Change in DC

[Frond]

If there is a Democrat elected President in the next election, what if any effect will this have on online gaming legislation. Thoughts?

[antneye]

Probably not. Where it may have an impact is on who is appointed to run the DOJ and what his agenda is. Legislation is one thing, zeal at enforcing it is something entirely different.

[CaptVimes]

I don't understand why people think the Dems will have any effect on this situation. They have always been the party that tries to protect us from ourselves. The republicans are simply mad because they are loosing billions in tax revenue to overseas companies. They only play the religious right card because it suits them at the moment. The only way to change this situation is money. Money in the right peoples pocket, and money, in the form or taxes from regulations, coming into the US govt.

[Moneyline]

I think a Democrat would be more likely to be beneficial to online gambling, but it really depends on the individual candidate. There are two areas where the President will have an impact.

The first is by choosing the attorney general. In the past, Republican appointed attorney generals have been more inclined to prosecute "values" type laws against pornography, gambling, etc. That said, it's certainly plausible that a Democrat would "attack" online gambling, and it's also plausible that a Republican AG wouldn't.

The other important area is whether or not the President would sign into law further gambling legislation like the poker carveout (good), or an expansion of the wire act (bad). Bill Clinton was firm about not signing such anti-gambling laws, whereas Republicans who are influenced by evangelicals almost certainly would. But again, it all comes down to the individual candidate.

[Fishhead24]

To little, to late anyways.

-FH-

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a Democrat would be more likely to be beneficial to online gambling, but it really depends on the individual candidate. There are two areas where the President will have an impact.

The first is by choosing the attorney general. In the past, Republican appointed attorney generals have been more inclined to prosecute "values" type laws against pornography, gambling...

[/ QUOTE ]

History nominates Bobby Kennedy as the obvious counterexample.

Fundamentally, this is a struggle between three groups:

1) The mob (who controll the shadier gambling sites)
2) Legitimate, albeit foreign online casino operators
3) American casinos

Right now, the American casinos are winning. Given who the other players are, I'm not sure that's a bad thing regardless of how inconvenient it may be right now.

[nineinchal]

A new game called Affirmative Action Poker will be totally legal and you will be allowed to gamble, even on the internet and from the US no less.

In Affirmative Action Poker, at the end of the game the winners pay back the losers 100% of their losses, 110% of the losses of if the losing player is African American, 150% of the loss if the loser is a woman, 200% if the loser is an illegal Spanish speaking alien. Any remaining money of white male players must be remitted to the IRS, to show that nobody can play better than anybody else.

Of course, Affirmative Action Poker will have any other language other than Engish as its official language. Neteller will be brought back to redistribute the wealth.