4 ms·

You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/as

You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2789_cfa_20100628_154447_sen_comm.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab...; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1258/R-1258_11_1.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1...), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply with the law," which is quite a charge to levy. Just to compare notes, I'd like to see your list of startups that have applied for and are licensed under the California Money Transmission Act. As far as I can tell, based on the DFI's monthly summaries (see http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/ http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/), one startup (Venmo) has applied, and zero startups have licenses to date. This is now ten months after the law went into effect. As for the law's intent, the statute claims that it's "consumer protection." I doubt anyone who claims that a money transmitter needs $1 million to $80 million of net worth and $750,000 of surety bonds in order to safely transmit $1. Good luck with your startup. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations.

hahaonlysirius 15y ago
Let's be clear: the multi-billion dollar financial corporations didn't shut you down. The state did. They're the ones with the guns.
- zizee 15y ago
  The financial corporations are the ones with the lobbyists.
  - hahaonlysirius 15y ago
    Personally, I would rather be lobbied than shot.
jessedhillon 15y ago
You waive these documents around as evidence of something -- have you ever read them or did you only get to the first paragraph where member organizations were listed? They make some very good points about the public interest in regulating money transfer; do you have any rebuttals to them? Did you see the section of the bill analysis which reads thus: 4. Opposition None received. Why isn't your company's name there? Surely it has to be in your interest to actually register a complaint in a venue that matters? You throw around terms like lobbying and stymied innovation so carelessly it's difficult to believe that you've actually considered these issues. Do you know that the MSRT spent so less than $20k on lobbying activities in 2009 and 2010? The law against paid organ donation is frustrating my efforts to create an organ-matching service. It doesn't mean that innovation is stymied in the US, it means that regulation in the public interest outweighs my own interests. If you want to be taken seriously, try showing that you're familiar with the counter-argument and can rebut it point-for-point. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations. You sound like a whiny conspiracy theorist.
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta.... This law is not a good example of regulation in the public interest. Think Computer Corporation isn't listed in the opposition column because I had no idea that there was a hearing scheduled for April 19, 2010 in Sacramento on the issue. Did you? It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. They spent $0 on lobbying in 2007-2010: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&year=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&#38... Characterizing the political process as "buying a law" doesn't do anything for your argument. It's a silly reduction. I actually think your white paper is a very thorough and serious proposal -- your message comes through very clearly and it's a good example of a professional communication. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things. Apparently you have no argument left, but thanks for spellchecking mine. You seem to be unable to distinguish legitimate criticism of the tenor and delivery of your comment from opposition. Obviously I am not opposed to loosening money transmission laws. I just think you could communicate legitimate complaints in a positive, engaging tone instead of ranting, and then becoming defensive and petty when questioned about it. It was a while ago when I was looking into money transmission and I ultimately decided against it for other reasons.

hahaonlysirius 15y ago

Let's be clear: the multi-billion dollar financial corporations didn't shut you down. The state did. They're the ones with the guns.

zizee 15y ago
The financial corporations are the ones with the lobbyists.
- hahaonlysirius 15y ago
  Personally, I would rather be lobbied than shot.

jessedhillon 15y ago

You waive these documents around as evidence of something -- have you ever read them or did you only get to the first paragraph where member organizations were listed? They make some very good points about the public interest in regulating money transfer; do you have any rebuttals to them? Did you see the section of the bill analysis which reads thus: 4. Opposition None received. Why isn't your company's name there? Surely it has to be in your interest to actually register a complaint in a venue that matters? You throw around terms like lobbying and stymied innovation so carelessly it's difficult to believe that you've actually considered these issues. Do you know that the MSRT spent so less than $20k on lobbying activities in 2009 and 2010? The law against paid organ donation is frustrating my efforts to create an organ-matching service. It doesn't mean that innovation is stymied in the US, it means that regulation in the public interest outweighs my own interests. If you want to be taken seriously, try showing that you're familiar with the counter-argument and can rebut it point-for-point. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations. You sound like a whiny conspiracy theorist.

thinkcomp 15y ago
I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta.... This law is not a good example of regulation in the public interest. Think Computer Corporation isn't listed in the opposition column because I had no idea that there was a hearing scheduled for April 19, 2010 in Sacramento on the issue. Did you? It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. They spent $0 on lobbying in 2007-2010: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&year=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&#38... Characterizing the political process as "buying a law" doesn't do anything for your argument. It's a silly reduction. I actually think your white paper is a very thorough and serious proposal -- your message comes through very clearly and it's a good example of a professional communication. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things. Apparently you have no argument left, but thanks for spellchecking mine. You seem to be unable to distinguish legitimate criticism of the tenor and delivery of your comment from opposition. Obviously I am not opposed to loosening money transmission laws. I just think you could communicate legitimate complaints in a positive, engaging tone instead of ranting, and then becoming defensive and petty when questioned about it. It was a while ago when I was looking into money transmission and I ultimately decided against it for other reasons.