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

[ZBTHorton]

Frist Fails to Piggyback I-Gaming Bill
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's effort to attach prohibitive online gambling legislation to the FY 2007 Defense Department Conference Report (DCR 07) has yet to materialize. The conference committee on the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill reportedly removed "Leach-type language" from the bill.

A source close to IGN said he expects Frist, R-Tenn., to continue pressuring legislators to amend the bill, making use of provisions introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, which target U.S. based banks, credit card companies and other Internet payment systems, prohibiting them from making payments to online gambling companies.

Frist's campaign has allegedly drawn criticism from House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who insists the only acceptable provision would be one similar or identical to the House-passed bill (HR 4411), the source said.

As it stands, the source indicated, the House-passed bill is considered unacceptable by the horse racing industry and, by extension, several key senators, thereby making it "difficult, but not impossible," for Frist to piggyback his prohibitive online gambling legislation onto the DOD bill.

[Uglyowl]

So House Judiciary Committee Chairman "not tough enough"

Horse Racing industry, therefore some Senators "too tough"

Who has more pull here?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But I am smart enough to defer to Nate, Mr. K, and Berge for their opinion. This is just mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please keep in mind when reading anything I write in this forum that I'm a layman, not an insider like Mr. K and Berge. I'm just trying to address this problem like I would a poker hand, by making the best use of limited information that I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, if online poker stays around awhile, what's your screen name...

So I can stay away from you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

SERIOUSLY. You must be scary good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good read. Nate is sick at poker.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K or Berge20,

How much weight does the Washington Times carry in conservative circles? Do you think today's editorial could have an impact?

Thanks to both of you for your excellent insiders view of what's going on.

JC

[/ QUOTE ]

The Washington Times is considered the "conservative" DC paper (as opposed to the Washington Post, which is better-known and more widely-read, not that the Times is tiny or anything).

I doubt an editorial is really going to change anybody's mind on what they think about legalizing/regulating online gambling, but it is almost certainly good news for us that some light is being shed on this. K or Berge could comment much more on this, but I am guessing that it would be easier to insert anti-gambling langauge in the DoD bill under cover of darkness than when there is at least some degree of public scrutiny.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K or Berge20,

How much weight does the Washington Times carry in conservative circles? Do you think today's editorial could have an impact?

Thanks to both of you for your excellent insiders view of what's going on.

JC

[/ QUOTE ]

The Washington Times is considered the "conservative" DC paper (as opposed to the Washington Post, which is better-known and more widely-read, not that the Times is tiny or anything).

I doubt an editorial is really going to change anybody's mind on what they think about legalizing/regulating online gambling, but it is almost certainly good news for us that some light is being shed on this. K or Berge could comment much more on this, but I am guessing that it would be easier to insert anti-gambling langauge in the DoD bill under cover of darkness than when there is at least some degree of public scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems extremely doubtful that the editorial itself would have an influence on anyone's thinking. However, I find it somewhat heartening as an articulation of why a conservative might be opposed to Frist's end-around. That conference committee leans conservative, at least on the GOP side.

[Lawman007]

It is good to see that a conservative newspaper, i.e., one that caters to Frist's conservative base, thinks that he is full of crap. LOL

What he is trying to do is wrong, regardless of what you think about the bill, for the reasons stated in the Washington Times editorial.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K or Berge20,

How much weight does the Washington Times carry in conservative circles? Do you think today's editorial could have an impact?

Thanks to both of you for your excellent insiders view of what's going on.

JC

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks man. All I'm doing is passing along what I hear.

I think people on Capitol Hill and in the power corridors of Washington have differing views on how seriously the Washington Times should be taken. Leavng my personal opinion aside, I believe that its editorial board does carry weight with some very conservative Senators and Members of Congress, though it is hard to say to what extent. Is today's editorial a difference-maker on its own? Probably not. Will the editorial, along with other factors and events, have some influence as far as how things play out on the DoD Authorization conference? Sure.

As much as it sucks to say it, I think you guys are all going to have to wait until Monday evening or Tuesday mid-day to really get a sense of where this thing is going.

[Jack Bando]

Mr K/Berge,

Sort of a sidetrack q, but why is tacking on stuff to a bill/report that has no relevance to a bill allowed?

[UnitBubble]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr K/Berge,

Sort of a sidetrack q, but why is tacking on stuff to a bill/report that has no relevance to a bill allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm wondering...

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr K/Berge,

Sort of a sidetrack q, but why is tacking on stuff to a bill/report that has no relevance to a bill allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm wondering...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be the third to ask this as well.