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

[Silent1]

Folks -- I haven't had a chance to catch up with all the posts yet, so I apologize if this was already posted.

Is this a new development we ought to be concerned about? This is the first I've heard of a "compromise" to keep the horse people happy.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinv...6&type=qcna

[BluffTHIS!]

Silent1,

That story just basically rehashes the strategy Frist has been using this week and last, with trying to attach a minimal version of the house bill to the defense authorization bill. It in no way means that Frist & Co. are negotiating with pro-gambling advocates in order to intentionally allow some forms of internet gambling like poker. It merely means Frist wants to get some subset of a total ban on the books, with no committment not to come back next year to try to get more.

[Silent1]

Bluff,

Thanks. What surprised me is the negotiations with the horse people. If they opt out of the anti-ban lobby (read: they get what they want, and so don't have to care about the rest of the online world) we lose some important senatorial support [i.e., the Kentucky crowd, for example]. I guess that is the reason a "compromise" approach worries me.

I wish someone would dig up some real dirt on Frist and blast the media with it to keep him occupied for the next 6 months, so he has his hide to think about instead of scoring points. Where are those cat ghosts when you need 'em?

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

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks -- I haven't had a chance to catch up with all the posts yet, so I apologize if this was already posted.

Is this a new development we ought to be concerned about? This is the first I've heard of a "compromise" to keep the horse people happy.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinv...6&type=qcna

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope this is the mainstream media being two days behind the news.

[Jestocost]

The saga continues, according to Congress Daily PM, but not in a good way. These a$$holes sure are determined:

JUDICIARY
Frist Making Last-Minute Bid To Block Online Gambling
Senate Majority Leader Frist's bid to attach a rider to the defense authorization bill that would crack down on online gambling has picked up momentum after it was thought to be written off earlier this week. "We are working and pushing and trying and hoping and negotiating -- but it's not done yet," said a top Frist aide, who declined to detail negotiations.
Gambling industry lobbyists have stepped up their presence, especially aiming to persuade the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees to jettison the provision as they attempt to file the conference report as early as Monday. "The question is whether the authorizers get enough grief over this that they force the [House and Senate] leaders to move off," said one top lobbyist. "Time is a major factor now. They have to file soon." The House in July passed, 317-93, a comprehensive measure to ban most forms of online gambling. Lobbyists said they feel the issue is primarily being driven by Frist's bid to court conservative Christians who play a critical role in the GOP presidential nominating process and for whom the online gambling ban is a top legislative priority.
Frist is pushing a truncated version of the House bill that essentially would bar banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets and make it a crime for a gambling business to accept credit cards, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to process payments for illegal gaming transactions. But, according to lobbyists, Frist was able to pick up key Senate support after including a carve-out for the politically powerful horse racing industry, which has supporters such as Majority Whip McConnell. House leaders appear inclined to go along with Frist, according to lobbyists, even though his rider does not include House language sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., that would amend the 1961 Wire Act to prohibit businesses from using all forms of new technology to accept bets over state and foreign lines. Goodlatte had strenuously fought to include changes to the Wire Act in the House bill, but that language has been considered too contentious to take up in the Senate. A top aide for Speaker Hastert said he was on board with Frist's bid. One lobbyist was even more direct: "Hastert's rolling Goodlatte." Goodlatte's office did not respond for comment.
One key question is the influence of the American Gaming Association, especially AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. The AGA is calling for a commission to study the online gambling industry, including whether the United States should regulate and tax the industry rather than enacting a complete ban. It also counts Senate Minority Leader Reid as an ally. "I favor a ban. I don't like it. But failing that, I would certainly go along with a study," Reid said Thursday. Lobbyists said Native American tribes with gaming interests also are contacting lawmakers. Sen.
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a gambling opponent, said Thursday he thought that his side would eventually succeed even if the rider was not included on the defense authorization bill, but possibly another piece of legislation before the end of the year. "We will find a way to get legislation on online gambling this year," said Kyl, who faces a tough re-election bid. "Some gambling interests oppose what we are trying to do, but I am confident that we have a way to get it done." -- by Bill Swindell

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

This doesn't sound good. eww.

