How People Voted
 |
 |
53% For, 47% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2046, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing revision saved on June 14, 2007, 18:09:34 (webmaster), with revision saved on July 21, 2007, 18:19:44 (webmaster):
H.R. 2046 would amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 - Amends federal law governing monetary transactions to establish an Internet Gambling Licensing Program administered and enforced by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Director).
Prescribes requirements for the licensing of Internet betting or wagering.
Provides that activities involving investment banking, payment and transaction processing, and financial transactions are shielded from liability if they are conducted in compliance with this Act and specified law.
Authorizes states, Indian tribes and sporting leagues to prohibit internet gambling licenses.
Subjects violators of this Act to criminal penalties.
Instructs the Director to report annually to Congress on the licensing and regulation of Internet gambling operators.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 4/26/2007:4/30/2007: Referred to House committee.subcommittee. Status: Referred to the CommitteeSubcommittee on Financial Services,Commerce, Trade and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.Consumer Protection.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Scenario
April 30, 2007, 1:25pm (report abuse)While I support the PPA's efforts, I am opposed to this bill's provision to allow states to prohibit online gambling based on their IP address or other methods. This will only lead to church-states like Utah passing "morality" bills that negate our efforts and effectively censor the internet.
For us to succeed, we need FEDERAL legislation that clarifies the legality of playing poker once and for all (both online and in person) without these glaring loopholes.
I'm calling on the PPA, Mr. D'Amato and Mr. Frank to pony up and not leave citizens who happen to live in church-states out in the dark.
shawn
July 2, 2007, 11:32pm (report abuse)Another unenforceable gambling law aimed at adults making their own decisions in the privacy of their own homes. Stop this nonsense and call it what it is... a money grab for the states. This is not the federal governments place to regulate a persons vices. No matter how much god does not approve. I also do not want to hear “what about the children” again for justification of another prohibitionist’s stance.
Eric
August 25, 2007, 6:38pm (report abuse)This bill has huge loopholes in it. Any sports league can opt out and remove their sports from internet wagering. This does not make sense... Why does Vegas get an exemption for sports betting and the rest of us that live outside of Nevada can't do it?
Scott
December 22, 2007, 8:42am (report abuse)I am all for establish an Internet Gambling Licensing Program to reduce the fears of gambling. Online gambling companies are just as much into being fair with gamers as Microsoft is into being fair with it's consumers. This new bill will help to make the US a stronger nation by allowing citizens to choose for themselves whether or not to spend their money at gambling websites. I really believe protectionism is not the way to help a nation be strong.
Lynn
July 1, 2008, 10:47am (report abuse)I agree that there are some things that need to be changed, such as the "loopholes" discussed in another comment, but the law passed in 2006 needs to go away - as Americans we have the right to walk into a casino and gamble all night, yet we can't do the same thing via online rooms? Unacceptable. I understand the scams and frauds that have taken place, but just because some sites aren't as good at catching scammers than others doesn't mean all Americans can't online gamble.
roulette system
August 27, 2008, 2:42am (report abuse)who cares, some of the online casinos dont pay if you use this roulette system (http://www.genuinewinner.com) coz it wins. real casinos are better.