- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
Why do people make the same mistakes over and over and over again?
Prohibition creates serious criminals.
Prohibition creates serious criminals.
Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
- Thread starter managra
- Start date
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Sorry perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. What I meant was this. If a person is a problem gambler but doesn't realise it yet, then they will find a way to gamble even if you ban online gambling. It doesn't make their problem suddenly disappear.
So by "doing good", I mean that what they should do IMO is regulate online gambling, make some revenue from it and, if problem gambling is really a "major issue" as the representatives are stating and families are being "torn apart" as a result on a wide scale, use a proportion of that money to re-educate and assist those with problems.
This will help improve the life of that individual (and those around them if the politicians are to be believed) and do some good. Now that's politics for the good of the people.
Quite frankly, the fact we're sitting here in the 21st Century talking about Prohibition in the USA is actually funny. Worrying, but still funny.
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
Its only funny because you don't live here. I fail to see any humor at all in the fact my 'elected' officals are fools.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- The Boonies
I don't think it's funny, I think it's downright scary.
Instead of helping addicts, they are being pushed into the hands of criminals.
Whenever you forbid something that people will do anyway, like alcohol or prostitution, it creates a dangerous criminal element.
People get addicted to many things, we can't just forbid them all.
Alcohol, chocolate, sugar, extreme sports, jogging, nicotine, all these things have detrimental consequences for addicts. And there are tons more.
Non addicts enjoy these things with impunity.
Gambling fits right in there.
Regulation is the answer. It allows you to help those who have addictive personalities.
If you take the gambling out of the mix, and the criminal element doesn't get a hold of the addict, the addictive personality will only turn elsewhere. Substitute one addiction with another. This helps no one.
Instead of helping addicts, they are being pushed into the hands of criminals.
Whenever you forbid something that people will do anyway, like alcohol or prostitution, it creates a dangerous criminal element.
People get addicted to many things, we can't just forbid them all.
Alcohol, chocolate, sugar, extreme sports, jogging, nicotine, all these things have detrimental consequences for addicts. And there are tons more.
Non addicts enjoy these things with impunity.
Gambling fits right in there.
Regulation is the answer. It allows you to help those who have addictive personalities.
If you take the gambling out of the mix, and the criminal element doesn't get a hold of the addict, the addictive personality will only turn elsewhere. Substitute one addiction with another. This helps no one.
lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
Yes it is. And when the elected officials start putting the people ahead of the lobbyists money and free trips we will see regulation and not proabition.Dominique said:
toofast4u said:
Well lotteries funded the start of the USA, of course some might say that was not a good thing.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Location
- O! Canada
There's no panic about this.
Republicans had to do something to distance themselves from that douchebag Abramoff that was headfing the lobby for online gmaing. After he had been jailed due to the DeLay scandal, it came to light that he had spent time in Cheney's office! Both of these situations had nothing to dowith online gmaing.
They needed a good news story, so announced this.
It won't even get looked at by the Senate until AFTER the mid-terms, when the senate will have a whole different look. Even if it remains on the books until after the new regime passes all of it's 'good works' (A year at least), the only way they can attack it is by banning CC comapnies and banks from dealing with the industry. Unfortunalety, everything has become too global. Can you imagine a British bettor not being able to bet with William Hill in Briatin (A gambling freindly jurisdiction) because VISA won't accept the payment being a US company?
This is not going to fly, so vote Democrat!! Not a political pitch, this is the truth from somenone working inside the gaming indsutry.
Republicans had to do something to distance themselves from that douchebag Abramoff that was headfing the lobby for online gmaing. After he had been jailed due to the DeLay scandal, it came to light that he had spent time in Cheney's office! Both of these situations had nothing to dowith online gmaing.
They needed a good news story, so announced this.
It won't even get looked at by the Senate until AFTER the mid-terms, when the senate will have a whole different look. Even if it remains on the books until after the new regime passes all of it's 'good works' (A year at least), the only way they can attack it is by banning CC comapnies and banks from dealing with the industry. Unfortunalety, everything has become too global. Can you imagine a British bettor not being able to bet with William Hill in Briatin (A gambling freindly jurisdiction) because VISA won't accept the payment being a US company?
This is not going to fly, so vote Democrat!! Not a political pitch, this is the truth from somenone working inside the gaming indsutry.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
Democrats are on board to ban online gambling also. So dont pull that garbage. So vote Republican. Oh yeah, and this is not a political pitch either.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Location
- Arizona
Possible Senate consideration around the corner...
If you haven't already done so, it would be good for the US members here to get a message off to your Senators expressing your opposition to H.R. 4411.
Web forms for contacting Senators are found here:
If you haven't already done so, it would be good for the US members here to get a message off to your Senators expressing your opposition to H.R. 4411.
