New Article on HR 4411

[Berge20]

From National Journal, one of the major political news outlets.

07-12-2006
JUDICIARY - House-Passed Online Gaming Ban Faces Long Odds In Senate
Bill Swindell
© National Journal Group, Inc.

The House passed legislation Tuesday that would ban most forms of Internet gambling, but the measure faces an uphill battle to make its way onto a crowded legislative calendar in the Senate.

The House voted 317-93 for the legislation, which is sponsored by Reps. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. The bill would bar banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets and would make it a crime for a gambling business to accept credit cards, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to process payments for illegal gaming transactions.

The House bill also would amend the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits businesses from using wire transmissions to accept bets over state and foreign lines, and apply the gambling ban to all forms of new technology.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the Senate's leading opponent of the online gambling industry, said he would prefer the chamber not amend the Leach-Goodlatte bill and instead clear the measure to send to the White House. "I hope that we can just take the House bill because it's a good bill," Kyl said.

In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the House bill even though it has unspecified concerns with the measure and "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen and improve this legislation."

Proponents contend this year represents the best opportunity to pass legislation to crack down on the industry because of the political fallout from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Abramoff was instrumental in helping defeat an Internet gambling ban on the House floor in 2000."

Timing is everything now that the House has acted on a good
bill," Kyl said. "My fear has always been that these offshore outfits would get to be so wealthy from all this gambling ... that they would hire enough people to make this difficult."

Online gambling outfits, all of which are located offshore, have not been publicly active in lobbying, instead relying on a newly formed Poker Players Alliance to voice opposition. That group argues the bill would infringe on the civil liberties of millions of U.S. poker players.

On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

Much focus in the Senate will be on Minority Leader Reid, who has been a strong congressional advocate for his home state of Nevada's gambling industry. Reid said Tuesday that he is opposed to Internet gambling, but has not taken a position on the House bill.

The American Gaming Association, which represents the U.S. gambling industry, is neutral on the House bill, even though some members such as MGM Mirage have been supporters of expanding online activities.

The association has called on lawmakers to conduct a comprehensive study on the online gambling industry before taking any action.All three Nevada House members -- Republicans Jon Porter and Jim Gibbons and Democrat Shelley Berkley -- voted against the measure Tuesday. "I am going to speak with him [Reid] in the immediate future," Berkley said.

One gambling lobbyist said he thought it unlikely that Kyl could get unanimous consent to bring the House bill up on the Senate floor and would be forced to try to attach it to another piece of legislation. The lobbyist added that Democrats might be reluctant to give Kyl a victory going into fall as he faces a competitive race against Democratic challenger Jim Pederson.

[CitiMan]

[ QUOTE ]

Online gambling outfits, all of which are located offshore, have not been publicly active in lobbying...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Why haven't they been publicly lobbying?

[Eric Stoner]

Thanks Berge -

The key paragraph about the proposed Kyl initiative to curtail Internet Gambling in the senate is the last one in that article speaking about a Democratic defense.

Mr. Pederson, Kyl's democratic opponent, was a large underdog in the early going, has gained some ground in the polls; the undecided votes, if influenced to vote for him, could put him into office.

The second link is Pederson's website promoting him but reprints the NY Times article.

CLW.org (http://www.clw.org/candidates/analysis/)
Pederson's site (Reprint of NY Times Article) (http://www.pederson2006.com/articles_details.asp?id=111)
AZ Republic Politics Blog (http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&m=2006&w=20) (readers will have to scroll down a bit to see the posting from the blog - it was written in the middle of May.)

