Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

external image

Gambling Bill to Pass Senate By Midnight

F

Forbin001

Dormant account
CM Veteran (10yr+)
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Location
Hartsdale, NY
Did Frist succeed?

Ok heres the news story....


Gambling Legislation Dead At Least Through Elections
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 25, 2006
Contact: Jay Bailey
800-724-8334 ext. 83

The National Right for Online Gaming (NROG) confirmed early today that Senator Bill Frists attempt to push through an online gambling ban before Congress breaks for elections has failed and no more action will be taken in the coming days. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a source close to the Senator told NROG that the efforts, including an attempt to attach to the DoD bill, have failed and he (Frist) will not be moving forward with gambling legislation before elections. Congress will return for a lame duck session in mid-November where this issue may take center stage again. The Senator has made Internet Gambling a priority before he exits the Senate and I will confirm that he is actively searching for a way to succeed.

NROG Director of Development, Jay Bailey, said earlier today "If Senator Frist wishes to make this an issue then he should do what the House did in July and bring HR-4411 to the floor of the Senate for debate. Hiding legislation in other bills to further ones own political agenda is not what our citizens deserve. These games in Washington must stop.

Founded by businessmen Brian Jakusik and Bailey, the National Right for Online Gaming is a 501(c) non-profit focused on informing and educating the public, through mass media and marketing, about congressional attempts to take away the right to play poker, sports books and other casino games online.

Most of the organizations currently lobbying against the ban are working behind the scenes directly with the politicians. While NROG has been actively participating in these inside political battles, they believe, in light of the political unrest on this issue in recent months, its time for a more public approach. There is no force greater than that of the American People. We must let them know whats going on. Bailey said.

"Its unfortunate that there's only one side of the issue in the media right now." Jakusik said. "The politicians and the arrests of online gambling execs are all that people see. They're not getting a balanced view of the issue. Thankfully we have helped stop Frist this time, but you can be sure this is not over. We simply have to get the public active.





Outdated URL (Invalid)
 
webber286 said:
Great news for sure. If the elections go the way they are predicted, it doesn't look like this will make it to the light of day in a lame duck session.
Click to expand...

It appears as though Frist is at it again. He is attaching the Internet Gambling Bill to the Port Security Bill and they'll be voting on it tonight.

Have a good one.
 
cipher said:
It appears as though Frist is at it again. He is attaching the Internet Gambling Bill to the Port Security Bill and they'll be voting on it tonight.

Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Winner Online is reporting that Frist was successful in attaching legislation that bans credit cards, banks, and internet payment websites from settling gambling debts! All that is needed is for the president to sign to take effect! At this point I don't know if it is premature reporting or not.
 
Did Frist succeed?

Winner Online is reporting that Frist was successful in attaching legislation that bans credit cards, banks, and internet payment websites from settling gambling debts! All that is needed is for the president to sign to take effect! At this point I don't know if it is premature reporting or not.
 
essentially bans banks, credit card companies and internet payment websites from settling debts for online gaming sites
Click to expand...

Settling debts? Thats different to everything touted so far surely? If its your own money in the first place, its not a debt, so is this a half-measure to stop borrowing to fund gambling? If so, that's actually quite sensible!
 
Simmo! said:
Settling debts? Thats different to everything touted so far surely? If its your own money in the first place, its not a debt, so is this a half-measure to stop borrowing to fund gambling? If so, that's actually quite sensible!
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that banks can tell the difference. I assume that banks are going to take the safest route and just ban any Neteller or other similiar websites regardless if it is for gambling debts or not. I guess funding Neteller is going to be slower as it might have to be funded via a mailed money order.
 
Westland Bowl said:
I certainly hope that banks can tell the difference. I assume that banks are going to take the safest route and just ban any Neteller or other similiar websites regardless if it is for gambling debts or not. I guess funding Neteller is going to be slower as it might have to be funded via a mailed money order.
Click to expand...

Plus there's always Prepaid :cool: If what is reported is correct, it stops short of banning online gambling I assume.
 
It will be interesting what it actually turns out to be. It will have a chilling effect on the industry in any event.:mad:

I wont be surprised if casinos/pokerrooms start banning US players in a big way.
 
