Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!! - Page 7

LilBart · #61 09-14-2006, 03:42 PM

Berge20, honest opinion and I am sorry we keep bothering you with this, but what do you see happening. Are we going to get screwed by this back door manuever? How much hope is there here?

Berge20 · #62 09-14-2006, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bergen, honest opinion and I am sorry we keep bothering you with this, but what do you see happening. Are we going to get screwed by this back door manuever? How much hope is there here?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to say. This has always been a moderate possiblitiy (attachment of the internet gambling bill to larger legislation) given how tight a floor schedule the Senate has and what Frist views as a priority.

These kinds of things do happen from time to time and part of their effectiveness is that is blocks out a lot of the ability to oppose or stop certain legislative language.

I mean, in a huge defense bill, do you want to try and be the one guy to hold up a littany of programs for troops, weapons, etc, b/c there is a small (and trust me, this is a small thing in the big scheme) provision in it about online gambling? Absolutely not. Granted, this isn't a spending bill (which is even more necessary) but it is still a bill that is very hard to oppose on extraneous merits.

Sorry I can't give you more than that, but this is a hard one to analyze. I really think this is bad news.

otctrader · #63 09-14-2006, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is stuff that is being discussed by a relative few and is certainly not for public consuption as far as they are concerned, particulary on the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge - how fast can they ramrod this through once the language is made public?

Is there some sort of mandatory "comment period" once the revised text becomes public so that banks and other interests can confer with legislators on the modifications?

Berge20 · #64 09-14-2006, 03:55 PM

Conference reports are generally not amendable once they are filed.

In addition, full text of the report is not public until it is filed.

Edit - Welcome to why dropping items in a conference report is so effective and efficient.

Jussurreal · #65 09-14-2006, 04:05 PM

Here is an article about it, but the author here seems to think Frist doesn't have much of a chance. I'm not sure how competent he is though.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34388

LesJ · #66 09-14-2006, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"According to an aide, Frist has decided to push for a truncated version of the House bill that 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the banking industry had huge concerns about trying to discern what a "legal" transaction would be as oppossed to an "illegal" one.

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!!

Les

otctrader · #67 09-14-2006, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Conference reports are generally not amendable once they are filed.

In addition, full text of the report is not public until it is filed.

Edit - Welcome to why dropping items in a conference report is so effective and efficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes, very encouraging [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

If banks and the PPA have an effective lobby out there, I presume they had better be aware of this and hopefully raising hell right now.

disjunction · #68 09-14-2006, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an article about it, but the author here seems to think Frist doesn't have much of a chance. I'm not sure how competent he is though.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34388

[/ QUOTE ]

The Inquirer's focus is technology gossip. i.e., they probably get good information about the inside goings-on at AMD and Intel. In addition, they are largely British in focus. On this issue, we know more than them.

ZPinhead · #69 09-14-2006, 04:15 PM

This sounds similar to the BS that went on in Olympia when the ban in WA state happened. "Item number 174, ...an amendment to the rule on the previous motion... all in favor say Aye, all apposed say Ney. The Ayes have it. The Farm immediately and may God have mercy on your soul...next"

Jack Bando · #70 09-14-2006, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an article about it, but the author here seems to think Frist doesn't have much of a chance. I'm not sure how competent he is though.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34388

[/ QUOTE ]

The last paragraph of that column is what it's all about, bankers. Unless Frist is an idiot (although there is proof of that), pissing off bankers and President Frist do not go togther well.