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

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe they are putting this in the defense bill, I thought misc issues like this were usually thown into disaster-relief packages!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony?


As for the Western Union angle that was brought up, they already don't allow gaming transactions. However, unless neteller and Firepay are explicitly outlawed, I don't see how restricting banks from accepting gaming deposits is an issue. I was always most concerned with the ISP angle.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe they are putting this in the defense bill, I thought misc issues like this were usually thown into disaster-relief packages!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony?


As for the Western Union angle that was brought up, they already don't allow gaming transactions. However, unless neteller and Firepay are explicitly outlawed, I don't see how restricting banks from accepting gaming deposits is an issue. I was always most concerned with the ISP angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, maybe this has been explained before. But does the bill address only direct payments, or would it include Neteller and the like? At least, as modified now? I realize this is almost certainly a bad question given that we aren't sure of the text of whatever got added to the Defense Bill.

[miksnake]

It is estimated that there are somewhere between 40 and 70 million US residents playing online poker and we should assume the vast majority of these people are over 18 years old. There are approximately 186 million registered voters in the U.S. or approximately 64% of the population (this includes everyone under 18 as well, so the percentage of over 18 year olds that are registered is higher). So, if we assume that 70% of the poker players are registered voters, there are between 28 and 49 million registered voters playing online poker--that's in the neighborhood of 15% to 25% of all registered voters play poker online.

That's some serious voting power and if vocal could deter any politician looking to get elected or re-elected to reconsider their position on online gaming.

So, efforts need to be directed at getting online pokers players to unite in voting out any politicians looking to crush online gaming through legislation and supporting any politicians who are in favor of legalizing and legitimately regulating the industry. It would be nice if the poker sites would lead this effort. If you had the top 10 poker sites getting petitions signed and joining together with their players' support behind them, the politicians would listen.

The poker sites have A LOT of money and A LOT of players. It wouldn't take much for them to scare some politicians with a few commercials, millions of signed petitions and a few one-on-one meetings with candidates.

That's how you stop these cowardly riders from ending up on defense bill legislation.

[Jussurreal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe they are putting this in the defense bill, I thought misc issues like this were usually thown into disaster-relief packages!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony?


As for the Western Union angle that was brought up, they already don't allow gaming transactions. However, unless neteller and Firepay are explicitly outlawed, I don't see how restricting banks from accepting gaming deposits is an issue. I was always most concerned with the ISP angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main method of deposit and withdrawal to/from online sports books is Western Union(unless its changed in the last 6 months). All they do is tell you to send it to a person in Costa Rica or somewhere. You don't put on the form that you are sending it to a gambling company, and they can't stop you from sending it to an individual person.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe they are putting this in the defense bill, I thought misc issues like this were usually thown into disaster-relief packages!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony?


As for the Western Union angle that was brought up, they already don't allow gaming transactions. However, unless neteller and Firepay are explicitly outlawed, I don't see how restricting banks from accepting gaming deposits is an issue. I was always most concerned with the ISP angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

WU doesnt allow online gambling transactions because of a history of fraud problems. You can use them at live locations. Limiting access to only live WU locations will still inhibit some of the less highly motivated from playing. What isnt clear is where the fish lie in the motivation scale, though i think they are probably more on the less motivated side, making it bad news.

[StellarWind]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
FirePay does extend credit and Neteller is the same unless I'm mistaken. They allow you to deposit at a poker site and begin playing even though there are no funds in your account. You pay the resulting debt by authorizing payment from your linked bank account. FirePay and Neteller then cross their fingers that there is actually money in this account and they will be paid. Sounds a lot like a credit card to me.

On the other hand, people with junk credit ratings have long been able to get normal credit cards from banks that require predeposit of 100% of the credit line as security. These banks are paying the merchant directly from funds on deposit.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Quite right. A credit card is whatever the new law says it is. Strictly speaking I suppose it is conceivable that the law could not include Visa/Mastercard debit cards (again what is a credit card!?). In a fantasy best case scenario this could have the paradoxical effect of convincing some banks it is safe to start allowing debit card online gambling transactions. The major banks stopped allowing credit cards to be used primarily because the government intimidated them and not because there was any clear law barring it.