Last edited:
Apparently they are going to make the banks flag transactions from 3rd party gambling entities. I'm not sure how they will do that. I guess someone at every bank in the U.S. will have to screen each and every ACH transaction and determine whether it is a gambling transaction or not?? Doesn't seem very feasible to me. The sites already use third party outfits that don't even sound like they resemble a gambling site. I know my bodog deposits show up as Middleton something or other. How are banks going to take on such a massive project with such staggering costs?? I am also surprised that the banking industry lobby (most formidible I would imagine) would not be fighting tooth and nail to stop this action. Anyone have anymore news about this yet??
 
Yeah, I'm watching it too. I saw the House vote, and it made me sick. I'm hoping this won't happen. Some key elements from the news story:

=========================================================
The agreement, a blend of earlier measures passed by the House and Senate, would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

The bill would leave out an additional provision of the House bill that would have clarified that a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.
=========================================================
 
I'm a little slow on the uptake

I'm a U.S. citizen and live in New York. Is it, under the current law, illegal for me to play online BJ, slots etc. (anything other than betting on sports)?

Will this Bill in any way be retroactive?:confused:

What is the earliest date that this Bill can take effect?
 
wheresmymoney said:
I'm a U.S. citizen and live in New York. Is it, under the current law, illegal for me to play online BJ, slots etc. (anything other than betting on sports)?

Will this Bill in any way be retroactive?:confused:

What is the earliest date that this Bill can take effect?
Click to expand...
I think there was a NY supreme court ruling some time ago which interpreted online gambling from within NY state as illegal, but I don't think that's stopped any New Yorkers from playing aside from the defendent in that particular case.

I don't think this bill is retroactive. (If it is, Simmo!, can you please give me some tips on where to find good housing in the UK?) I further doubt that it would even be possible to enforce the changes right away, at least not for paper checks and electronic checks (EFT). From what I understand, EFT transactions do not currently carry a "This guy is trying to gamble online! Call the cops!" flag the way that credit card transactions do, so implementing and testing a change with an international scope would probably take some time.
 
WTF?! A democrat started to talk about the bill in question, but he was quickly interrupted so that they could call a quorum, then after several minutes of silence they retracted the quorum crap and gave the floor to the drunken Alabama republican so that he can blab endlessly about immigration and the big fence.
 
Westland Bowl said:
I had to go away for a couple of minutes and when I returned I wondered .."what happened?" So I didn't miss anything, huh? Yeah, that is strange unless the Big Fence is part of the Homeland Security thingy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nothing yet. The Senate is stuck in an endless quorum call; the house is chatting about the bill right now (I thought they already passed it, that's how it appears on the senate page of active legislation but maybe that was a different version? :what: ).

The Big Fence was part of the Homeland Security bill but that's a different bill than the Port Security and Internet Gambling bill (HR 4954).

The lady from Las Vegas was AWESOME!!
 
ABSOLUTELY PITIFUL!

PARTY......... YEA NAY N/V
Republican.....218...1..12
Democratic.....190...1..10
Independent......1
TOTALS.........409...2..22

So it passed the house with flying colors.

How nice it was to hear so many of them show concern and contempt for the internet gambling amendment, and then vote in favor of it anyway. Assholes.

On to the senate...
 
The Senate already passed it 82-18. They will vote on the compromise bill, and it will pass with flying colors. We didn't have a chance, once it was attached to this Port bill.

Time to look for a job !
 
The House is full of it anyhow... keep in mind that they easily passed their versions of the bill this year and last.

It's the Senate that has always been the stumbling block... so we'll have to watch that. If luck holds, and enough opposition arises to the amendment, they will have to drop it in order to let the Port Security bill become law.
 
Spearmaster,

It already passed the Senate, and the compromise bill will easily pass the Senate again. No one is going to vote down the Ports Bill (even though 18 did, in the 1st go round). This is a given.

The question that arises is how the govt will impose regulation on the banking industry, will it be challenged legally, etc. Regardless, this passage will have a major negative impact on the online Gaming industry, IMO. I'd be surprised if there isn't some major fallout - many people stopping to play, affiliate relationships severed, etc.
 
I am in mourning

I expect a wholesale banning of US players from most casinos/pokerrooms who just dont want to get caught up in the whole mess.

As dhayman stated, even though some aspects of this bill are likely to be challenged legally, masses of US players will just quit playing so they wont have to face the risk of arrest.

