Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shhhhhhhhh

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

Do you have information other than what is in this article, or are you making an educated guess?

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

I too would be interested in what is being put in the defense bill, could be no big deal, could be disaster we don't really have enough information. As I stated in a thread a while back they may try to achieve a feel good bill where they ban what CC companies have already done but just make it "legal". But nothing would change, I guess we will see.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

This one article seems to be all that is out there right now, but I also noticed this on a second reading.

[ QUOTE ]
Frist is pushing for an approach that isn’t quite as sweeping as the House measure, said the leadership aide and lobbyists following the issue. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing negotiations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be a good thing, could be a very bad thing. Doesn't seem like anyone knows yet.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

That is the same part I also noticed, "not as sweeping" doesn't like it is a bad thing. No proof saying just what from that article, sounds like they are taking out credit cards OH SNAP ZOMG WE'RE F"D NOW.....sarcasm off [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

They wouldn't add it to the denfense bill unless the holds were dropped, and we knew there were some form of holds on it. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

this bastard seems damned and determined to pass something against internet gambling.we don't need to take this lightly.he is trying to sneak something in behind everyones backs.i'd be very cautious before i dismiss his motives.....

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

Another version of the AP story from the International Herald Tribune. Basically the same except for this encouraging paragraph at the very end of article:

"Should a version of the bill pass, it would be unlawful for people who gamble online to use U.S. credit cards to pay any debts they might incur."

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I read on these forums, America's society would greatly benefit from having credit cards outlawed completely (along with guns).

I would support such bill (if it really means just the credit card ban), as playing poker vs. people in debt isn't exactly what I want to do for a living.

-pix

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

I think we can focus on the silver lining here...

The point they say about "not as sweeping" may be some sort of compromise, you don't usually compromise if you are certain or almost 100 percent certain you would win. Also, the fact that they aren't making it its own issue shows that they might not have the support to pass it on its own.

If they just ban cc transactions, then congress will feel satisfied that they did something useful and we can all return to our normal focus of paying taxes to run our gov't who keep trying to put us out of work.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

Yeah thats what it seems like, seems like they took the teeth out of the bill because it wouldn't pass in that form. Now they are just making unlawful, what CC companies already didn't allow. They get what they want, we get what we want...+EV.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

next they are going to make it illegal to use drug money to settle Internet gambling debts. Yeah I hope they keep barking up this tree, they are really on to something here. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

Really hard to say without seeing the actual language.

Could be great, could be terrible

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

This first thing you have heard berge?

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really hard to say without seeing the actual language.

Could be great, could be terrible

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge,

What happens to the holds if the bill is attached as a rider to defense bill or some other piece of legislation? I assume they no longer apply?

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

This is the first I've heard of it, but strategically, it makes a lot of sense. Nobody is going to hold or block an important defense bill because of a puny add-on relating to online gambling. Trust me. Little crap like this (it may seem big to you all, but it isn't in the grander scheme of the 10 million other things Congress is handling right now, or at any other given moment) hitches a ride all the time on bigger bills.

Here's the thing about the media reports: don't trust them on the substance. They are likely dealing with summaries and secondhand info, and Berge is right to state that nothing can be known for sure until someoene gets hold of the actual bill language. If someone does get that language, PM it to me and I will "translate."

I hope to have some fresh dirt for the forum tomorrow mid-day.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really hard to say without seeing the actual language.

Could be great, could be terrible

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge,

What happens to the holds if the bill is attached as a rider to defense bill or some other piece of legislation? I assume they no longer apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right -- the holds would not generally apply, UNLESS the Senators that placed them want them to. There are exceptions to this rule, but that's the gist of it. In this case, I consider it very unlikely that any Senator will place a hold on the FY07 Defense Authorization bill just because an online gambling amendment is attached to it.