Web forms for contacting Senators are found here:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Location
- Arizona
Below is the reply I received from Sen. Santorum of Pennsylvania. He doesn't say where he stands on H.R. 4411. I'm not sure if that means he's undecided or if he doesn't want to disappoint a constituent whom he disagrees with, particularly when he's in a tough reelection fight right now.
GrandMaster
Dormant account
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Location
- UK
You should tell him that if really want to be of assistance, he should come out in unequivocally against the prohibition of online gambling, or else you will be voting for his opponent. As he is trailing in the polls, he might even listen to you. 
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Location
- Left Hungary
Unbelievable! This is the same letter I reveived by mail last month word for word exept for the different senate member name! Talk about actually LISTENING! NOT! Geezes, what is it going to take for them to actually hear us?
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2005
- Location
- Arizona
Really? WTH, is there some brush-off form letter they're circulating around to use on us? Not cool.Unbelievable! This is the same letter I reveived by mail last month word for word exept for the different senate member name! Talk about actually LISTENING! NOT! Geezes, what is it going to take for them to actually hear us?
Yeah, I guess I was not direct enough to get his attention.GrandMaster said:
I think I'll be writing his opponent now to see if he'll listen.
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Location
- North of Antarctica
Bad news or false alarm? The anti-freedom bill has been tacked on to a bill for military/defense/weaponry crap.
Old / Expired Link
Old / Expired Link
I'm open to correction here, but my understanding of that long and interesting report is that this has not yet been accepted into the defence proposals and that conference negotiating is still ongoing, with the defence committees reportedly against including extraneous material like abortion and online gambling onto a military bill.
There are still holds that can take place by politicians opposing the inclusion and thus complicate and maybe delay the issue, and the military guys reportedly want to avoid that.
My interpretation of the report was that staff may be working on trying reach a compromise over this weekend, but that it won't be known until late Monday whether the online gambling measure is to be included, and exactly what the wording of that measure being pushed by Frist is going to be.
This weird (to me, anyway) process of American law where a totally unrelated item can be tacked on to a bill in order to circumvent normal democratic debate mystifies me and suggests that political tap-dancing and cunning is more important than the will of the people in deciding these matters.
Still, this does represent a danger that should not be underestimated, and if accepted by the military proposers it could create unforseen problems.
There are still holds that can take place by politicians opposing the inclusion and thus complicate and maybe delay the issue, and the military guys reportedly want to avoid that.
My interpretation of the report was that staff may be working on trying reach a compromise over this weekend, but that it won't be known until late Monday whether the online gambling measure is to be included, and exactly what the wording of that measure being pushed by Frist is going to be.
This weird (to me, anyway) process of American law where a totally unrelated item can be tacked on to a bill in order to circumvent normal democratic debate mystifies me and suggests that political tap-dancing and cunning is more important than the will of the people in deciding these matters.
Still, this does represent a danger that should not be underestimated, and if accepted by the military proposers it could create unforseen problems.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
just wanted to post this quickly.. and I'll be back with more details.. but Kyl attempted to do this early in the game (attaching prohibition of gambling) to another bill completely irrelevant to the subject ... and it was quickly "ordered to lie on the table" (not up for further consideration). This practice is generally frowned upon for obvious reasons. Let me check a couple of things and I will post shortly.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
The term I was looking for is "non-Germane" amendment (provision proposed as an amendment which is considered irrelevant to the bill it is presented under). The article referred to above mentions the lobbyist's concern that this could pass, quoted below:
"He states, "Disguised in a huge defense bill, do you want to try and be the one guy to hold up a litany of programs for troops and weapons because 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." "
However, if this provision concerning Internet gambling was proposed as an amendment (still researching and I will update)... it can quickly and easily be dismissed "ordered to lie on the table".. as many are every Session ... without being the cause for delay of a Bill in itself passing or not passing.
**********************
The Kyl amendment I mentioned earlier, in which he attempted to do the similar, can be referred to at:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...-the-internet-gambling-prohibition-act.11442/
and the process of "invoking cloture" contains this important guideline-
- All amendments must be relevant to the debate. (Sen. Kyl's amendment
2953 would have been considered non-germane (not relevant [primary
issue being the U.S. Ports/Dubai company]))
"He states, "Disguised in a huge defense bill, do you want to try and be the one guy to hold up a litany of programs for troops and weapons because 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." "
However, if this provision concerning Internet gambling was proposed as an amendment (still researching and I will update)... it can quickly and easily be dismissed "ordered to lie on the table".. as many are every Session ... without being the cause for delay of a Bill in itself passing or not passing.