This will most likely devastate many sites who cater to US players. Truly a sad day.
 
The US banks have repeatedly protested the unfair and impractical burden these Leach/Frist measures put on them and the difficulties they face in doing the government's job for it...I don't think Leach and company care, and Frist is clearly using this as a political advancement vehicle for himself imo.

Late afternoon yesterday IGN put out an informational note saying this:

"Sources close to IGN are reporting that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has
nearly succeeded in his effort to amend a Port Securities bill with
prohibitive Internet gambling legislation. Frist, R-Tenn., has reportedly
added provisions introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, which target
U.S.-based banks, credit card companies and other Internet payment systems, prohibiting them from making payments to online gambling companies. As of this afternoon, signatures are being collected on the bill.

The amended Port Securities bill need only receive the signature of the President to be enacted."

That has been followed by various statements and reports indicating that this legislation may have passed.

We're still seeking clarity on this, and I will post again if anything useful emerges.

Frist has really pushed this one hard, attempting (as he said he would) to attach his anti-online gambling measure to any "must pass" bill - no matter how irrelevant - he could to avoid it again running out of time and a proper vote or debate in the Senate.
 
Here's a little more on this...

Democrats had accused Republicans of pushing the bill to placate its conservative base, particularly the religious right, in advance of the November 7 elections.

"It's been over 10 years in the making. The enforcement provisions provided by this bill will go a long way to stop these illegal online operations," one of the bill's key backers, Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona, said in a statement.

The agreement, a blend of earlier measures passed by the House and Senate, makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

Efforts to win support for the House version had been opposed by lobbyists representing casino owners and other gambling interests.

The bill would leave out an additional provision of the House bill that would have clarified that a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.

So it looks as if this is more directed at attacking online gambling financial channels than the Wire Act per se.
 
paul02085 said:
I expect a wholesale banning of US players from most casinos/pokerrooms who just dont want to get caught up in the whole mess.

As dhayman stated, even though some aspects of this bill are likely to be challenged legally, masses of US players will just quit playing so they wont have to face the risk of arrest.

This will most likely devastate many sites who cater to US players. Truly a sad day.
Click to expand...

I don't think the players are in any fear of being arrested, the bill is not designed for that purpose. Rather, the players may lose their means of funding their accounts - it is this that will cause the industry to shrink.

Ultimately, the passage of this bill will simply result in the burrowing underground of the industry - basically speaking, prospective players will now have to buy some product (ie. a book) in order to get "free" credits at a casino or poker site. The law cannot prevent this from happening. Plus, the "books" can be legally sold by Amazon et al.

The shortsightedness of the US Congress is astounding. They've just pissed off hundreds of thousands of casino and poker players for nothing.
 
I agree - it is stunning that American politicians can be so deliberately blind to the wishes of millions of voting gamblers.

There's no excuse for this ignorance unless their heads have been totally up their asses these last few months. Or their real agenda lies elsewhere.

And to have to resort to tacking watered down measures to completely unrelated bills (as Frist has done here) imo shows that they knew they were not going to get this through using a truly democratic approach.

I don't believe this will stop Americans from gambling online, although it will certainly hamper the activity and play havoc with gambling stocks in the short term.
 
My very early reading of this suggests that this legislation will not have a significant impact on players - rather, it does place an enormous burden on banks and credit card companies.

I need to read the complete version more closely when my head is not swimming with other stuff. However, I do want to point out one observation: Neteller is NOT an online gambling site by any stretch of the imagination - and thus using ACH or credit card to fund Neteller or any other payment mechanism may not necessarily contravene the law.

What could happen, however, is that banks and credit cards may themselves flag Neteller as risky, just as credit cards started coding gambling transactions as 7995 a few years ago and banks voluntarily blocked these transactions.
 
Story to date

Here's the latest round-up of the situation as far as we can ascertain mid-morning Saturday: other than the Washington Post and newswires the story is still gathering mainstream momentum:

ANTI-ONLINE GAMBLING MEASURE PASSES ON THE BACK OF PORT SECURITY BILL

Political manouevreing a feature of late night voting Friday

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night (Friday) carried out his promise to attach his anti-online gambling measure to any "must pass" legislation available, regardless of relevancy.