Now, some Senators could be motivated to *threaten* to place holds or just tie things up for the Defense Authorization, and those threats alone might be enough to keep the langauge out, or to keep its scope very narrow. Boys and girls, this is the type of moment where you get what you pay for in lobbying services. If the PPA has done its job, whatever comes out of the Defense Authorization conference will be non-threatening at most, and non-existent at least. If the PPA has not, then watch out.

I also want to caution that I don't know if the Senate will have time for the Defense Authorization this year. For decades, the Congress has always passed one every year, but this year could be the one where it doesn't pass. It doesn't technically NEED to pass -- the defense appropriations bill, which is a different bill, would get the military all they need. As usual, the ability to work out time agreements via unanimous consent will be key to whether the Defense Authorization passes or not. Detainee treatment, military tribunals, and Iraq policy also present tricky policy issues that may make the GOP want to avoid spending much time on it, or that may encourage the Dems to hold it up.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

There is a very similar article on the Washington Post website right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091301708.html

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

Mr. K or Berge 20,

Correct me if I am wrong or please clarify.

If they attach something that differs from the House version at all, it has to go to conference. If it's very different, it can easily be stripped out, right?

I think this is what happened in 03 or 04 with this issue. I seem to recall both the House and Senate passing something, but they were each a little different and it was stripped out in conferrence. Yes, no?

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

The GM of WSEX should not be adding to the paranoia of this whole situation by using the words "Uh Oh" in the subject line of a thread on the legality Internet gambling especially when details are totally unclear, It sends the wrong message

I consider WSex to be a solid book/poker site, and regardless of legislation it is pretty apparent that the sites and players with common sense will have no trouble continuing business as normal

Whether or not legislation would affect the "fish populaton" remains to be seen, I'd argue that the legislation would deter more "profitable 2+2ers" from gambling than it would the degenerate losing players, but I can't prove it anymore than the paranoid doomsayers on this site can prove their view

Sorry for the rant, but for every worthwhile and informative post in this portion of the forum, there is 10 paranoid, disillusioned, and ultimately pointless posts

Keep up the good work guys

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing about the media reports: don't trust them on the substance. They are likely dealing with summaries and secondhand info, and Berge is right to state that nothing can be known for sure until someoene gets hold of the actual bill language. If someone does get that language, PM it to me and I will "translate."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an important point. None of this seems to be coming from Frist himself, but instead from his spokespersons. And I suspect that those spokespersons are being hit up all the time for information by services like Reuters and Bloomberg that have an interest in reporting on the financial side of the story (e.g. impact on PartyGaming stock).

Nevertheless, this is very troubling. We can't seem to go a week here without some new angle to worry about.

Two more questions:

(1) To what extent is Frist still likely to respect the spirit of the holds on the gambling bill even if the bill might theoretically be reincaranted in the DNA of some other legislation? After all, the holds largely an informal matter of protocol, right? Frist might not give a [censored] since he's leaving the Senate, but wouldn't he run the risk of seriously pissing off McConnell or Ensign or whomever if he circumvented them in this fashion?

I suppose this is really the crux of the question at this point.

(2) I noticed that when Kyl tried to attach a similar bill to an unrelated previous piece of legislation in 2005, his attempt was ruled "out of order". What does that mean, and could it come into play here? I suspect the answer is "no", because Kyl's rider came in the form of an amendment, whereas this would presumably be included in the body text of the legislation.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two bills are linked at the bottom of the Washington Post link, I'm typing a paper otherwise I would look up the language to see if credit cards were the extent of the ban or it was worse.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying use a bill authorizing U.S. military operations, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit people from using credit cards to settle Internet gambling debts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two bills are linked at the bottom of the Washington Post link, I'm typing a paper otherwise I would look up the language to see if credit cards were the extent of the ban or it was worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the bill on Thomas, but it's the version that was introduced in April. If there is a new version that is going to exist that includes provisions on internet gambling, it probably doesn't exist yet.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

