Reality of Passing HR 2046

[Elijah Bailey]

There seems to be a general feeling that this bill doesn't have much chance of passing. I think this and other controversial bills have a pretty good chance of becoming law. The Senate voted yesterday to deny funding the war in Iraq without setting a time limit for troop withdrawal. The president has said this is unacceptable and will veto this measure. At this point, the political process kicks in. Congress will agree to a more fluid date on the troop withdrawal in exchange for getting the president to sign some formerly controversial items. HR 2046 will probably become an attachment to this compromise legislation and become a footnote in a much larger picture.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
HR 2046 will probably become an attachment to this compromise legislation and become a footnote in a much larger picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I think the bill has been drafted and something similar is unlikely to become a rider. In other words, if I'm not mistaken, HR 2046 CANNOT be added to another bill.

Also, understand that in order for the bill to be passed, it needs to have the majority approval of Congress. Right now it probably doesn't even have that.

[autobet]

If it did pass, it would also have to avoid being vetoed by the president.

[Skallagrim]

Politics is a strange thing, especially in Washington, DC.

Most of the congress really has no opinion on Internet Gambling and goes with the flow and the party leaderhsip.

A small vocal group can convince a majority to go with them in a number of ways, attaching a bill as a rider is only one of them.

I am guardedly optomistic here, the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us. The growing PPA is a plus. The writing campaigns are a plus. The polls that show when asked most americans support the right to play internet poker is a big plus. The closeness of recent elections is a plus because it shows how a small committed voting block can make a difference (think NRA). The compromise provisions of the bill (which would let born again South Carolina and the NFL opt out) are a plus. The fact that very little fraud or underage gambling has occurred at internet sites is a plus. The fact that no real money laundering has occurred (real as in money that wasnt already "illegal" gambling money) is a plus.

Dont give up now, write your representatives!

Skallagrim

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
... the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there been any confirmation that any bank has made a public fuss about UIGEA? It's logical they will, but until they do isn't this speculation?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there been any confirmation that any bank has made a public fuss about UIGEA? It's logical they will, but until they do isn't this speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in a hurry to go drinking, treywilley, so no links. But I have read more than a few articles (some with links posted in these forums) that include short quotes from various representatives of the banking lobby stating how they are displeased with the requirements of the UIGEA because it will cost them money to do the monitoring the UIGEA requires. Its not that any of them said they were on our side and support poker, but they are saying "hey, if your gonna ban this stuff make someone else responisble."

Skallagrim

[adanthar]

Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[TheEngineer]

The odds of new legislation making the status quo WORSE passing any day soon is roughly zero! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And, if we make a good showing here, it should slow down enforcement of the existing opportunities.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bill allows companies in the US to start their own site (does it say that? I've heard both ways) , Harrah's/MGM/etc... will be all for it, and we all know what state the leader of the Senate's from.

Has Bush used his second veto yet?

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]


Has Bush used his second veto yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

He;s about too.