After having earlier attempts to attach the measure to defence bills rebuffed, the Senator focused on the Port Security Bill and through some adroit political manouevreing and negotiation managed to attach a compromise measure and thus include it in voting by the House. The compromise measure focused mainly on hampering online gambling financial channels, and dropped amendments to the Wire Act 1961 itself.

Proceedings went on into the early hours of this (Saturday) morning, ending when the vote went overwhelmingly in favour of the Port Security Bill, which carried the compromise internet gaming measure through on its skirts despite reservations by several politicians.

The Port Security Bill and its attachments will now go forward to a voice vote in the Senate, after which bureaucratic process and the President's signature are believed to be the only delays in bringing it to law.

Changes to the Bill, as well as the attachment of the internet gambling provisions, angered some Democrats, who helped craft the original port security legislation but were largely blocked from the final negotiations. The Senate had overwhelmingly approved the authorization of $3.5 billion for mass-transit security grants and $1 billion for freight and passenger rail programs, but House Republicans balked at the cost.

"If Republicans leave town [after] stripping out all the sections protecting major sectors of out transportation sector, God help us if there's an attack," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), whose home-state casinos are split over the Internet gambling measure, briefly weighed scuttling the bill over the provision before agreeing to go along, aides said.

Senate Republican and Democratic leaders announced it would be passed by voice vote after the House's late-night vote.

The online gambling measure, a blend of earlier measures passed by the House and Senate, would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites, however, it falls short of adding clarity to a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.

The banking industry has been insistent that the legislation adds impractical and costly burdens that it may not be capable of carrying , and has already claimed that it would not have any way of monitoring the use of electronic checks for the purposes of betting online.

The banking sector has voiced strong opposition to provisions that require banks to block electronic funds transfers or e-check payments to online gambling sites. These provisions are essentially broad and unenforceable, the banks claim; moreover, even if it were possible to surmount technical obstacles, prospective gamblers could easily use alternative means to finance such transactions.

Frist chose his free ride well. Port security advanced as an issue in Congress this year after an outcry over the Bush administration's decision to allow an Arab company, Dubai Ports World, to buy major U.S. port assets. There were attempts on Friday to add other unrelated amendments, but apart from the Internet gambling provisions, the others were rejected, a top House leadership aide said.

Those rejected included an attempt to shield telephone companies from liability for privacy violations if they supply the U.S. government with access to customer records. This idea came from Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, Republican sources said.

"Our bill is slimming down and I'm very pleased with the port security portions," said Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican and one of the key negotiators on the legislation. But he said lawmakers had considered tacking other pieces of legislation onto the port security bill to try to get them through Congress this year. Bills that are expected to pass, like the ports bill, "become like magnets, they attract a lot of stuff," Lungren explained.

Another proposed add-on, from Senator Dennis Hastert that was rejected would have tightened security at courthouses and stiffened penalties for attacks on judges.

Language that would have added billions more for rail and mass transit security had been stripped out of the port security bill earlier, lawmakers and their aides said. So was language to lift a cap on federal airport security screeners.

The heart of the port security bill deals with cargo container security. Only a fraction of the millions of containers that enter U.S. ports each year are inspected. That has prompted warnings that sea cargo remains a serious security risk, five years after the September 11 attacks.

The issue languished in Congress until earlier this year when lawmakers said they had security concerns Dubai Ports World's acquisitions at six major U.S. ports. To quell the uproar, the company said it would sell the port assets.

The ports bill requires the government to finish installing radiation-screening equipment at 22 major U.S. ports, which handle 98 percent of all containers, by the end of 2007.

It also sets up a pilot program at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of scanning cargo headed for the United States while it is still overseas.

Intense political negotiating preceded the run-up to the voting late on Friday night, with House and Senate negotiators pushing hard to get the legislation approved before heading home this weekend to campaign for November congressional elections in which national security has become a key issue.

Before the voting, Frist claimed: Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time weve watched this shadow industry explode.

For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we cant monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.

The anti-ban Poker Players' Alliance again made a concerted last minute effort to head off the "stealth" introduction of the anti-online gambling measure, circulating members and the media with a last minute appeal to contact their political representatives and protest any ban.

Democrats had accused Republicans of pushing the bill to placate its conservative base, particularly the religious right, in advance of the November 7 elections.