**********************
The Kyl amendment I mentioned earlier, in which he attempted to do the similar, can be referred to at:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...-the-internet-gambling-prohibition-act.11442/
and the process of "invoking cloture" contains this important guideline-
- All amendments must be relevant to the debate. (Sen. Kyl's amendment
2953 would have been considered non-germane (not relevant [primary
issue being the U.S. Ports/Dubai company]))
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
I think that (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Bills the article were referring to concerning Defense appropriations are S.2507 and H.R.5122.. briefly scanning over their summaries/proposed amendments.. I found it difficult to find this provision on Internet gambling (not to say that it is not there) but this issue must be so miniscule with no emphasis whatsoever... Personally, I would not worry about this as far as being the vehicle to get the prohibition on Internet gambling passed.
The debate/consideration of HR5122 (one of the Defense bills) is lengthy and involved as it is :
Outdated URL (Invalid)
I am sure (IMO) that any irrelevant subject matter would be 'tossed' so to speak when it comes to this debate.
*************
Just to mention: On my way home from work, in what had to be a HUGE banner approximately 1/8 mile long, was an advertisement for an online sportsbook right along a major thoroughfare in Washington, DC. I cannot remember the name (and do not feel at liberty to quote if I did) but the sportsbook uses actress Nikki Cox as the sponsor in their ad.
Someone trying to get the message across in the Capitol?? (Good for them..
)
The debate/consideration of HR5122 (one of the Defense bills) is lengthy and involved as it is :
Outdated URL (Invalid)
I am sure (IMO) that any irrelevant subject matter would be 'tossed' so to speak when it comes to this debate.
*************
Just to mention: On my way home from work, in what had to be a HUGE banner approximately 1/8 mile long, was an advertisement for an online sportsbook right along a major thoroughfare in Washington, DC. I cannot remember the name (and do not feel at liberty to quote if I did) but the sportsbook uses actress Nikki Cox as the sponsor in their ad.
Someone trying to get the message across in the Capitol?? (Good for them..
)lots0
Banned User - troll posts - flaming
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Location
- Hell on Earth
My understanding of the Frist amendment, is that all it does is make it illegal to use your credit card to fund online gambling.
Even if this passes and that is doubtful, it wont effect the way things are that much... I mean, come on, how many folks use credit cards to pay the online casinos anymore anyway?
Write your Congressmen and Senators let them know your watching and how you feel, a lot of these guys figure no one cares about this issue but the Religious...
Even if this passes and that is doubtful, it wont effect the way things are that much... I mean, come on, how many folks use credit cards to pay the online casinos anymore anyway?
Write your Congressmen and Senators let them know your watching and how you feel, a lot of these guys figure no one cares about this issue but the Religious...
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Location
- America
The American law process indeed has many weird ways of passing and changing law. It's a con game in many ways and many people say "Those crooks in Congress" and they say it in jest but they ARE really closer to truth than they realize. The side-stepping, talking out the side of their mouth, using confusing language, etc. suggest the moral character of most politicians is low. Most are blackmailable. Whenever you hear of a Congressman retiring, quitting, or stepping aside, to "spend time with family", it is likely he/she was threatened with blackmail by the powers that be.
I guess politicians most everywhere behave the same!
Cynthia, grateful if you would post as fast as possible if you see or hear anything more on the progress of this ridiculous attempted association of online gambling with military appropriations!
Cynthia, grateful if you would post as fast as possible if you see or hear anything more on the progress of this ridiculous attempted association of online gambling with military appropriations!
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
Anybody just see the hatchet job 60 minutes did on online gambling? I thought that ugly woman interviewer (leslie stahl?) was gonna spit on the internet gambling guy.
Also, that hack politician made it sound like you would go insane if you gamble online and your kids too.
They even showed a 16 yr old kid who tried to use his fathers credit card (i didnt think any sites still took credit cards?) and after twice getting blocked good old Golden Palace accepted the card.
Really was a hatchet job. Very one sided.
Also, that hack politician made it sound like you would go insane if you gamble online and your kids too.
They even showed a 16 yr old kid who tried to use his fathers credit card (i didnt think any sites still took credit cards?) and after twice getting blocked good old Golden Palace accepted the card.
Really was a hatchet job. Very one sided.
Was this a re-run or a new 60 Minutes on Internet gambling, Paul?
Edited to add: (CBS) This story originally aired on Nov. 20, 2005.
Very convenient timing for a re-run in a highly viewed program wouldn't you say? Just when Frist is trying to get his proposal tacked on to a totally irrelevant military bill?!!!!
Edited to add: (CBS) This story originally aired on Nov. 20, 2005.
