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.
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.
They spent $0 on lobbying in 2007-2010: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&...
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.
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/), 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.