"It's [the anti online gambling measure] been over 10 years in the making. The enforcement provisions provided by this bill will go a long way to stop these illegal online operations," one of the bill's key backers, Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona, said in a statement.
 
they can't pass Internet Gambling Bill via normal routes - go the backdoor way - such low lives, no class - why the American people allow these hooligans to legislate how they spend their money and what they do with their money - man - this is scary - the Republicans are not only conservative but also fanatical - tacking everything they don't like into terrorism. dang. that's so easy.
 
Important notes:

Section 5363 specifically states:

"No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling- ...
Click to expand...

This probably excludes players from being affected by the new legislation unless they are acting on behalf of another person. The burden falls on the BUSINESS.

Effectively, this doesn't change a whole lot, as no (or few) online gambling businesses or their operators or owners are actually located in the US.

Section 5364 effectively means financial institutions bound by US law will be bound to identify and block online gambling transactions, and cannot be held liable for such blocking activity. No part of this section refers to the "business" or the "participant".

Section 5365 refers to civil remedies - the key point here is most likely that interactive computer services (as defined elsewhere, I need to look that up) may be required to remove active links to business which are in violation of section 5363 - effectively meaning that affiliate or other marketing sites may have to remove links or else be shut down.

Section 5366 provides for penalties for violation of 5363 of fines or imprisonment up to 5 years. Keep in mind that 5363 ONLY covers operators.

Section 5367 covers "circumvention" tactics which mean that if any of the entities (financial institutions, service providers etc) has knowledge AND control of a site in violation of 5363, they may be equally liable.

In short - operators subject to US law may not accept funding, and financial institutions and interactive computer services may/must block such transactions.

Players are not affected. Affiliates *may* be affected but I will go read through that later.

Everything above is a PERSONAL opinion. I am NOT a legal adviser and my opinion carries no legal weight - use of the information above is at your OWN risk.
 
With regards to "interactive computer service", the relevant code (47 U.S.C. 230(f)) defines "interactive computer service" as:

(2) Interactive computer service
The term interactive computer service means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
Click to expand...

My reading of this is that ISPs and hosts may be required to remove links. "Interactive content provider" (ie. a webmaster) is separately defined in 230(f)(3) as:

(3) Information content provider
The term information content provider means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, a webmaster is NOT subject to the new law; however an ISP or web host, if directed, may be able to request that a webmaster remove these links.

As above, this is NOT a legal opinion and use of this information is at your OWN risk.
 
Summary:

Businesses which accept wagers from the US are subject to US law - but if you do not travel to a US territory, you cannot be penalized.

Operators located in the US, regardless of whether they accept wagers from the US or not, are also subject to US law.

American citizens who operate such businesses anywhere in the world will definitely be subject to US law if they accept wagers from the US.

Webmasters are not affected by the new legislation IF they move their sites out of the US as they are not directly prohibited from offering information.

Analysis:

Businesses which take bets from the US, as long as they do not enter US territory, or are not owned or operated by US citizens, need not take any further action.

Everything else is the responsibility of financial transaction providers and interactive computer services.

For the LAST time (:)), this is NOT a legal opinion and use of this information is at your OWN risk.
 
In agreement with Casinomeister.

I honestly don't believe this particular bill will do anything other than make banks lose out on interest charges. (Hence they will fight this to the teeth)

It will take a long time to IMPLEMENT - and it currently does not appear to affect the gambler - perhaps the ISP - but not the gambler yet.

I believe this was the most idiotic move made by the US government - allowing foreign financial companies to be making interest rates and conversion fees is ridiculous.

Instead of fighting Online Gambling - the US should be accepting it with open arms and using the taxation on it to feed the starving financial need of the USA.

Sigh - I will see - but I really don't think this is that big of a deal - YET.

I'll have to wait and see if the banks are going to sit down, shut up and take it with vaseline - before I get upset.

You're not talking a paltry amount of money they will be losing - you're talking in the billions of dollars range.

Wager Witch
luckymeki
 
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., made the following statement regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement act:

Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time weve watched this shadow industry explode.

For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we cant monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.
 
All this talk in Congress about online gambling as being "illegal" is basically dog-s**t. Where, oh where, in the mighty US Federal code is online gambling specifically banned? The Wire Act covers only sports bets.