Very convenient timing for a re-run in a highly viewed program wouldn't you say? Just when Frist is trying to get his proposal tacked on to a totally irrelevant military bill?!!!!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
one deadline passed??
I will be sure to be on the lookout for any info on the Frist proposal...but..
as far as H.R.4777 goes, the last action taken was:
7/10/2006:
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than Sept. 15, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce last held a hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 13 relating to CyberSecurity. Full text of that hearing is not available as of yet, however, the two statements from two primary members summarize importance of Internet and protecting it from being infiltrated as a whole (major disruption/end to Internet access) as a whole, nothing specifically citing Internet gambling specifically. This hearing is the only one from that Subcommittee that even comes close to the topic of Internet applications, as far as I could see.
Is it possible this didn't make the deadline stated above, for consideration? Will keep you posted as more info becomes available...
I will be sure to be on the lookout for any info on the Frist proposal...but..
as far as H.R.4777 goes, the last action taken was:
7/10/2006:
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than Sept. 15, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce last held a hearing on Wednesday, Sept. 13 relating to CyberSecurity. Full text of that hearing is not available as of yet, however, the two statements from two primary members summarize importance of Internet and protecting it from being infiltrated as a whole (major disruption/end to Internet access) as a whole, nothing specifically citing Internet gambling specifically. This hearing is the only one from that Subcommittee that even comes close to the topic of Internet applications, as far as I could see.
Is it possible this didn't make the deadline stated above, for consideration? Will keep you posted as more info becomes available...
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
I am not sure since i didnt see the first one, but i do know they talked about the guy (was it bet on sports?) who recently got arrested while traveling in the US so i think it may have been a new one.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
I saw the first one but didn't see the one that they showed this past Sunday. But if they were intervieweing Carruthers (BetonSports) himself, then I would say it was a rerun.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
They weren't talking to him. They were talking about him getting arrested. They didnt mention his name either.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
definitely must've been a new one then.. it doesn't surprise me though since this is still an ongoing and what seems like neverending issue..wish I would have tuned in..
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Location
- America
Update from the Thomas thingy regarding the HR 4777:
Last Major action: 9/15/2006 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 22, 2006.
Still some Congressional paper-pushing on this bill.
Last Major action: 9/15/2006 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 22, 2006.
Still some Congressional paper-pushing on this bill.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Location
- Tropic of Cancer
A rough ride ahead...
I'm thinking that the prospects for the near future aren't looking very good.
Even if the Democrats regain control of the House in 2006, there is too much bi-partisan support for a ban.
Whether this nefarious bill makes it through the Senate this session or after the election, at this point it looks like the legislation is not going to go away. The good news is that the DOJ hasn't set up a permanent anti-online gambling task force yet (as far as I know) but the principal actors behind the current push to ban online gambling in the US will remain largely in place as will the inertia for the ban leading to 2008. Also, with states obviously able to pass laws and issue warrants, the situation isn't looking good as now you have the federal government plus 51 additional potential sources of consternation. Just look what Elliot Spitzer has been able to do as New York's attorney general.
The only way the storm will abate is with a Democrat in the White House whose Department of Justice also assigns the issue a low priority which I think is not likely. Unfortunately, 2008 is two years away and a lot of damage can and I think will be done over the next two years.
The political tide has clearly shifted after the Abramoff fiasco and I’m sorry to say reality is that, outside of casinos and their affiliates, there will be no major response on the part of online gamblers. I think most US online gamblers probably have Republican leanings and, more importantly, support for online gambling among players while being a mile wide is really only an inch deep.
IMHO, none of this is really the scary part however. What worries me most is not the credit card issue which can be worked around, or prosecuting US players (they won't) or a handful of gambling execs, but if the DOJ interprets the new Wire Act to include servers, domain name hosts, advertisers, etc. (which they surely could) it could make it hard to simply keep your site online. Nearly all gambling sites have their domains registered with US companies and are totally within US jurisdiction. One threatening letter to say Network Solutions and the situation could become much worse.
At this point, I think only a major international event that would make any attention on the part of government to online gambling look ridiculously petty would stop the momentum.
I’d love to hear a more sunny analysis that can shoot me down on the merits… I’d love some good cheer.
I'm thinking that the prospects for the near future aren't looking very good.
Even if the Democrats regain control of the House in 2006, there is too much bi-partisan support for a ban.
Whether this nefarious bill makes it through the Senate this session or after the election, at this point it looks like the legislation is not going to go away. The good news is that the DOJ hasn't set up a permanent anti-online gambling task force yet (as far as I know) but the principal actors behind the current push to ban online gambling in the US will remain largely in place as will the inertia for the ban leading to 2008. Also, with states obviously able to pass laws and issue warrants, the situation isn't looking good as now you have the federal government plus 51 additional potential sources of consternation. Just look what Elliot Spitzer has been able to do as New York's attorney general.