UK gambling stocks haven't moved downward in very early trading. In fact, they're up a bit. The market may be treating this story as essentially old news -- Frist making some noise about wanting to get the bill passed, but there are a lot of procedural and political obstacles to it.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

The reason we don't know the exact language is there probably isn't any yet. They are still negotiating.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you ask a lawyer whether Neteller is a credit card. Are you certain what his answer would be? These online services resemble credit cards in many respects and could easily be swept into the new law.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason we don't know the exact language is there probably isn't any yet. They are still negotiating.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you ask a lawyer whether Neteller is a credit card. Are you certain what his answer would be? These online services resemble credit cards in many respects and could easily be swept into the new law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller is not in any way a credit card. A credit card represents a bank willing to give you line of credit. I use FirePay and assume that its about the same as Neteller. FirePay requires the funds to be in your account first before you use it to fund a poker account. Thats not giving credit.

But I reckon Neteller and FirePay could be added into the new bill regardless.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K or Berge 20,

Correct me if I am wrong or please clarify.

If they attach something that differs from the House version at all, it has to go to conference. If it's very different, it can easily be stripped out, right?

I think this is what happened in 03 or 04 with this issue. I seem to recall both the House and Senate passing something, but they were each a little different and it was stripped out in conferrence. Yes, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are attaching it to another bill entirely that has passed both chambers entirely and is already in a Conference Committee. This is part of the legislative process that is messy.

Things that come out of conference reports can be extraneous, brand new, etc. Since this isn't on the poker bill (it is on the DoD Authorization) we are already at that point.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

The Washington Post article pretty clearly states that it's about credit cards. It also says the measures would not be as sweeping. I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but it looks like there's a pretty good chance this could be a "compromise" that will hardly affect us at all, and keep us safe for a while.

Also, with the banks lobbying against it, isn't it much more unlikely that this will be major?

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Washington Post article pretty clearly states that it's about credit cards. It also says the measures would not be as sweeping. I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but it looks like there's a pretty good chance this could be a "compromise" that will hardly affect us at all, and keep us safe for a while.

Also, with the banks lobbying against it, isn't it much more unlikely that this will be major?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does appear that way on the surface...I really hope you're right.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

A couple of points responding to the last 6 ot 7 posts:

- The DoD Authorization is already in conference, and the conferees + leaders can throw anything they want in there. They do not have to separately conference those items, or go through any other rigamaroll. They stick in what they want to stick in, and then all the need to do from there is: get the conferees from the House and Senate to separately approve the conference report (do not get hung up on this -- it is mostly routine and not done by some public vote, so don't latch on to this as a possible point of delay), then file the conference report in the House or Senate for consideration, pass it through the first body and then through the second.

- Points of order may lie against the conference report, if it includes the gambling legislation, but I guarantee they won't be raised, or, if raised, that they won't succeed. Just trust me. Don't get hung up on this, because if it comes to that, the points of order won't matter. The entire game is whether gambling provisions go in the conference report, if the conference report ever gets voted on, and what those provisions look like as far as substance.

- "Spirit of the holds" is something that really just doesn't exist as far as I know. Senators always have a chance to find out what is in a bill, and what is coming to the floor, and if they want to hold it, they can try. Leaders can defeat holds through cloture, and that's the way the game plays out. Leaders would never waste time to get cloture on the Internet gambling bill itself -- it is too small -- but they might on a DoD bill that just so happens to have the gambling provisions attached to it. Their motivation for defeating holds via cloture on the DoD bill would not be to move gambling legislation... they just are not plotting to do this the way some of you think they are... but rather to move an important package of defense laws on procurement, troop pay, and other policy matters. I think the way holds would play on a DoD Authorization bill containing the gambling legislation is that Senators would threaten to hold it up if the gambling legislation is attached in a form they don't like -- and that threat can be powerful depending on how sincere it is perceived to be. This is why I think we're hearing all the talk about a significantly narrowed bill.

