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

[Freerollin`]

The rules permit germane (related) and non-germane additions to bills at certain times, that's all I know. Not sure when or why, just that some additions are permitted and others aren't.

[nation]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this really really good for us?

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this really really good for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be if it were true but as none of us is all that familiar with the source-and it has yet to be corroborated-I would suppose emphasizing the "cautious" in "cautious optomism" is in order here.

Also, assuming this is true and Frist can't get it on the DoD bill then it may lead to us letting our guard down so you definitely want to be cautious about when you proclaim victory in this fight.

[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it (faint recollections of high-school civics class again), the report produced by a conference committee is, for all intents and purposes, a new bill. Because it was authored by a conference committee, it should contain the essential elements of whatever legislation was originally passed in the Senate and House.

The committee report goes back to both houses in an identically-worded form; that way, it can be presented in both houses simultaneously, pass both houses simultaneously, and go straight to the President's desk.

The "loophole" is that the committee is not restricted to the details of the legislation that passed in one chamber of Congress. They're not even limited to the concepts of the differing legislation; they can literally throw anything they want into the compromise report, from other pending legislation to brand-new regulations. Obviously, the more watered-down the compromise report gets, the less likely it is to pass both houses; but that realpolitik is the only limitation on the conference committee. (The lack of restriction makes sense, if you consider that the committee is writing a new bill; there are no limits to what can be submitted in a new bill. The only difference is that new bills aren't co-written by Senators and Congressmen.)

In this case, as I understand it, they're considering attaching several bills that have passed either the House or the Senate, but haven't gotten an up-or-down vote in the other chamber. It's an angle shoot of the highest order, and I'd oppose it on philosophical grounds whether online gaming was part of the debate or not. Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should do that thing.

[Jussurreal]

[ QUOTE ]
As it stands, the source indicated, the House-passed bill is considered unacceptable by the horse racing industry and, by extension, several key senators

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha those senators are pissed that they won't be able to bet on their horses online so they aint gonna let it pass. They want to impose "morality" on others but when it comes to being "moral" themselves.......well thats a different story.

[Silent1]

Quote:
As it stands, the source indicated, the House-passed bill is considered unacceptable by the horse racing industry and, by extension, several key senators.
__________________________________________________ ______

Can someone please clarify the following? I read the article someone was kind enough to post (thank you very much ZBTHorton) yesterday.

What troubles me about the article is precisely the above quote. From everything I have seen and read about Leach's bill, the horse-racing industry loves it [after all, they are exempt by default]. If the bill passes, they lose nothing.

I am puzzled by what appears to be misinformation by the IGN reporter.

What am I missing? Why would the horse-racing senate crowd care if this bill passes?

Thanks,

J

[Silent1]

Another question for the folks who have experience with sportsbooks, futures etc. [I don't, and that is why I ask].

Let's assume for a second that Leach's bill passes in some form. Horse-racing is not affected, so I can still place bets from anywhere in the country on a horse race.


Now, let's say Joe Gamble opens up a horse-race betting shop online. People place bets at his site, presumably on ongoing horse-races.

However, Joe Gamble has a link to another page to a site in the UK which "maps" a horse-race bet onto another bet (e.g., if horse #8 comes in before horse #12, then Jack wins the presidential elections and Jim loses).

You are actually making a bet on horses. There is no law saying that the odds that someone gives you has to be X:Y. It can be anything that Joe Gamble chooses, including odds corresponding to something else. Correspondingly, if you bet right, you'll get paid according to what you really bet on, and not the stupid horse race.

Besides an efficient mapping that would not confuse people, how could anyone argue that this is illegal? They would have to show intent. If horse-racing is legal, and arbitrary odds are legal, and payments are legal, what would be the problem?

Just curious. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]

The first line of your statement makes it seem as if you were taunting us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you consider what I am ACTUALLY saying rather than what you seem to want to think I am saying. I am and have always point out that given the particular politicans involved (I'm from TN, home of Frist) that the odds are much greater than some who may not know him would like to attribute it as being.


[ QUOTE ]
My aim is to be productive in fighting this legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

By willfully overlooking the likelihood that this thing will pass or condemning others who simply find it much more likely in an election year?


[ QUOTE ]
When have you posted one thing in this forum that has provided information pertinent to the issue at hand (that issue being the defeat of this legislation)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you did not read my idea that someone (maybe 2+2) should send 100 copies of Theory Of Poker to the Senate, send a popular and successful player (or more than one) to the Senate to press the flesh with Senators to convince them that Poker is NOT the game of luck that the Lottery is for example - an is yet excluded from this bill. PR is one way to wage a war on this thing that far too many people are writing off.

---Leavenfish

[joe c]

the News Herald also had a editorial on Friday calling Frist out as a moron for doing this.

http://www.newsherald.com/

can get to it under online edition. but no one actually reads this paper, so its not much.

[DuderinoAB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My aim is to be productive in fighting this legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

By willfully overlooking the likelihood that this thing will pass or condemning others who simply find it much more likely in an election year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just have a procedurally oriented mind. Its good for poker (I am process oriented and not results oriented most of the time), but not so good for discussion. My approach to this legislation is to a) get as much info as I can b) figure out what I can personally do to accomplish the end I would like to see (anything but passage of this bill) c) accomplish everything that I possibly can that will achieve the end that I desire. Worrying about likelyhood of passage does not enter my thought process, and I find those with doomsday attitudes to be particularly counter productive. I guess we're probably just wired differently.