H.R. 4411 - U.S. House consideration

[ChrisAJ]

This may have been posted already, but it appears as though the full House of Representatives will take up H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, next week. Probably Wednesday, July 12th, with a vote sometime that afternoon - watch the whole thing unfold on CSPAN!

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
This may have been posted already, but it appears as though the full House of Representatives will take up H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, next week. Probably Wednesday, July 12th, with a vote sometime that afternoon - watch the whole thing unfold on CSPAN!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest everyone make a it an important point to call their House Representative on the telephone about this issue before Weds.

B.

[LesJ]

Chris,

Is this Leach's bill instead of Goodlatte's? Or is this some sort of compromise bill?

Thanks,
Les

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris,

Is this Leach's bill instead of Goodlatte's? Or is this some sort of compromise bill?

Thanks,
Les

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the Leach bill.

[astrodon]

Leach; now there is a perfectly descriptive name for a politician/lawyer. F****** Leach!

It's probably just a little saber rattling cause some organization is not getting any blood money from enterprise. If those folks in Gibralter salt the back pockets of a few politicians and the 'problem' will go away - gaurenteed. Besides, how are they going to stop it: put keyloggers on every pc in America? Typical politician logic: they can't think past their pockets...

I don't play online poker but if I did the legislation would not affect my playing routine at all.

[Que2]

How doea this effect poker tax payers?

What I mean is, there are hundreds of thousands of players who pay ther poker taxes. Now if this were an "illegal" way to make money, who the hell is gonna pay taxes on it?

Seems like the house is not seeing very far into the future.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like the house is not seeing very far into the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

It usually doesn't.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Leach; now there is a perfectly descriptive name for a politician/lawyer. F****** Leach!

[/ QUOTE ]

He is a politician, but not a lawyer. If it makes you feel better, at one point he worked for Congressman Don Rumsfeld. He usually works on international issues (which makes me think he'd get the WTO angle on this, but I guess he doesn't). And by the way, he's far from being a "conservative" Republican.

[ QUOTE ]
It's probably just a little saber rattling cause some organization is not getting any blood money from enterprise. If those folks in Gibralter salt the back pockets of a few politicians and the 'problem' will go away - gaurenteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not likely.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
How doea this effect poker tax payers?

What I mean is, there are hundreds of thousands of players who pay ther poker taxes. Now if this were an "illegal" way to make money, who the hell is gonna pay taxes on it?

Seems like the house is not seeing very far into the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations pay taxes too. And FWIW, I think the percentage of online poker players who report their winnings is extremely small.

[Berge20]

I'll see what I can drum up on Monday - The bill will be up on Wednesday in all liklihood. There is a possibility that the two anti-gambling bills will be merged in someway in a managers amendment.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, amendments are allowed.

Inside baseball, I realize, but it does make a difference on what comes out of this.

[LesJ]

Berge,

Do you know anything about exemptions for the horse racing industry from an online betting perspective. Talking with Congressman Lewis from KY, his main objection (unfortunately) with the Leach bill was that it didnt do a good enough job of protecting racing interests.

Les

[Berge20]

Directly from the legislation:

(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager that is governed by and complies with the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll see what I can drum up on Monday - The bill will be up on Wednesday in all liklihood. There is a possibility that the two anti-gambling bills will be merged in someway in a managers amendment.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, amendments are allowed.

Inside baseball, I realize, but it does make a difference on what comes out of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Rules Committee, it appears as though the bill being considered (H.R. 4411) actually combines the text of both internet gambling bills: Members should draft their amendments to the Rules Committee Print of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which represents the combined text of both the Financial Services and the Judiciary Committees’ versions of the bill.

Combined text of the NEW bill is available here (http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/HR4411/109_2ND_HR4411.pdf) .

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Directly from the legislation:

(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager that is governed by and complies with the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is why any such new bill will continue and increase the non-compliance of the US with the WTO rulings and standards.

[scoobylee]

So ... now that the dreaded day is upon us. What are the odds of this bill becoming law? Based on what I have read, it seems like the following probability of this passing is?

Passing the house on Wednesday: near 100%

Passing the Senate: 30%-50% if Kyl can't get companion legislation through unanimous consent? Much higher if he does.

