Online poker being banned? Please explain to UK resident.

[ADBjester]

[ QUOTE ]

I live in the UK and do not understand the American political system.

On the news this morning I heard that a piece of legislation is going forward to ban online gambling.

Could someone please briefly explain to me:
1. How likely is it that online poker will be banned.
2. If it is going to be banned, when will this be implemented?

I know that you are all no doubt very familiar with these issues. But would appreciate a brief response!

Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't THAT different. (The election process is quite different, though).

We have two houses of "Parliament" (Congress) -- The House of Commons (Representatives) and the smaller House of Lords (Senate). Both are popularly elected by the people of their respective states.

In order for something to become law, it has to be passed by both houses. Thus far, it has passed only the House of Representatives. It still must pass the Senate, and in identical form. If the Senate passes a law that is even slightly different, it goes to "conference committee" to be merged into a single piece of legislation agreedable to both houses.

Once its passed through THIS, then it goes to the Prime Minister (President) for signature. The President can "veto" the law, either by outright rejecting it (open veto) or by refusing to sign it without comment (pocket veto). In either case of a veto, the bill dies and does not become law.

In short, what happened yesterday is just the first of several stages... and the easist. Laws often pass the House of Commons (Representatives) but the staid, stodgy House of Lords (Senate) often doesn't "call the bet" with similar legislation. (That's happened twice with this particular legislation in the past ten years -- action in the House, but none in the Senate).

There's a long way to go before this thing becomes law... and it may, in fact ultimately be unconstitutional as well. The Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution often is used to bypass the Tenth Amendment, but this steps pretty far out of bounds, since nothing here is "Interstate".

Jester

[Ali shmali]

Supposedely the bill was going to Committee(a sub group of the senate) to be voted on. After that it goes to the senate floor for open debate and is then voted on. The senate has to do this with in a certain time frame. Things were looking good because it seemed like the bill would not have enough time to make it to the floor. However Shelby, who heads the comittee has stated he won't seek jurisdiction over the bill and it will go straight to the floor for debate. This means the bill has more time now which is not good.

So now we have to hope that the senate declines to adopt the bill in it's current form. This means they'll have to write new legislation for it and go through the process of trying to merge it with the House bill like Jester said. This makes the process of passing the bill more time consuming which is good. Once time runs out they have to try and pass the bill again in a later year.

[Tachyon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I live in the UK and do not understand the American political system.

On the news this morning I heard that a piece of legislation is going forward to ban online gambling.

Could someone please briefly explain to me:
1. How likely is it that online poker will be banned.
2. If it is going to be banned, when will this be implemented?

I know that you are all no doubt very familiar with these issues. But would appreciate a brief response!

Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't THAT different. (The election process is quite different, though).

We have two houses of "Parliament" (Congress) -- The House of Commons (Representatives) and the smaller House of Lords (Senate). Both are popularly elected by the people of their respective states.

In order for something to become law, it has to be passed by both houses. Thus far, it has passed only the House of Representatives. It still must pass the Senate, and in identical form. If the Senate passes a law that is even slightly different, it goes to "conference committee" to be merged into a single piece of legislation agreedable to both houses.

Once its passed through THIS, then it goes to the Prime Minister (President) for signature. The President can "veto" the law, either by outright rejecting it (open veto) or by refusing to sign it without comment (pocket veto). In either case of a veto, the bill dies and does not become law.

In short, what happened yesterday is just the first of several stages... and the easist. Laws often pass the House of Commons (Representatives) but the staid, stodgy House of Lords (Senate) often doesn't "call the bet" with similar legislation. (That's happened twice with this particular legislation in the past ten years -- action in the House, but none in the Senate).

There's a long way to go before this thing becomes law... and it may, in fact ultimately be unconstitutional as well. The Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution often is used to bypass the Tenth Amendment, but this steps pretty far out of bounds, since nothing here is "Interstate".

Jester

[/ QUOTE ]

When it hits the senate does it need just a majority vote or is it not as straight forward as that?

John

[sdunsmb]

To other people from the UK - what do you thibk the chances of something of this nature occuring in the UK. It seems to me that the govt are very pro-gambling right now??

I would be very worried if Labour tried to stop online gaming, for example.

[Tachyon]

[ QUOTE ]


When it hits the senate does it need just a majority vote or is it not as straight forward as that?

John

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. If the senate voted 50/50 for this bill would that be enough, or does it need to hit, say, 2/3 majority?

Thanks

[momo24]

It just needs a simple majority. But before it can get to an up-or-down vote, it must make it through a number of procedural hurdles. It seems much more likely that if the bill does not pass, it will because it is never brought to a vote, not that it is defeated.

[Hince]

[ QUOTE ]
To other people from the UK - what do you thibk the chances of something of this nature occuring in the UK. It seems to me that the govt are very pro-gambling right now??

I would be very worried if Labour tried to stop online gaming, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very unlikely. They already regulate and tax online poker, which is what the US should do. According to pokerplayersalliance.org, the US has the potential to raise 3.3 billion in revenue from this untaxed industry. I'm not sure what the UK brings in from online poker, but I'm willing to bet it is substantial.

[stigmata]

Jester,

Thanks a lot for that informative & educuation post! And others for filling in the gaps.