[djcolts]

So, basically, the main reason this won't pass the Senate is not because this bill is severely flawed and misguided, but because the Democrats want to defeat Kyl in November? Politics is ridiculous.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[SwampyJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Online gambling outfits, all of which are located offshore, have not been publicly active in lobbying...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Why haven't they been publicly lobbying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not 100% sure but it might be the legality of foriegn corporations lobbying members of our Congress. Maybe, someone with a law background could shed a little light on that.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing. There are so many things about this issue that just make politicians look stupid. And this just adds to the list.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Online gambling outfits, all of which are located offshore, have not been publicly active in lobbying...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Why haven't they been publicly lobbying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not 100% sure but it might be the legality of foriegn corporations lobbying members of our Congress. Maybe, someone with a law background could shed a little light on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone can lobby, the strings start coming in when campaign contributions are involved.

I can't say for sure why they chose not to openly lobby on their own. My thought is that given their foreign status, they felt it was not in their interest to go that route. Instead they attempted to mobilize a grassroots effort through the Poker Players Allience, which they helped to do to one extent or another.

If you are a Member of Congress, do you really care what a foreign corporation thinks when it is providing no economic value (or very little) to your district, state and country? Nope.
You'd much rather hear from people in your district and state that have strong views on the matter at hand.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

I state this as an off hand observation, but if that is the case...the catch is probably that the state in which you live must legalize such online gambling.

[mdrudeen]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK what they are saying is that the bill only deals with interstate and offshore commerce so theoretically an Indian tribe in Alaska could open an online casino that only serviced citizens of Alaska as long as it was cool with the laws of the state of Alaska

I am unaware of any tribe contemplating this or any state allowing this

[jwlam]

[ QUOTE ]
One gambling lobbyist said he thought it unlikely that Kyl could get unanimous consent to bring the House bill up on the Senate floor and would be forced to try to attach it to another piece of legislation. The lobbyist added that Democrats might be reluctant to give Kyl a victory going into fall as he faces a competitive race against Democratic challenger Jim Pederson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check it out. They're all playing poker and dont even realize it.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Pederson, Kyl's democratic opponent, was a large underdog in the early going, has gained some ground in the polls

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradesports still has it as Kyl 90%, Pederson 10% without much movement on the odds of winning.

One could only hope though. Zogby has the race 48.4% Kyl and Pederson 41.7%.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the House bill even though it has unspecified concerns with the measure and "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen and improve this legislation."

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this part mean? I've heard similar things in a couple of other places.

[rageotones]

which online site will be the first to put odds on this bill passing in the senate?

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
Tradesports still has it as Kyl 90%, Pederson 10% without much movement on the odds of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL.

How incorrigible do you have to be to use betting lines for political analysis?

[Gorby]

Why couldnt PP use a 3rd party payment system, such as PayPal?

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Online gambling outfits, all of which are located offshore, have not been publicly active in lobbying...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Why haven't they been publicly lobbying?

[/ QUOTE ]

A very few have.

But most are very short sighted and cheap, or broke. You'd be stunned how many places that all claim to be big won't pony up $5,000 a month towards a collective effort.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldnt PP use a 3rd party payment system, such as PayPal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand the question - Do you mean for political donations?

[cowboy.up]

Neteller/firepay etc. are all 'third party' payment options. I don't know anyone though that uses them for anything but poker. Paypal could be an option, I guess

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone can offer internet gambling, as long as they have a license from the state where they're offering it.

No internet casino has a license from any US state to offer any kind of gambling inside any US state - which is why internet gambling is illegal in the US.

If MGM got a license from Nevada to offer internet games to people in Nevada, it would be legal for them to offer internet games to people in Nevada.

That's true regardless of 4411.

It does not have such a license, which is why it would be illegal for them to do it.

That's true regardless of 4411.

Party doesn't have a license either. But Party doesn't give a rip, because they're in Gibraltar, and they can violate US gaming laws (they believe - probably rightly) with impunity.

Party does care about 1144, because it makes it at least slightly more dangerous for them to continue to do what they've been doing.

But I'm willing to bet they'll continue doing it anyway.

The reason foreign companies offer internet gambling in the US, is because they can safely ignore US gambling law. US companies don't offer it, because they can't.

[revots33]

Another brief article from the Chicago Tribune:

House OKs Web gambling bill

Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published July 12, 2006


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The House voted 317-93 Tuesday to forbid the use of credit cards to settle online bets, an effort to halt mushrooming interest in Internet gambling.

