[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what the implications of a bill that addressed the financial transactions but not the Wire Act would be. Let's say the bill says it's illegal for US banks and credit card companies to facilitate gambling transactions. Credit cards are irrelevant since they for the most part don't allow these transactions today anyway. Banks are going to face a huge uphill battle to root out gambling transactions especially given the existence of offshore processors like Neteller. It's unclear that they could stop a company like Neteller: what's to say I'm not funding my Neteller account so that I can purchase a book?
If the Wire Act isn't updated, it would seem that the individual act of playing poker online wouldn't be criminalized. The law would remain as nebulous as ever, only explicitly addressing sports betting via phone lines.
Not saying there's no cause for concern. It seems that turning McConnell may be a significant key to Frist getting this done. But I can envision an outcome where a gambling "ban" is basically a paper tiger. Frist can claim he took a stand on the issue while he panders to the evangelical right while the rest of us go on playing poker.
Thoughts?
[/ QUOTE ]
There were essentially three major planks of the original Leach-Goodlatte bill:
1. Banning credit card and bank transactions;
2. Updating the Wire Act
3. Requiring ISPs to shut off access to internet gambling sites.
It appears that Frist's compromise would include plank #1, but not planks #2 and #3, although we really can't say this with any certainty until we see the bill langauge.
How much of an impact would #1 have on its own? I don't know. It depends on (1) how effectively the bill langauge is written; (2) which sorts of transactions the DoT/DoJ identifies as gambling transactions if and when the bill passes; (3) how serious the government is about enforcing the bill; (4) how serious the banks are about enforcing the bill. These are all huge uncertainties. I agree that this version isn't as impactful as the original legislation would have been, but whether it would be 90% as bad or 10% as bad, I don't think we can say, and we probably won't be able to say for months or even years after bill passage.
FWIW, for those of you searching for a silver lining, Crpytologic stock has rallied conspicuously within the past 45 minutes and is now up about 4% on the day on fairly heavy volume.
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=...p;selected=CRYP