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

[LesJ]

There is a very similar article on the Washington Post website right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091301708.html

[Jay Cohen]

Mr. K or Berge 20,

Correct me if I am wrong or please clarify.

If they attach something that differs from the House version at all, it has to go to conference. If it's very different, it can easily be stripped out, right?

I think this is what happened in 03 or 04 with this issue. I seem to recall both the House and Senate passing something, but they were each a little different and it was stripped out in conferrence. Yes, no?

[LameCapper]

The GM of WSEX should not be adding to the paranoia of this whole situation by using the words "Uh Oh" in the subject line of a thread on the legality Internet gambling especially when details are totally unclear, It sends the wrong message

I consider WSex to be a solid book/poker site, and regardless of legislation it is pretty apparent that the sites and players with common sense will have no trouble continuing business as normal

Whether or not legislation would affect the "fish populaton" remains to be seen, I'd argue that the legislation would deter more "profitable 2+2ers" from gambling than it would the degenerate losing players, but I can't prove it anymore than the paranoid doomsayers on this site can prove their view

Sorry for the rant, but for every worthwhile and informative post in this portion of the forum, there is 10 paranoid, disillusioned, and ultimately pointless posts

Keep up the good work guys

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an important point. None of this seems to be coming from Frist himself, but instead from his spokespersons. And I suspect that those spokespersons are being hit up all the time for information by services like Reuters and Bloomberg that have an interest in reporting on the financial side of the story (e.g. impact on PartyGaming stock).

Nevertheless, this is very troubling. We can't seem to go a week here without some new angle to worry about.

Two more questions:

(1) To what extent is Frist still likely to respect the spirit of the holds on the gambling bill even if the bill might theoretically be reincaranted in the DNA of some other legislation? After all, the holds largely an informal matter of protocol, right? Frist might not give a [censored] since he's leaving the Senate, but wouldn't he run the risk of seriously pissing off McConnell or Ensign or whomever if he circumvented them in this fashion?

I suppose this is really the crux of the question at this point.

(2) I noticed that when Kyl tried to attach a similar bill to an unrelated previous piece of legislation in 2005, his attempt was ruled "out of order". What does that mean, and could it come into play here? I suspect the answer is "no", because Kyl's rider came in the form of an amendment, whereas this would presumably be included in the body text of the legislation.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

[shighley3205]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two bills are linked at the bottom of the Washington Post link, I'm typing a paper otherwise I would look up the language to see if credit cards were the extent of the ban or it was worse.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

If this is the extent of what is planned, we're in pretty good shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the media is regurgitating. I am sure it is the part of the bill that refers to all financial transactions etc. that he plans on trying to push through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably correct. The average layperson probably assumes that you'd fund a poker account with a credit card and doesn't know about things like NETELLER, so that's how the issue is likely to be framed in an AP wire story.

I'm not saying that we couldn't wind up with a severly watered down piece of legislation, and at some point if the langague is watered down enough, that might be better than no legislation passing at all. But I don't think that particular sentence in the AP article tells us anything terribly substantive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two bills are linked at the bottom of the Washington Post link, I'm typing a paper otherwise I would look up the language to see if credit cards were the extent of the ban or it was worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the bill on Thomas, but it's the version that was introduced in April. If there is a new version that is going to exist that includes provisions on internet gambling, it probably doesn't exist yet.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

UK gambling stocks haven't moved downward in very early trading. In fact, they're up a bit. The market may be treating this story as essentially old news -- Frist making some noise about wanting to get the bill passed, but there are a lot of procedural and political obstacles to it.

[StellarWind]

The reason we don't know the exact language is there probably isn't any yet. They are still negotiating.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you ask a lawyer whether Neteller is a credit card. Are you certain what his answer would be? These online services resemble credit cards in many respects and could easily be swept into the new law.

[Jussurreal]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason we don't know the exact language is there probably isn't any yet. They are still negotiating.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never been able to use a credit card on any gambling site anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose you ask a lawyer whether Neteller is a credit card. Are you certain what his answer would be? These online services resemble credit cards in many respects and could easily be swept into the new law.

[/ 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.

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