Senate leaders have not identified the bill as a priority, but the bill's main champion in the upper chamber, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl, said he will pursue it aggressively.

The legislation would clarify current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online and would prohibit most payment forms from being used to settle online wagers. The measure also would empower law enforcement authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, although about half of its customers live in the U.S.

The bill's sponsors defeated an amendment to strip out the exemptions for horse racing and state lotteries.



Politicians suck. We cannot let these hypocrites stomp all over our personal liberties. I intend to become a pain in the ass to my senator and I hope the rest of you will too.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

I state this as an off hand observation, but if that is the case...the catch is probably that the state in which you live must legalize such online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

The way I understand the wording, the tribes could run an online gambling site, but it would have to be "within their borders", meaning the reservation.

So essentially all they can do is create an online site that anyone on the res could use without actually going to the casino.

Anyone read it differently?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the House bill even though it has unspecified concerns with the measure and "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen and improve this legislation."

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this part mean? I've heard similar things in a couple of other places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are two options. Most likely the White House wants it to ban horse racing ect. too. The other option is they'd like a bill that bans internet gamboling but in fact does nothing. Then they can claim to have done something about the "problem" without offending anyone that actually cares.

[Ali shmali]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On Tuesday, the National Indian Gaming Association announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it contained carve-outs for the horse-racing industry and state lotteries. But the House measure would not directly affect Indian tribes. The Leach-Goodlatte bill would not change the way states and Indian tribes regulate gambling and allows them to make online gambling legal within their borders if they found a "secure and effective" way to verify the location and age of the gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very interesting to me. So United States Indian tribes are ALLOWED to open up and run online gambling sites? This is a very good thing I would think. I hope they open some up soon. And I'm sure the Mirage people will then say, if the Indians can have an online site, well then why the hell can't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

I state this as an off hand observation, but if that is the case...the catch is probably that the state in which you live must legalize such online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

The way I understand the wording, the tribes could run an online gambling site, but it would have to be "within their borders", meaning the reservation.

So essentially all they can do is create an online site that anyone on the res could use without actually going to the casino.

Anyone read it differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

well you are reading off the article so it doesn't matter how it reads. Someone needs to look at the actual bill to answer this.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
...would make it a crime for a gambling business to accept credit cards, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to process payments for illegal gaming transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]


US Govt: "Hey! You are committing a crime. You are a crime-inal. A Criminal."

Dikshit: "What you going to do about it?"

US Govt: "Nothing! Just calling you names!"

Dikshit:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/BPMdotEXE/Random/O_RLY.jpg

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the House bill even though it has unspecified concerns with the measure and "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen and improve this legislation."

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this part mean? I've heard similar things in a couple of other places.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are two options. Most likely the White House wants it to ban horse racing ect. too. The other option is they'd like a bill that bans internet gamboling but in fact does nothing. Then they can claim to have done something about the "problem" without offending anyone that actually cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should clarify ... I'm pretty sure what the government objects to is the feasibility of the enforcement mechanisms in the bill. I don't think they're thrilled about relying on hundreds of private banks to police millions of individual transactions, particularly when the langauge on this subject is written fairly ambiguously, and the proposed allocation for oversight/enforcement is quite small. That's just an quasi-educated guess, though.

What I really meant to ask is, if the Executive Branch has some substantive objections to the langauge of the bill (and to reiterate, it's almost certianly the langauge that they object to -- NOT the intent), what does that mean for the prospects of the bill becoming law in a timely fashion? I'd think that it's another small piece of good news for us poker fans.

[HSB]

Three questions:

Do we know Pederson's position on online gambling?

Do we know Leach's opponent's position on online gambling?

Do we know Goodlatte's opponent's position on online gambling?

If they aren't opposed to online gambling, I think it's worth a little bit of our bankrolls to help get the proponents of this nonsense out of office.