The U.S. Senate on Thursday afternoon passed the JOBS Act by a vote of 73-26.

But will the bill if signed by President Obama boost entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and create jobs while enabling more initial public offerings of stock?

Financial journalist Daniel Primack, who is a familiar face to VCs and entrepreneurs in the Triangle through his active role in UNC-CH Kenan-Flagler’s annual business plan competition, sees good and bad in the bill.

Writing in his Term Sheet blog at Fortune, Primack looks at “the good, the bad, the irrelevant” of the legislation.

“Champions of the legislation, including a large number of venture capitalists, argue that it will increase capital access for emerging businesses. Critics believe it is a dangerous rollback of investor protections, including some put in place following the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals,” he says.

“So who’s right? From my perspective, they both are. The JOBS Act is a mishmash of several different initiatives that, ironically, don’t directly address employment.”

Read the full article here.

Earlier this week, a group of venture capitalists says recently passsed legilsation in the House and supported by President Obama would provide needed changes for startups in the U.S.

Writing in PEHub, the four say the “JOBS Act” who help more entrepreneurs take their companies public and trigger more economic growth.

Josh Kopelman is a managing director of First Round Capital; Jason Mendelson, is a managing director of Foundry Group; Jon Callaghan is managing partner of True Ventures, and Jeff Clavier is managing partner of SoftTech VC.

“Former venture startup companies like Apple, Google, Genentech, Starbucks and FedEx imagined the world we live in today and then made it a reality,” the wrote. “As investors, we believe that today’s generation of emerging companies are just as innovative and have just as much potential as those companies did.

The crucial challenge for today’s startups, however, is that the balance between risk and reward that spurred the growth of prior generations of young companies has swung too far away from the risk-taking essential for that growth. Today’s emerging companies must play a different game than their predecessors did. The rules have changed, but the expectations remain the same.”

While some have criticized the bill, the four are big supporters.

“Easing the path to IPO for our country’s most promising companies – companies that have grown under our watchful eye and have achieved agreed upon milestones for years – will produce rewards that are well worth the risk, and we believe that HR 3606 does so in a way that maintains significant investor protections,” they say.

Read the full article here.