[Jussurreal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe they are putting this in the defense bill, I thought misc issues like this were usually thown into disaster-relief packages!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Irony?


As for the Western Union angle that was brought up, they already don't allow gaming transactions. However, unless neteller and Firepay are explicitly outlawed, I don't see how restricting banks from accepting gaming deposits is an issue. I was always most concerned with the ISP angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

WU doesnt allow online gambling transactions because of a history of fraud problems. You can use them at live locations. Limiting access to only live WU locations will still inhibit some of the less highly motivated from playing. What isnt clear is where the fish lie in the motivation scale, though i think they are probably more on the less motivated side, making it bad news.

[/ QUOTE ]

WU doesnt allow you to use its online service to fund a gambling account, but you can use their B&M locations for anything.

[Mr.K]

Ok folks, a few updated points:

1.) Berge is right that conference reports are not amendable, and that there is no comment period or whatever. The conferees and leadership decide what to put in them, whether it is germane or not, and put it in. Then they file the report and can have a vote on it within hours of filing.

2.) Conference reports CAN be held just like normal bills. I'll repeat that for emphasis. Holds CAN be lodged on these conference reports. That said, Senators are usually much more reluctant to hold a conference report than they are a regular bill -- all the more so when the main part of that report deals with the military, pay raises for troops, and national security. On top of that, Leadership is MUCH more prone to use tools to overcome holds on major conference reports, meaning that even if people put holds down, leadership in the Senate could probably beat those holds by filing for and attaining 60 votes on a cloture petition. Cloture is time consuming, but necessary in these cases.

3.) People are probably not going to have the chance to preview the language... it will be negotiated until the dying end between a select few staffers and members, plus well connected lobbyists. You can try to call the relevant Senators/Congressman's offices to ask, but I'll bet a ton you won't get anywhere with such requests... still, from a pressure standpoint it wouldn't be a bad idea to blitz those offices with requests.

4.) I spoke with staff for two of the west coast members who are conferees, and they have indicated to me that efforts are alive and well to attach not only the Internet gambling provisions, but also an abortion bill as well (has to do with transporting minors across state lines) to the DoD Authorization conference report. Apparently the word among staff is that the Armed Services Committees on both sides of the Hill are 100% objecting to including any extraneous subject matter. Now, how much of that is posturing and how much is a real objection is anyone's guess. Plus, the Armed Services guys could EASILY get rolled by leadership and get forced to include either or both of those extraneous bills. Nonetheless, those opposing the bill should be heartened to hear this.

5.) Contacts suggested to me that the conference report will likely be wrapped up Monday or Tuesday, and voted on in the House 24 hours after that. At about that time, the content of the report would become publicly available on the House Rules Committee's website. That will be our first look at the language, unless Berge or ChrisAJ or some other insider succeeds in getting it before then. The House is expected to pass the bill no matter what it includes, since the House is rather authoritarian in its procedural rules, and there are no holds or other mechanisms to block things from moving. From there, the bill would move to the Senate, where a number of things could happen. I will not speculate on what would happen in the Senate at this point, as I don't think we know enough to make an intelligent guess.

6.) The substance of what I now understand to be Frist's proposal would be a significant setback for online poker, as I think it would kill IGMPay transfers, and may also block Neteller and FirePay type devices. Not to be alarmist, but you all need to be very concerned about the impact that proposal would have on the poker economy -- if I understand it correctly. More details to come, and obviously I reserve final judgment until I see the language that gets included, IF any language is in fact attacked.

7.) The tradesports contracts should be moving north today, but how far I do not know.

[ski]

[ QUOTE ]
It is estimated that there are somewhere between 40 and 70 million US residents playing online poker

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH? Appx 1/5 US citizens? Counting infants and elderly...

[Leavenfish]

And how many of your ridiculed my 75% change of passage perdiction? Where there is an evil politician, there is a way...and most all politicians are evil - particularly during election season.

---Leavenfish