The only way the storm will abate is with a Democrat in the White House whose Department of Justice also assigns the issue a low priority which I think is not likely. Unfortunately, 2008 is two years away and a lot of damage can and I think will be done over the next two years.
The political tide has clearly shifted after the Abramoff fiasco and I’m sorry to say reality is that, outside of casinos and their affiliates, there will be no major response on the part of online gamblers. I think most US online gamblers probably have Republican leanings and, more importantly, support for online gambling among players while being a mile wide is really only an inch deep.
IMHO, none of this is really the scary part however. What worries me most is not the credit card issue which can be worked around, or prosecuting US players (they won't) or a handful of gambling execs, but if the DOJ interprets the new Wire Act to include servers, domain name hosts, advertisers, etc. (which they surely could) it could make it hard to simply keep your site online. Nearly all gambling sites have their domains registered with US companies and are totally within US jurisdiction. One threatening letter to say Network Solutions and the situation could become much worse.
At this point, I think only a major international event that would make any attention on the part of government to online gambling look ridiculously petty would stop the momentum.
I’d love to hear a more sunny analysis that can shoot me down on the merits… I’d love some good cheer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
Thanks, Westland Bowl, for that update on HR4777 (sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner).. and, word is, Congress will not be going out for the year on Sept. 29/October. They will recess, however, return between Election Day and Thanksgiving (for whatever they can accomplish during that week and a half or so). Of course, everything is always subject to change.. no matter what, hopefully it will not mean more time to consider this bill in a negative manner.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
A good articulate post Rollo, though personally, I find I think quite the opposite. I think the tide recently is to under-estimate the US government. There is no way the US government are going to ban online gambling. Not when they can regulate it, earn a lot of money and use it to assist society in so many ways.
Everyone assumes they are blindly heading towards prohibition, but think of the "moral" arguments they are using. These are plainly ridiculous because of the Horse racing and Lotteries exemptions built into the act. The act, IMO, is purely a mechanism to raise awareness, put the frighteners on people, get people thinking how bad it *could* be and appease both the B&M operators & anti-gambling crusaders who want to force their moral beliefs on everyone and whose vote is needed soon.
The US Government, as much as we'd like to think they are, are not stupid. They are being pressured by an important voting demographic/state tax-paying demographic and need to be seen to doing something but they know as well as we do that prohibition is a blindly stupid solution. They'll get a lot of good publicity at a crucial time by appearing to backtrack based on "public opinion" and introducing regulation, though I think now they have shown they "care", it's job done and they will just let the bill slide into the depths until another vote is needed in a few years time. Just one to wheel out during election campaigns for now I suspect.
Cheers
Simmo!
Everyone assumes they are blindly heading towards prohibition, but think of the "moral" arguments they are using. These are plainly ridiculous because of the Horse racing and Lotteries exemptions built into the act. The act, IMO, is purely a mechanism to raise awareness, put the frighteners on people, get people thinking how bad it *could* be and appease both the B&M operators & anti-gambling crusaders who want to force their moral beliefs on everyone and whose vote is needed soon.
The US Government, as much as we'd like to think they are, are not stupid. They are being pressured by an important voting demographic/state tax-paying demographic and need to be seen to doing something but they know as well as we do that prohibition is a blindly stupid solution. They'll get a lot of good publicity at a crucial time by appearing to backtrack based on "public opinion" and introducing regulation, though I think now they have shown they "care", it's job done and they will just let the bill slide into the depths until another vote is needed in a few years time. Just one to wheel out during election campaigns for now I suspect.
Cheers
Simmo!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Location
- Tropic of Cancer
Well, let's hope...
The one good piece of news is that Frist won't be around much longer and his push to attatch the bill to the defense bill has been rejected by Levin it looks like.
On the other hand, sportsbetting over the telephone is already explicitly illegal so I don't think it would be a strectch to include all gambling on the internet as well. I can promise you that the US will not legalize online gambling anytime soon. Not as long as the moral marority remains so powerful. The question is simply will they expand and actually enforce a ban.
From an economic point of view, by allowing this capital to be exported, they are missing their chance to tax it (as consumers spend the money on domestics goods and services) which I think (besides the moral issues - a total hypocracy to be sure) and special interests (like Paypal) economics is the third strongest force behind the ban.
Really, whether online gambling is legal and taxed or completly banned, the US goverment will get their revenues becuase disposable income will get spent, if not on gambling then on something else. US consumers will find something to consume, that's what decades of economic data bears out anyway. We just can't help oursevles.