[palmdrive]

I wonder what the implications of a bill that addressed the financial transactions but not the Wire Act would be. Let's say the bill says it's illegal for US banks and credit card companies to facilitate gambling transactions. Credit cards are irrelevant since they for the most part don't allow these transactions today anyway. Banks are going to face a huge uphill battle to root out gambling transactions especially given the existence of offshore processors like Neteller. It's unclear that they could stop a company like Neteller: what's to say I'm not funding my Neteller account so that I can purchase a book?

If the Wire Act isn't updated, it would seem that the individual act of playing poker online wouldn't be criminalized. The law would remain as nebulous as ever, only explicitly addressing sports betting via phone lines.

Not saying there's no cause for concern. It seems that turning McConnell may be a significant key to Frist getting this done. But I can envision an outcome where a gambling "ban" is basically a paper tiger. Frist can claim he took a stand on the issue while he panders to the evangelical right while the rest of us go on playing poker.

Thoughts?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Banks are going to face a huge uphill battle to root out gambling transactions especially given the existence of offshore processors like Neteller. It's unclear that they could stop a company like Neteller: what's to say I'm not funding my Neteller account so that I can purchase a book?

[/ QUOTE ]

it may not be important that neteller can be used for other things, because they'll probably just say it's illegal for banks accept transactions from them because neteller CAN be used to move money to and from gambling sites.

i have a really hard time believing that neteller won't be affected.

[Beastmaster]

Palm- I hope you're right, I think in the short term it will keep a lot of the casual players away but once sites figure an easy way to deposit (if net is no longer an option)the casual player will come back if there is an easy way to deposit and they realize the govn will never go after the individual bettor. W/o the Wire Act being updated I think there's a chance in the long run we'd be okay. I'm not saying they're won't be a drop off but hopefully the numbers will rebound once the US players realize they have options and won't be prosecuted.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what the implications of a bill that addressed the financial transactions but not the Wire Act would be. Let's say the bill says it's illegal for US banks and credit card companies to facilitate gambling transactions. Credit cards are irrelevant since they for the most part don't allow these transactions today anyway. Banks are going to face a huge uphill battle to root out gambling transactions especially given the existence of offshore processors like Neteller. It's unclear that they could stop a company like Neteller: what's to say I'm not funding my Neteller account so that I can purchase a book?

If the Wire Act isn't updated, it would seem that the individual act of playing poker online wouldn't be criminalized. The law would remain as nebulous as ever, only explicitly addressing sports betting via phone lines.

Not saying there's no cause for concern. It seems that turning McConnell may be a significant key to Frist getting this done. But I can envision an outcome where a gambling "ban" is basically a paper tiger. Frist can claim he took a stand on the issue while he panders to the evangelical right while the rest of us go on playing poker.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

There were essentially three major planks of the original Leach-Goodlatte bill:

1. Banning credit card and bank transactions;
2. Updating the Wire Act
3. Requiring ISPs to shut off access to internet gambling sites.

It appears that Frist's compromise would include plank #1, but not planks #2 and #3, although we really can't say this with any certainty until we see the bill langauge.

How much of an impact would #1 have on its own? I don't know. It depends on (1) how effectively the bill langauge is written; (2) which sorts of transactions the DoT/DoJ identifies as gambling transactions if and when the bill passes; (3) how serious the government is about enforcing the bill; (4) how serious the banks are about enforcing the bill. These are all huge uncertainties. I agree that this version isn't as impactful as the original legislation would have been, but whether it would be 90% as bad or 10% as bad, I don't think we can say, and we probably won't be able to say for months or even years after bill passage.

FWIW, for those of you searching for a silver lining, Crpytologic stock has rallied conspicuously within the past 45 minutes and is now up about 4% on the day on fairly heavy volume.

http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=...p;selected=CRYP