- If the language being floated by Frist (and I 100% guarantee there is language circulating, although a select few staffers may have access to it) is as narrow as the newspapers are reporting, it could represent a MAJOR win for online poker players. Few players I am aware of use credit cards, and as I have said before, there may be very good public policy reasons for prohibiting credit cards from being used to finance gambling. Passage of a credit card only provision would not amend the Wire Act, and would not enact some of the other sweeping changes I have seen online poker players expressing concern about. Plus, passage of the narrow legislation would likely forestall passage of other, more comprehensive legislation for at least a year, if not longer. Once Congress acts on an issue, it is usually loathe to revisit it for a long while.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

Some excerpts from a story that is running in today's edition of Congressional Quarterly:

"Conferees Pushing to Complete Defense Authorization Measure This Week

Negotiators hope to file by Friday a final version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that would eliminate restrictions on the Pentagon’s ability to buy overseas goods and clear the way for multi-year procurement of the F-22A fighter aircraft.

The conference report on the bill (HR 5122) could reach the House floor early next week.

“We’re moving forward with reconciliation,” Senate Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner, R-Va., said Wednesday after two hours of negotiations on a handful of remaining issues.

...

Congressional sources said a last-minute concern was raised Wednesday about a House provision that would allow military chaplains to read prayers without fear of reprisal from their commanders. Senate negotiators suggested that the provision was unnecessary, but House conservatives pressed to keep it in the bill."

---

No mention in the article of the Internet gambling provisions being inserted. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that we see a gambling provision in the conference report -- albeit one that is less expansive than the House version.

I do not know what this slimmed down provision would mean as far as the Tradesports contracts.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the language being floated by Frist (and I 100% guarantee there is language circulating, although a select few staffers may have access to it) is as narrow as the newspapers are reporting, it could represent a MAJOR win for online poker players. Few players I am aware of use credit cards, and as I have said before, there may be very good public policy reasons for prohibiting credit cards from being used to finance gambling. Passage of a credit card only provision would not amend the Wire Act, and would not enact some of the other sweeping changes I have seen online poker players expressing concern about. Plus, passage of the narrow legislation would likely forestall passage of other, more comprehensive legislation for at least a year, if not longer. Once Congress acts on an issue, it is usually loathe to revisit it for a long while.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to post something along these lines as a question, and it is greatly reassuring to see that somebody who knows the ins-and-outs of the process better than I do is thinking the same way.

In some ways, this would actually be a better outcome than having the bill fail outright and having to relive this whole thing during the next session. (Assuming, of course, that the new language is highly stripped-down, a big "if" for now).

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

Agreed

It would be better in the long-run if we see a very narrow provision added in the DoD Authorization conference report dealing with the use of credit cards. It takes some of the pressure and a legitimate argument off the table for a broader bill.

That said, these conference report provisions could contain anything or everything. We could see the language today and it could be comepltely different with stuff penciled in as it is filed (unlikely in this scenario, but still possible).

I'll make some inquiries to see what I can find, but these things are generally challenging to find unless you are a staffer for the committee or a conferee staffer.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

"They are attaching it to another bill entirely that has passed both chambers entirely and is already in a Conference Committee. ....

... Since this isn't on the poker bill (it is on the DoD Authorization) we are already at that point."

Could you clarify the status ? I understand that Conferences can be messy, and all sorts of deals can be worked out ... but,

Has the Other Bill to which the gambling provisions will be attached already been passed ? Has it gone to conference ?

Is this what you mean by "already at that poiht?" ?

Thanks.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!
 

Berge and Mr. K,
You are guys are awesome. Thanks for keeping us political lame-brains informed.

Re: Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!
 

If, a big if, this provision only bans the use of credit cards to deposit funds at online gambling sites, then I would favor this law. US players generally can't use credit cards anyway at these sites. Also, this helsp prevent kids who are too young to be gambling online from doing so without their parents knowledge.