The one good piece of news is that Frist won't be around much longer and his push to attatch the bill to the defense bill has been rejected by Levin it looks like.
On the other hand, sportsbetting over the telephone is already explicitly illegal so I don't think it would be a strectch to include all gambling on the internet as well. I can promise you that the US will not legalize online gambling anytime soon. Not as long as the moral marority remains so powerful. The question is simply will they expand and actually enforce a ban.
From an economic point of view, by allowing this capital to be exported, they are missing their chance to tax it (as consumers spend the money on domestics goods and services) which I think (besides the moral issues - a total hypocracy to be sure) and special interests (like Paypal) economics is the third strongest force behind the ban.
Really, whether online gambling is legal and taxed or completly banned, the US goverment will get their revenues becuase disposable income will get spent, if not on gambling then on something else. US consumers will find something to consume, that's what decades of economic data bears out anyway. We just can't help oursevles.
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
Good point...and nail on the head with the "money" aspect. I agree they won't legalise it soon, but neither will they prohibit it. They are caught between two waves of public opinion. Ah the joy of politics
The Las Vegas Gaming Wire reports that the attempt to attach anti-online gambling measures to the defence bill failed - opposed by Senators Warner and Levin when Frist tried to get it attached.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., was in there slugging, too and apparently sent Warner a letter urging him to reject any amendment that would ban online betting.
"We must not use this important (defense) bill as a convenient vehicle for political pet issues such as a ban on Internet gaming," Berkley said.
But this issue is not dead yet, because the Wire reports that GOP politicians will "...keep trying to add an online wagering prohibition to must-pass legislation until Congress adjourns this year."
An wiley Kyl has gone awfully quiet which is never a good sign!
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., was in there slugging, too and apparently sent Warner a letter urging him to reject any amendment that would ban online betting.
"We must not use this important (defense) bill as a convenient vehicle for political pet issues such as a ban on Internet gaming," Berkley said.
But this issue is not dead yet, because the Wire reports that GOP politicians will "...keep trying to add an online wagering prohibition to must-pass legislation until Congress adjourns this year."
An wiley Kyl has gone awfully quiet which is never a good sign!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
This bill ended up not being reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and discharged by that Committee:
Outdated URL (Invalid)
I am getting a stronger feeling that this will not pass in time. This week Congress will be in session and recess on 9/29. Word is they are expected to return for one week between Election Day and Thanksgiving in November, then again for one week in December. However, during those two weeks, much of what may occur is simply statements that debate will "be continued" next year of 2007 on many subjects, according to resources of how these sessions work most of the time. (This word is not "bond" by any means, but my interpretation when I asked about how many weekend OT hours we should or can be expecting during those weeks .. basically, not to hold my breath.) If things were expected to be passed, we probably would be working...
Just a heads up.. hopefully things are looking up as far as it not being passed.. I feel pretty confident
Outdated URL (Invalid)
I am getting a stronger feeling that this will not pass in time. This week Congress will be in session and recess on 9/29. Word is they are expected to return for one week between Election Day and Thanksgiving in November, then again for one week in December. However, during those two weeks, much of what may occur is simply statements that debate will "be continued" next year of 2007 on many subjects, according to resources of how these sessions work most of the time. (This word is not "bond" by any means, but my interpretation when I asked about how many weekend OT hours we should or can be expecting during those weeks .. basically, not to hold my breath.) If things were expected to be passed, we probably would be working...
Just a heads up.. hopefully things are looking up as far as it not being passed.. I feel pretty confident
Thanks for the update, Cynthia.
I think the rebuff of the Frist/Kyl run on the defence bill, followed so closely by the information that the influential Sen. Reid from Nevada did not take kindly to the practice of attaching measures to irrelevant other legislation may have taken a little wind out of Frist's sails for all his talk of seeking other bills to which he could attach his proposal.
Just reading the various reports suggests that there is more opposition to Frist et al than is immediately apparent from the media, which tends to concentrate on the negative in this issue imo. There seem to have been holds placed behind the scenes, and at the very least there are contrary views still bedevilling these attempts to drive online gambling under.
I think the PPA has had quite an impact as well, and everything that can be used from the Abramhoff scandal has probably been expended now too. Maybe at this eleventh hour (in terms of the duration of this session of Congress) we're finally seeing all sorts of opposition at work to bring practical considerations to bear instead of falsehoods and political chicanery.
I hope so.
I think the rebuff of the Frist/Kyl run on the defence bill, followed so closely by the information that the influential Sen. Reid from Nevada did not take kindly to the practice of attaching measures to irrelevant other legislation may have taken a little wind out of Frist's sails for all his talk of seeking other bills to which he could attach his proposal.
