The Federal Reserve is not "on their way out".

The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States government and is the last leg in the government that must approve the regulations.

It might be but not calling certainly will do nothing. When I called they commented on how many calls they have been getting.

I also suggest calling & writing your congressman and senators. Believe it or not if enough people call the messages will get through to them.

No one at the Federal Reserve is elected and most are not on their way out. IIRC they also objected to the UIGEA during the comment period last year. They have to approve the final regulation. Public pressure can possibly sway them and, if they are so inclined anyway, give them one more reason for not approving the regulations as written.

Although not identified my assumption is a staff member of the OMB put it together for whatever senior OMB officials are responsible for the go/no go decision.

Banks oppose the regs, the Federal Reserve board is the banks.

They care less about moral agendas rather protecting banks and profits.

Notice, they have not signed off on the regs, only treasury, we want to keep it that way.

obg

Where does the OMB fit into all of this?

Have they signed off on the finalized regs yet? I'm assuming that they haven't because of the meetings they had late last week.

Ok you convinced me. I called and e-mailed the board.

Will this affect withdrawals?

At its' worst implementation, it could well affect your ability to play, much less cash out.

Better call.

Tuff

The Federal Reserve has to agree to the regs. They may prefer to not implement poorly defined regulations at this time, due to the strains the financial system is under now.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve were not voted out. They are independent of the Bush Administration and they'll all be there on Jan. 21, 2009.

Why would you think the Fed has a religious moral agenda?

I hope this discussion has changed your opinion. Now please call.

Nice job!

any idea of when we find out anything meaningful pertaining to this issue which is wayyyyy over my head?

by the way, i called a long time ago and also told the guy over the phone that they should give callers the option of bi-passing the spanish message as well.

god bless the the illegal aliens but this isnt mexico!.......its comunist russia. lets get the facts straight here!

Yes. I'll post it here.

i suggest people calling/emailing/ leaving voice messages to focus your message around the banking issues--the undue burden banks will be charged with, the lack of effective monitoring ability, the financial costs to implement, the impractical job of writing regs for ambiguous and vague legislation, the collateral damage to legal transactions, etc.

imo the fed and the treasury will put little weight to the skill and freedom arguments (they may even not understand them) and the effects the regs will have to legal gambling. lobby the fed and treasury dept on issues banks and other financial entities are worried about, not what us poker players are worried about.

And an activity that a law expressly forbids, which is obviously the situation or you wouldn't be working so hard, just as obviously can have exceptions to that law. Horse betting business?, some allowed and some 'forrbidden'; lotteries?, some of both; poker companies?, some of both; casinos?, same as it ever was.

Just in case-Do this. This is the correct ph# to call 202-974-7008 & reference UIGEA. Dont foget to leave your full name & voice your opinion.

Actual Link-http://federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ElectronicCommentForm.cfm?doc_id=R-1298&doc_ver=1&name=Prohibition%20on%20Funding%20o f%20Unlawful%20Internet%20Gambling&date=20071001a

That doesn't really answer my question. Of course I called.

OK, if the regs are not clear leaving the banks to actually sort out legal / illegal they will likely do as they say, block ALL transactions.

no deposit / No RETURN (my concern).

obg

If something else says a fee is a bet, that is another discussion; all I know is that we agree UIGEA says a fee under these conditions is not betting, move along.


The rest of the definition, that you left out but need to consider, quite clearly shows what a "contest" has to look like to not be "betting". The defined "contest" is very different than a poker game if you are trying to equate them.

In "Fee" I am refering to a "fee' charged by someone prioviding a service; I.E. $5.00 + .50 (the 'fee'), the $5.00 is the players money. the NJ Federal Court drew a distintion between betting and paying a "fee" to a contest operator. A poker site can easily have a set "fee" for each individual RG or a set fee based on each street.

What is poker but a contest? Granted, a new definition of rules may or may not be required to define the structure, but the FTC "skill contests" provides a format, I guess you have either forgotten or never actually read them.

Move on, you have beaten this to death........over and over........

obg

I don't think you know what a monopoly is...

But anyway, what's amusing is this is still in violation of the World Trade Organization agreements. If Obama really does want to A) renegotiate trade regulations and B) get in better standing with foreign countries, there may be some pressure put on him to legalize online poker. Also, with election season being over, hopefully some members of congress will be a little more willing to stand up and vote for legal internet gambling.

Either way, the PPA needs to get heavily envolved in the next 8 months. Legalizing online gambling in the U.S. would almost certainly create jobs here, as at least one company has said they would start an operation center here, and I'm sure others would have some type of showing in the U.S. Job creation is hard for anyone to ignore when you are losing 240,000 jobs per month.

Good to know Treasury has time to **** me in the ass while overseeing a 700b bailout paid for with my money.

I thought it was impossible for me to hate Bush more...maybe Obama will repeal it.

what are the motivations behind these proposed new laws? - and the UIGEA in general (?)

Will we actually be able to withdraw money from sites like Poker Stars?

I mean, if we can't then that's it, right?

I fully admit that I don't know very much and could easily be wrong, but I see no indication to believe that this would be the case.