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'm not sure that you are on the right site.
Government, on all levels, needs to get out of the nanny state mentality it has right now.
Personal responsibility needs to be brought back into play.
Wahhhhh, I'm addicted to gambling!
Wahhhhh, I'm addicted to porn!
Wahhhhhhh, I'm addicted to the next fad!
BS! Take responsibility for your actions.
If you can't handle gambling, don't gamble.
I agree 100%.
How about if all the speed limits in this country are lowered to 5 mph... because if it would save just one life wouldn't it be worth it???
That's what this anti-gaming legislation is all about, a lame attempt to save a few people from themselves.
Good thinking! Purge the party of anyone who isn't a far-right theo-con and you can kiss good bye to the idea of the GOP being a force in *national* politics.
From Reagan Revolution to regional party in a single generation. Brilliant political strategy.
The GOP lost in November because the party has turned its back on Social Conservatives / the religious right. And they will lose again in 2008 if they don't wake up and realize they're ignoring us at their peril. We hold the keys to the success or failure of the GOP. Disbelieve me if you will, and just watch what happens...
There are plenty around here who believe the Big Tent should be burned down and a Revival Tent erected in its place.
"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!!!! You just DESTROYED your own argument.
There's a little thing called the 10th amendment. Maybe you need to go back and actually READ it.
I believe it states something similar to "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
So, the federal government had NO right to do what they did. It's illegal, but because you like it, and it goes to your morality which you, just like the Taliban, want to impose on others, decided that it's a good law.
Time to learn about how things REALLY are.
Sheesh.
That is demonstrably untrue.
*Conservative* Republicans got their asses handed to them in 2006, while not a single liberal Democrat lost a seat.
Tell me how they turned their backs on social conservatives?
IMHO they turned their backs on fiscal conservatism and those concerned about illegal immigration.
Many of the Founders were opposed to adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, fearing that it would be twisted into an assertion that we only have the rights that are specifically enumerated. Madison added the Tenth Amendment, confident that it would dispel any such notions. You see determined to prove him wrong.
You're right about one thing. The Constitution doesn't say anything about drugs, gambling, prostitution or any other vices. If it doesn't say anything about them then it cannot enumerate a federal power over them. If a power is not enumerated, then the federal government does not hold that power, it remains with the States.
Gosh, I wish I was as powerful as you are.
If you hold the keys, I'm getting out of the car.
LOL! I'm sure it's really nice on your home planet...
More people would rather live in a free country, not your tidy little police state.
Wow. Best laugh I've had today.
Maybe we need to go back to the "blame the Libertarian" threads after the last election, and set some people straight about who's actually responsible for the Republicans losing elections.
And somebody's been listening to too much talk radio.
Of the 20 House Republicans who were defeated, 15 had lifetime ACU ratings of over 70%.
Of the 6 GOP Senators, 5 had ACU ratings over 80%(!).
Stinking bunch of liberals, all.
Rick Santorum spits on your post.
If someone wants to piss their money away on online gambling sites, who cares?
I've posted on this repeatedly.
The GOP started doing well when they were able to add evangelicals to their base which already consisted of small-government types and fiscal conservatives. (and a few defense hawks.)
When ALL parts of the base were satisfied, the GOP won. However, over the last few years, Republicans started believing that being ONLY socially conservative was all that was important, but it was still OK to be a Socialist on everything else. The "pro-life Socialist" syndrome that has permeated the party.
Now, Giuliani's not the answer either. He's straight-up liberal.
I'm a Thompson guy in '08 but that's the topic of another thread. He balances all portions of conservatism just right.
George Allen would like a word as well.
ROFL, you're kidding or hitting the crack pipe, right?
No FReeper can be this stupid.
Interesting analysis. I'll definitely consider it further. Thanks!
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.