Just reading the various reports suggests that there is more opposition to Frist et al than is immediately apparent from the media, which tends to concentrate on the negative in this issue imo. There seem to have been holds placed behind the scenes, and at the very least there are contrary views still bedevilling these attempts to drive online gambling under.
I think the PPA has had quite an impact as well, and everything that can be used from the Abramhoff scandal has probably been expended now too. Maybe at this eleventh hour (in terms of the duration of this session of Congress) we're finally seeing all sorts of opposition at work to bring practical considerations to bear instead of falsehoods and political chicanery.
I hope so.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Location
- Tropic of Cancer
Bad news, very bad news
Get a load of this report from The Hill:
Old / Expired Link
It looks like some sort of deal was cut and the Anti-gambling legislation WILL be attatched to the DOD bill.
If this is true, things are looking very bad.
Get a load of this report from The Hill:
Old / Expired Link
It looks like some sort of deal was cut and the Anti-gambling legislation WILL be attatched to the DOD bill.
If this is true, things are looking very bad.
I don't get the impression that the latest moves are a done deal by any means, although I would obviously have to agree that this has the potential to be hazardous.
Even this report itself portrays a confused situation where there are clearly a number of disparate interests (some related, others less so) that are holding this defence bill up, not least of which is the current reluctance to allow it to go forward by House Speaker Hastert.
There is also the stated opposition of Sen. Reid of Nevada to any further moves to attach this proposal to an unrelated bill.
NROG is right - this political sleight-of-hand stinks.
Even this report itself portrays a confused situation where there are clearly a number of disparate interests (some related, others less so) that are holding this defence bill up, not least of which is the current reluctance to allow it to go forward by House Speaker Hastert.
There is also the stated opposition of Sen. Reid of Nevada to any further moves to attach this proposal to an unrelated bill.
NROG is right - this political sleight-of-hand stinks.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Location
- Left Hungary
Looks Like it didn't get attached!
I am hoping it is true for the DoD bill passed today and this came out right behind the announcement. (I hope putting the link to the news article was ok. If not please fix it)
I am hoping it is true for the DoD bill passed today and this came out right behind the announcement. (I hope putting the link to the news article was ok. If not please fix it)
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
That's a relief. I was sweatin'....
Actually the Government, if they really want to pass legislation that helps people, should concentrate their agenda on stopping people "borrowing" money to gamble. Not stopping them using their own money. That's where the problems lie in reality. Oh wait, I was forgetting ...it's not about society issues, its about money leaving the state. D'oh.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
Looks like they passed it
From what i am reading on 2+2, they were able to tack it onto another bill and the bill has been approved for vote or whatever they do next. Basically, its a done deal from what they are saying.
A black day for online gambling 9/29/06.
From what i am reading on 2+2, they were able to tack it onto another bill and the bill has been approved for vote or whatever they do next. Basically, its a done deal from what they are saying.
A black day for online gambling 9/29/06.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Location
- Tranquility
I don't know about that, Paul...which bill are you referring to?
Congress is in session Saturday (will absolutely confirm once I go to work tonight) but from what we hear they are not passing anything else (at least for this year), so I'm thinking this thread will probably come to a close soon!
Congress is in session Saturday (will absolutely confirm once I go to work tonight) but from what we hear they are not passing anything else (at least for this year), so I'm thinking this thread will probably come to a close soon!
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
I don't know about that, Paul...which bill are you referring to?
Congress is in session Saturday (will absolutely confirm once I go to work tonight) but from what we hear they are not passing anything else (at least for this year), so I'm thinking this thread will probably come to a close soon!
Cynthia, i am reading they tacked it onto some Port Security bill. The guys at 2+2 are saying it is VERY RESTRICTIVE.
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Location
- North of Antarctica
HR 4954, they're talking about it now and it should be up for a vote shortly.
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) -- page 213
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) -- page 213
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Location
- Tropic of Cancer
Looks like they did it...
Looks like Frist was sucessful. He got the compromise legislation included with the port security bill and it's passed and it will be signed into law almost immediately. If there is any good news here, it's that the portion updating the Wire Act it seems wasn't included. I'm not sure what to make of that as that was the harshest part of the bill but this is no cause for celebration.
Looks like Frist was sucessful. He got the compromise legislation included with the port security bill and it's passed and it will be signed into law almost immediately. If there is any good news here, it's that the portion updating the Wire Act it seems wasn't included. I'm not sure what to make of that as that was the harshest part of the bill but this is no cause for celebration.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Location
- USA
Its for real folks
I have read a zillion posts on 2+2 forum about this bill and what it does or does not do. The consensus of some people who have followed this process from early on is that what has been approved is very restrictive and also very open to interpretation.
