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

[BGnight]

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."

[piki]

[ 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

[Little_Luck]

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.

[mrhat187]

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.

[daedalus]

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]

[Berge20]

Really hard to say without seeing the actual language.

Could be great, could be terrible

[mrhat187]

This first thing you have heard berge?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ 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?

[Mr.K]

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.

[Mr.K]

[ 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.