Does this sound reasonable??

[Thythe]

Let me ask a stupid question: Isn't online poker already technically illegal? How would this bill change the status quo?

[mrhat187]

Even if its illegal just keep paying the taxes, the IRS doesn't care. They also are not allowed to share your financial information with any government agency. You could be the biggest drug dealer in Cali., and pay your taxes (yes they have forms for cocaine dealers) and the IRS would be happy.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask a stupid question: Isn't online poker already technically illegal? How would this bill change the status quo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is, but I believe the legislation is intended - in part - to clear up the difficulties involved in the interpretation of existing law.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
So ... now that the dreaded day is upon us. What are the odds of this bill becoming law? Based on what I have read, it seems like the following probability of this passing is?

Passing the house on Wednesday: near 100%

Passing the Senate: 30%-50% if Kyl can't get companion legislation through unanimous consent? Much higher if he does.

Does this sound reasonable??

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably as reasonable a guess as any. I think the key in the Senate will be those delegations that represent B&M casinos (NV, NJ, CA, LA, and so on). Which makes the position of the B&M casinos crucial. It doesn't take much to stop legislation in the Senate.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if its illegal just keep paying the taxes, the IRS doesn't care. They also are not allowed to share your financial information with any government agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just once, I'd love to see someone back up this claim. There is absolutely nothing stopping prosecutors from obtaining tax return information. Perhaps the IRS doesn't go out of its way to share such information, but prosecutors routinely obtain it via subpoenas.

[mrhat187]

no.......they subpeona bank transactions.......big difference.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
no.......they subpeona bank transactions.......big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks= Eyes & Ears of the Government

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
no.......they subpeona bank transactions.......big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. I have represented many clients where tax returns were admitted into evidence.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ... now that the dreaded day is upon us. What are the odds of this bill becoming law? Based on what I have read, it seems like the following probability of this passing is?

Passing the house on Wednesday: near 100%

Passing the Senate: 30%-50% if Kyl can't get companion legislation through unanimous consent? Much higher if he does.

Does this sound reasonable??

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably as reasonable a guess as any. I think the key in the Senate will be those delegations that represent B&M casinos (NV, NJ, CA, LA, and so on). Which makes the position of the B&M casinos crucial. It doesn't take much to stop legislation in the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've heard in other threads, the corporate B&Ms are supposedly against this bill and are willing to fight against it to some extent. FWIW, I think 30-50% is on the pessimistic side, but I really don't know.

[mrhat187]

Well then your [censored] lawyer for not getting it thrown out. Remind me never to put you on retainer.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then your [censored] lawyer for not getting it thrown out. Remind me never to put you on retainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to assume this is your lame way of admitting that you're wrong, or at least, have no real basis for backing up your claims.

[astrodon]

[ QUOTE ]

Not likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

What rock do you hide under? Anytime there is money to be had - legally or otherwise - congress is interested.

But now that the interests of the WTO is brought up, wht is more likely is in order to enforce such a rediculous law and others like them (like taxing the internet); don't be too surprised when the government(s) say the only way to get access to the internet will be through them. First the law, then the excuse, then the take over.

Then what of Nevada, Atlantic City, Wagon Burner Casinos, State Lottery; why aren't they outlawed as well?

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

What rock do you hide under? Anytime there is money to be had - legally or otherwise - congress is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there bad actors? Yes. Just as there are in any other line of work.

Is your perception of Congress as a whole and money based on reality? No. It's highly unlikely that too many Members are going to risk jail time by accepting bribes from foreign companies to change their votes on Internet gambling bills.

Despite what most people believe, "money" in politics tends to follow "philosophy" -- not the other way around.

But I suppose my years of watching the system up close and personal for more than a couple of years doesn't account for much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to delivering bags of money...

[Berge20]

Up tomorrow (Tuesday) shortly after 10am est

Only one amendment was allowed and it eliminates all the exemptions that are listed in the bill (horseracing, etc) so it covers all forms of online gambling.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Up tomorrow (Tuesday) shortly after 10am est

Only one amendment was allowed and it eliminates all the exemptions that are listed in the bill (horseracing, etc) so it covers all forms of online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge,

What kind of things should we be "rooting" for when watching the vote tomorrow? That this amendment helps to divide the hardcore religious conservative vote from the pragmatic centrist vote?