I guess there is language that can be interpreted as to mean that if a person cashes out from an online casino/pokerroom etc, they are subject to a 5 year prison sentence. Not all agree with this but it can be read that way.
Also, it sounds as if banks will be forced to reject transfers to and from e wallet institutions such as Neteller.
Thirdly is wording which seems to imply that basically the government can tell IPS's what sites they must block and IPS's are then required to do so. I.E. ban access to online casinos/pokerrooms/and even message boards, etc.
The overall consensus of the people so far seems to be that internet poker and gaming is going to be shut off for US citizens and there is very little optimism that anything more hopeful will take place.
Call this BLACK FRIDAY 9/29/06
I have read a zillion posts on 2+2 forum about this bill and what it does or does not do. The consensus of some people who have followed this process from early on is that what has been approved is very restrictive and also very open to interpretation.
I guess there is language that can be interpreted as to mean that if a person cashes out from an online casino/pokerroom etc, they are subject to a 5 year prison sentence. Not all agree with this but it can be read that way.
Also, it sounds as if banks will be forced to reject transfers to and from e wallet institutions such as Neteller.
Thirdly is wording which seems to imply that basically the government can tell IPS's what sites they must block and IPS's are then required to do so. I.E. ban access to online casinos/pokerrooms/and even message boards, etc.
The overall consensus of the people so far seems to be that internet poker and gaming is going to be shut off for US citizens and there is very little optimism that anything more hopeful will take place.
Call this BLACK FRIDAY 9/29/06
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Location
- North of Antarctica
I'll be sure to set Thunderstruck on autoplay while they take me away in cuffs. When I get out 3 to 5 years later I'll see if I hit the scatters.
But seriously... I don't think there will be much change from our perspective any time soon.
Last edited:
From what we're seeing so far it looks as if Rollo is right and this attachment not only made it onto the Port Security bill, but that the bill was passed in the voting last night.
I think there is a possible further conference stage and the President's signature (or not if he doesn't feel it is acceptable) but it could be the law of the land quite soon.
That said, I just can't see the US government prosecuting large numbers of citizens, or being so insenstive to freedom of access to the Internet as to use ISPs to ban sites or players. That would really be playing with high explosives and would spur opposition from all sorts of Americans jealously guarding their personal rights and freedoms imo.
The authorities will more likely than not follow their usual course of threats and relatively small but highh profile tactical moves to intimidate companies and scare the bejasus out of players.
It will make financial issues more complicated until workarounds are found, but there, too the banks have said this places an impractical and costly burden on them.
Stopping Americans from exercising their right to choice when it comes to online gambling is a dangerous and slippery path.
I think there is a possible further conference stage and the President's signature (or not if he doesn't feel it is acceptable) but it could be the law of the land quite soon.
That said, I just can't see the US government prosecuting large numbers of citizens, or being so insenstive to freedom of access to the Internet as to use ISPs to ban sites or players. That would really be playing with high explosives and would spur opposition from all sorts of Americans jealously guarding their personal rights and freedoms imo.
The authorities will more likely than not follow their usual course of threats and relatively small but highh profile tactical moves to intimidate companies and scare the bejasus out of players.
It will make financial issues more complicated until workarounds are found, but there, too the banks have said this places an impractical and costly burden on them.
Stopping Americans from exercising their right to choice when it comes to online gambling is a dangerous and slippery path.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Location
- Tropic of Cancer
Black Friday
That sounds terrible. Do you have a link to the text of the legislation? Things like this make me thankful I live in Mexico.
ISPs banning gambling sites would be inconvinient, but if Network Solutions or Godaddy get spooked, things could get downright ugly. I hope jetset is right, but from what I know of ISPs they will self-sensor the moment they get a wiff that they could get into hot water (real or imagined) for hosting gambling sites. This mainly becuase the loss of gambling sites won't make much of a dent in their business. I doubt the government will need to do much prospecting at all as any business with anything to loose is going to run for the hills...
I guess it depends on the language, but the gravy train it seems is pulling into the station.
Tomorrow the fallout begins...
That sounds terrible. Do you have a link to the text of the legislation? Things like this make me thankful I live in Mexico.
ISPs banning gambling sites would be inconvinient, but if Network Solutions or Godaddy get spooked, things could get downright ugly. I hope jetset is right, but from what I know of ISPs they will self-sensor the moment they get a wiff that they could get into hot water (real or imagined) for hosting gambling sites. This mainly becuase the loss of gambling sites won't make much of a dent in their business. I doubt the government will need to do much prospecting at all as any business with anything to loose is going to run for the hills...
I guess it depends on the language, but the gravy train it seems is pulling into the station.
Tomorrow the fallout begins...
Last edited:
