watered down to begin with. So there's a good chance that we aren't going to see radical differences one way or another.

One thing is for certain though; the GoP is extremely motivated to continue the war on internet gambling. So what we should focus all of our energy and effort on is getting some pro-poker legislation through in the next year or two while we have favorable conditions in the Legislative and Executive branches.

Bush aide pushes gambling ban
By: Patrick O'Connor
November 8, 2008 09:02 AM EST
The Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15442.html


A Tennessee Democrat is charging a top Bush adviser with exerting “considerable political pressure” to benefit one of his former lobbying clients.

Rep. Steve Cohen asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to investigate whether William Wichterman, a top political aide to the president, disclosed his “potential conflict of interest” in pushing the administration to enact new requirements to enforce an Internet gambling ban, according to a letter the congressman sent Friday.

As late as March, Wichterman was a registered lobbyist with Covington & Burling where he represented the National Football League, according to the Senate lobbying disclosure database. In that role, he worked on the Internet gaming laws, one of the league's top legislative priorities.

The Cohen letter marks the latest turn in a long-running fight over Internet gambling regulations. The online poker industry has partnered with a wide range of financial institutions to slow the administration from implementing rules Congress passed in 2006 as part of an unrelated bill.

Wichterman and other White House officials are trying to rush these rules changes through the administration’s normal approval process during the final months of the Bush presidency.

The new rules would require banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to block all financial transactions with Internet gambling sites. Online gambling is illegal in this country. Supporters of the new requirements argue this update would allow the federal government to enforce the pre-existing ban.

Opponents, who include House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), argue the law is too vague and places onerous requirements on these financial institutions—at a time when many are struggling to rebound from the slumping economy.

Wichterman and others backers of the bill, like Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), have been pushing the administration to enact these changes before Nov. 17, in the narrow window before the new administration could make any changes, according to people familiar with these deliberations.


The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve must sign off on the language of the law before the administration can implement these new rules. There is a 60-day review process, so current administration officials want their recommended language to take effect before the next administration takes over.

In his letter to the White House, Cohen suggests Wichterman “has been a source of considerable political pressure to speed this regulation through finalization.”

The former lobbyist with Covington & Burling represented the NFL, which, says the letter, “has been among the most vocal advocates for the proposed rule and the underlying law.”

Opponents fear OMB will push these rules changes through, even though administration officials testified before the Financial Services panel earlier this year that the law is overly vague.

OMB needs the Federal Reserve to sign off on the new rules before the administration can implement them as law, according to people familiar with the implementation process.

The financial services industry has opposed the Internet gaming law since former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) inserted it in a port security bill during his final days in office. Administration officials and industry representatives have since criticized the rules during congressional testimony.

“The way to get a better reg[ulation] is to get a better law,” said Andy Barbour, who oversees Internet issues for the Financial Services Roundtable. “We’re interested in pursuing that cause, as is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.”

Religious organizations, on the other hand, are steadfast in their support of the measure. Critics argued that Frist moved the legislation to bolster his bona fides with religious conservatives in anticipation of a potential White House bid, though he never did launch a bid.

Cohen asks Fielding whether Wichterman—who worked for Frist before heading to K Street—disclosed “to you or your office his potential conflict of interest on this matter.”

“If so, was he nonetheless allowed by the White House to work on this issue?” the congressman asks.

In the letter, Cohen asks the White House counsel to spell out for him the Bush administration’s policy on aides working in issue areas they covered as paid lobbyists.

The congressman wants to know if “there is a defined period during which employees who served as lawyers or lobbyists in the private sector must recuse themselves from matters affecting their former clients.”

The Tennessee Democrat also wants to know whether Wichterman plans to return to the lobbying firm. He further asks for a catalogue of contact between the White House office of Public Liaison with Treasury, OMB and the Federal Reserve.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the Cohen letter. On Thursday, spokesman Tony Fratto said his office does not comment on administrative rules that remain under consideration.

Mr. Pappas,

Why are you posting that story, which is interesting to be sure, instead of reporting on your meeting yesterday with the OMB to try to delay finalizing the regs?

Nice article.

Please digg at http://digg.com/politics/Politico_Bu..._former_client

What's wrong with posting that story?

Ummm, the same reason no one else from the two previous meetings has dissclosed the details of their meetings, rules?

obg

If John could reveal the exact content of the regs, he would. He cant because of a combination of having seen only parts of the regs, and that under confidential situations.

We will have to wait till when they are openly published to give detailed answers regarding their practical effects. It is safe to assume, however, that the practical effects will range somehwere from merely inconvenient to outright terrible to game-killing. It basically depends on what bank to bank transactions are and are not required to be monitored.

The PPA will litigate. Plans are already in the works.

The iMega argument is that there should be no regs because the whole statute is unconsitutuional. I hope they win that argument, but as a lawyer my professional opinion is not optomistic.

The regs themesleves will present many other areas for litiagtion. The PPA has anticipated this for a while now and has prepared. I am not at liberty to reveal more details at this time.

Skallagrim

Article on Dangers of Rushed UIEGA

http://www.recentpoker.com/news/uiega-11808.html