[ajsuited]

This vote will pass - I work in politics and this is a total election year stunt by the House Republicans to fire up their base. The only thing to worry about is if the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up this legislation this cycle which at this point is highly unlikely.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Up tomorrow (Tuesday) shortly after 10am est

Only one amendment was allowed and it eliminates all the exemptions that are listed in the bill (horseracing, etc) so it covers all forms of online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they do that? I thought they either brought it under "suspension" with no amendments and 2/3's required or they brought it the normal way and the proposed amendments could fly and land where they may???

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
This vote will pass - I work in politics and this is a total election year stunt by the House Republicans to fire up their base. The only thing to worry about is if the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up this legislation this cycle which at this point is highly unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I don't doubt that it will pass tomorrow. But the muddier the debate becomes, presumably the less prgamatic it becomes for the Senate to take up the issue in this cycle.

Actually, I think we should be rooting for the amended version to pass, because that might trigger substantial opposition from the horse racing lobby, states that rely on lotteries, and/or sports leagues. If they're dumb enough to pass a verison that does not exempt fantasy sports, for example, then PartyGaming stock will shoot up 30% tomorrow.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Up tomorrow (Tuesday) shortly after 10am est

Only one amendment was allowed and it eliminates all the exemptions that are listed in the bill (horseracing, etc) so it covers all forms of online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they do that? I thought they either brought it under "suspension" with no amendments and 2/3's required or they brought it the normal way and the proposed amendments could fly and land where they may???

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not under suspension of the rules this time. The House Rules committee met this afternoon and granted a structured rule (ie only amendments set forth in the rule can be considered). Only the one amendment was made in order and quite honestly nobody even asked the committee to make in order a substitute such as a study of online gambling.

As for what you guys should be hoping for tomorrow....
1) Definately hope the amendment is passed that does not allow for carve-outs and exemptions. That's almost an automatic bill stopper in the Senate.

2) Hope for energentic opposition from members such as Rep. Frank (D-MA) and others, hopefully some from the Republican side.

3) Finally, you don't want to see this thing pass like 370-60. I think anything under 300 aye votes is a plus, the closer the margin the better.

[LesJ]

Great synopisis, Berge. The analysis given by yourself and ChrisAJ on these topics have been absolutely outstanding.

Do either of you folks know if this "merged" bill still has the $10 million yearly appropriation for investigation and enforcement that the Goodlatte bill contained? In today's challenging budgetary times, I find it hard to believe that a majority of Americans would find it a good investment of their tax dollars just to prevent you and I from chasing our flush draws.

Thanks,
Les

[AmazingBlender]

So whats the move now , empty our online bankrolls or is it safe to continue to play for a couple months or so. Basically now (tuesday) its goin into voting now , and once it passes they will give us a date when it oficialy becomes illegal.am i right wrong? So basicaly play til that dat.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
Great synopsis, Berge. The analysis given by yourself and ChrisAJ on these topics have been absolutely outstanding.


[/ QUOTE ]

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
am i right wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not at all how it works. For the enjoyable version, you can look at the "FAQ" post I just made. Or, you can read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress#Bills_and_resolutions).

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
So whats the move now , empty our online bankrolls or is it safe to continue to play for a couple months or so. Basically now (tuesday) its goin into voting now , and once it passes they will give us a date when it oficialy becomes illegal.am i right wrong? So basicaly play til that dat.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are probably in inning 3 of this years baseball game. Long way to go, hold tight.

[webbizideas]

Hi,

did anyone watch the bill being passed on c-span? I am confused and was hoping someone can help me out. I saw three votes, the first one 'nahs won,' the second to re-consider, 'nahs' won, then the last one to pass the bill was passed.

Can someone explain what the first two were?

Jeff

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

did anyone watch the bill being passed on c-span? I am confused and was hoping someone can help me out. I saw three votes, the first one 'nahs won,' the second to re-consider, 'nahs' won, then the last one to pass the bill was passed.

Can someone explain what the first two were?

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Adding ammendments to the bill were rejected

[Raydain]

so how soon till interenet gambling is illegal?