Posted on 03/15/2007 1:04:39 PM PDT by kms61
The Financial Times online edition (subscription required for full article) has noted from an interview that Barney Frank, the democratic House Financial Services Committee chairman, is working on legislation to repeal the ban on online gambling in the US that was passed last year. "Working on" is hard to define without more information
It is not clear at all if this is a "total repeal" or just a loosening of the laws. It is also a question as to whether or not this legislation could even make it to the White House through Congressional votes, and it is unclear of this would be for 2008 and beyond or if it was sooner. But either way, you have to look no further than Cryptologic (CRYP) to see how this could impact other stocks in the sector (they make online gaming software) if there is any truth to this. CRYP has even managed to defy a weak market if you look at the shares.
In Australia, companies like Betcorp and Lasseters Corp were hit hard last year because of the ban. In the UK, companies like PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings were also hit in 2006 over such issues. Gigamedia (GIGM) and American Wagering (BETM) were also noted in a story late yesterday along with pari-mutuel horseracing company Youbet.com (UBET). We have all missed the PartyPoker commercials as well.
Once again, take heed that "an interview" and "legislation" can be taken way out of context and there is always the possibility that this could be dead before it even gets started. My own call in so far has partially confirmed this, but with no details yet known. Many of the European online gaming stocks also made some rather large moves last week because of some loosening of regulations in the EU. There is not even assurance that it will make it to the form of a bill, so if you take any of this as "gospel" or as "fact" then the point has not been stressed enough that there may be no follow-through in reality.
I did put in a phone call to Congressman Frank's office and was told that this is true, but I have not been able to get the details from the Financial Services Committee as of yet. I am awaiting a call back to give more details.
Jon C. Ogg March 14, 2007
Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.
I don't mow my neighbor's yard; but I sure wish he would.
My self-reported behavior?
Let's see now. My self-reported behavior is that I've never done drugs, I've never smoked, and only once drank in my life. I have two children I raise in a Christian home. And you tell me that I'm "immoral scum" because I chose to spend a few of my hard-earned dollars on an activity that was completely legal for entertainment that was then prohibited by a bunch of nanny-staters who wanted to control our lives?
Then you have the gaul to attack my sexuality and attempt to link me to the homosexual movement?
You are as close-minded as they get.
It WAS legal until about 6 months ago.
Good point, the ban was never done right to begin with. It was necessary, as the reports that argued so convincingly for it proved. But immoral gambling interests and their dirty money have corrupted congress so badly they couldn't even do the ban RIGHT in the first place. As I said it needs to be strengthened and enforced.
This is an advocacy issue. If that is what you believe then go out and convince people not to play Texas Hold'em on-line. Do not legislate your moral beliefs on me.
Just about every Saturday night a bunch of friends I grew up with from all around our great country gather to play a couple of Texas Hold'em tournerys at Pokerstars. It's total fun!
Before you go thinking that good conservative leaders would legislate morality...answer me this:
Would you want to give Hillary that same power? I think not.
While I believe in a basic moral structure in law and society, you cannot legislate morality and shouldn't, either.
I am not a Libertarian, you ass-wipe. I despise that party, and would never vote for anything but the GOP. In case you slept through social studies, the Democrat party is the nanny-state party. And the reason the GOP passed this bill was because of people like Abramoff and big casino money, not because of "morals". That is just a crock.
"immoral disease"?????
Wow! You are REALLY sure of yourself.
So, if I believe in the constitution, I'm immoral.
If I believe in personal freedom, I'm immoral.
If I believe the government should be restricted on removing rights from it's citizens, I'm immoral.
I'm just trying to define your facist arguments.
"Last year, I played online poker."
= Self-reported behavior, specifically online gambling.
Okay Chief, we're outta here. Say hi to President Hilary for me.
And won't give a rat's ass about what the Constitution says if they get a chance to do it.
You didn't address me in particular or at all, but I will respond anyway: Not a lot. Catch John Calvin on one of his less tolerant days. I'm about there.
Thanks, GOP leadership, for handing our opponents yet another opportunity to look good. Idiots.
Last time I was with your wife she thought I was a pretty good guy.
I beg to differ.
In part, it is the religious right moral crusaders that have. The gambling law is one of many reasons the GOP lost in November.
I'm pretty socially conservative myself, but when the conservative movement traded in small government and fiscal freedom for nanny-state, Big Brother forced morality conservatism, they started falling out of favor.
I'm not diminishing the importance of Christianity in our society, not at all and I believe in it. I'm not talking about abortion and gay marriage here, I'm sure you and I agree on those issues. But when you start getting down into the individual things like this, you start seeing problems.
BURN!
I don't believe the constitution says anything specifically about gambling. It does not guarantee a right to self-destructive behaviors that have a major negative impact on society, be it the use of illegal drugs, gambling, prostitution or other vices that are rightly illegal in most states.
Wow. I knew we had moderate conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and evangelical conservatives.
Who says we don't have a big tent?
We even have Taliban conservatives, except they want to get rid of the rest of the conservatives. I don't think that's gonna work out.
Yes, I played online poker. And that's wrong because what? Because you say so? Please, feel free to tell me what exactly is immoral about gambling. You can't. If someone does it to an extreme, yes, there is a problem, but if someone drinks too much water, it can kill them too. So, what is wrong with playing a game for fun? My average cost was about what I'd spent for a taking my kids to the movies regularly. They didn't like going out all that much to the theater, and prefer to watch the DVD's at home. So, I got some of their favorite movies and we cut back our movie-going experience. And I'm some sort of scum because I had the audacity to violate your precious beliefs? Because I spent money that was in my entertainment budget, and wsan't taking food from my children's mouths. So, what EXACTLY did I do wrong?
Your self-reported behavior includes going against the teachings in John 8:7 - "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.