Rep. Leach on C-SPAN at 8 Eastern...

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

...for those legislation geeks out there. Also, C-SPAN reported that HR4411 will likely come up for vote on Wed. rather than tomorrow, not that it matters much.

[sweetjazz]

It is on at 8AM tomorrow morning.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
It is on at 8AM tomorrow morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was supposed to be on at 8 PM tonight, but the House session seems to have run long. Bunch of second-tier Congresspeople babbling about border security.

[sweetjazz]

I am not sure, but when I tuned in at 8PM ET, they had the schedule for Washington Journal for tomorrow morning, and Leach will be on from 8-8:30 AM ET to discuss his online gambling bill.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure, but when I tuned in at 8PM ET, they had the schedule for Washington Journal for tomorrow morning, and Leach will be on from 8-8:30 AM ET to discuss his online gambling bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I think you might be right. Although, techncially, my post title is still correct. ;-)

[wall_st]

Doesn't anyone think this might have issues passing because of the whole idea about forcing ISPs to block certain internet sites ? I would imagine that groups like the ACLU would have a sihtfit due to the censorship involved.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't anyone think this might have issues passing because of the whole idea about forcing ISPs to block certain internet sites ? I would imagine that groups like the ACLU would have a sihtfit due to the censorship involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

My layman's opinion is that this legislation, if enacted, would have a high probability of facing a legal challenge on federalism grounds, or on civil liberties grounds related to the enforcement mechanisms. But let's hope that it never gets that far.

[Berge20]

Seems that way with everything passed by legislatures these days....court challenges (baseless or otherwise)

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
My layman's opinion is that this legislation, if enacted, would have a high probability of facing a legal challenge on federalism grounds, or on civil liberties grounds related to the enforcement mechanisms. But let's hope that it never gets that far.

[/ QUOTE ]

I discourage anyone from taking any solace in possible challenges to whatever is passed. Sure, the legislation will invariably be challenged, on one ground or another. But the real danger in these proposals is that they will discourage or inhibit new players from joining the party (no pun intended). And any court challenge is likely to take considerable time. Even if a challenge is ultimately successful, much damage will occur in the meantime.

This is my own pet peeve, frankly. Many current players blithely act unconcerned about all the proposals, figuring that they will always find a way to play. But I think they are underestimating the importance of attracting new fish to the pool.

[Kevmath]

If you'd like to talk to Mr. Leach on the show tomorrow morning:

Call-In Numbers
Support Democrats:
(202) 737-0002
Support Republicans:
(202) 737-0001
Support Independents:
(202) 628-0205
Outside U.S.:
(202) 628-0184

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My layman's opinion is that this legislation, if enacted, would have a high probability of facing a legal challenge on federalism grounds, or on civil liberties grounds related to the enforcement mechanisms. But let's hope that it never gets that far.

[/ QUOTE ]

I discourage anyone from taking any solace in possible challenges to whatever is passed. Sure, the legislation will invariably be challenged, on one ground or another. But the real danger in these proposals is that they will discourage or inhibit new players from joining the party (no pun intended). And any court challenge is likely to take considerable time. Even if a challenge is ultimately successful, much damage will occur in the meantime.

This is my own pet peeve, frankly. Many current players blithely act unconcerned about all the proposals, figuring that they will always find a way to play. But I think they are underestimating the importance of attracting new fish to the pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've certainly been amazed by how little attention a lot of the community is paying to this stuff.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My layman's opinion is that this legislation, if enacted, would have a high probability of facing a legal challenge on federalism grounds, or on civil liberties grounds related to the enforcement mechanisms. But let's hope that it never gets that far.

[/ QUOTE ]

I discourage anyone from taking any solace in possible challenges to whatever is passed. Sure, the legislation will invariably be challenged, on one ground or another. But the real danger in these proposals is that they will discourage or inhibit new players from joining the party (no pun intended). And any court challenge is likely to take considerable time. Even if a challenge is ultimately successful, much damage will occur in the meantime.

This is my own pet peeve, frankly. Many current players blithely act unconcerned about all the proposals, figuring that they will always find a way to play. But I think they are underestimating the importance of attracting new fish to the pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more

[Bilgefisher]

You'll see alot of attention after the horse has been let out of the barn!

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]


I've certainly been amazed by how little attention a lot of the community is paying to this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a late comer to the game so I have no basis for comparison but was there much concern during previous attempts?

[sweetjazz]

A summary of the show:

Leach came off as an intelligent and reasonable individual, even if his view on this issue does not seem that way to us. He acknowledged that there is a strong argument against his legislation and argued that the social damage caused by online gambling is more persuasive than these other reasonable arguments. Obviously, I don't agree with his perspective but he made about as good a case for the other side as can be made.

Most callers were against the legislation, somewhat passionately so. The first two callers (one Democrat and one Republican) both made good cases against the bill, and Leach acknowledged as much. The third caller attempted to question the political motives of the supporters, but did a poor job by making a baseless (as far as I know) assertion about abortion language appearing in the bill. Unfortunately, this caller would have done much better by mentioning the fact that the language is designed to protect the online horse industry. The fourth caller made a rather pointless complaint about family members of online sites playing the games, though it seems he prefers regulation as opposed to prohibition. The final caller wanted to know whether there were hearings on the issue and questioned whether the representative supports regulatory approaches to other activities which have "no social value." Leach replied that he does support regulating smoking (in the sense of FDA regulations).

I believe the segment will be available on CSPAN's website, by clicking on the link for Washington Journal.

[Uglyowl]

Thanks for the summary from those who are at work today. Keep us updated when they start debating.

[MAxx]

i am so thankful that leech is takeing the time to curb my gambling as i am not capable of deciding wether i should gamble or not.

he's got my support, but i think he is going to fail me against myself.

go leech