Technically, the internet gambling provision to the Port Bill is already moot because it is in regards to "illegal" online gambling when there is no such thing (except in Louisiana). But ask a Congressman where in the law is online gambling illegal and he'll probably act the same way as a Vatican priest when asked where in the Bible is indulgences is allowed.

With silence.
 
brianzz said:
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., made the following statement regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement act:

“Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society."
Click to expand...

The hipocracy is simply amazing. The 4411 Bill exempts gambling on the horses and on lotteries. How on earth can people think his arguments are credible? How can HE think his arguments are credible? You either ban gambling, or you don't!
 
Clearly, Affiliate sites will be "against the law" in this bill. How it gets implemented will remain to be seen. The latest Gallup polls indicate, that the recent drop in gas prices, has re-energized Bush and his party, and that the Republicans will retain both houses after the November election.

This means, indirectly, that this law will be pushed hard for implementation. Regardless of all the civil liberty cries, I clearly can see this party implementing the following:

1) Force of ISP's to block sites in U.S.;
2) Prevent incoming/outgoing transactions to NETeller, FirePay, etc.;
3) Preventing the Major Credit Cards from accepting and transactions
from a "hitlist" of vendors, including # 2 above;

Seriously, to implement those 3 above, will NOT take a serious amount of work for the vendors involved. It is all the spinoff back-door mechanisms that will result, that will be hard to catch.

If this is all challenged in Supreme Court (and you can bet that it eventually will), it will take years, if at all, to unwind this mess. The American political process has screwed us royally once again.

Time is short; time to diversify. Personally, I know that I don't look good in stripes...............

All in all, no matter how you slice it, this is devastating news.......
 
dhayman said:
Clearly, Affiliate sites will be "against the law" in this bill. How it gets implemented will remain to be seen. The latest Gallup polls indicate, that the recent drop in gas prices, has re-energized Bush and his party, and that the Republicans will retain both houses after the November election.

This means, indirectly, that this law will be pushed hard for implementation. Regardless of all the civil liberty cries, I clearly can see this party implementing the following:

1) Force of ISP's to block sites in U.S.;
2) Prevent incoming/outgoing transactions to NETeller, FirePay, etc.;
3) Preventing the Major Credit Cards from accepting and transactions
from a "hitlist" of vendors, including # 2 above;

Seriously, to implement those 3 above, will NOT take a serious amount of work for the vendors involved. It is all the spinoff back-door mechanisms that will result, that will be hard to catch.

If this is all challenged in Supreme Court (and you can bet that it eventually will), it will take years, if at all, to unwind this mess. The American political process has screwed us royally once again.

Time is short; time to diversify. Personally, I know that I don't look good in stripes...............

All in all, no matter how you slice it, this is devastating news.......
Click to expand...

Actually to be very honest after reading the bill - I'm not exactly sure that it means shutting down gambling online.

I think it has more to do with financial transactions overseas. (Money going out of the USA)

AND I think it might be even a possible move to make online Gambling LEGAL in the US - by making US companies create their own online casinos.

Take a look at page 214 - lines 7 - 17

Then tell me what you think.

Read through it again.

I don't believe this is a hard blow - there are 270 days before it can be enacted - and the banks will fight hardcore about the process because they will not be able to monitor the points.

There is a lot to this bill - but I somehow don't think it's doomsday.

I'm adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
 
Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society."
Click to expand...

Unlike, of course, passing legislation that gives Chimpy McFlightsuit the right to detain whomever he wants, whenever he wants, and torture them for as long as he wants.

Unlike letting the pederastic activities of Florida Representatives go on as long as there's no publicity.

Unlike passing amendments that keep perfectly nice people from marrying simply because of their in common gender..while allowing white supremicists to breed like rabbits.

And, unlike letting us all use any sort of financial transaction method there is to fund Armani-suited televangelists' efforts to blackmail the elderly and weak-minded into giving up every last cent on the notion that they alone keep them from burning eternally.

You're doing a huckuva job there, right-wing-moralistic-authoritarianism!:thumbsup:
 
Both chambers were poised to clear the port legislation by an overwhelmingly margin, meaning the Internet gambling legislation will be sent to the President for signature and bush will sign this bill.

The Senate used a procedural trick to unanimously accept the port legislation immediately upon passage by the House. So, you will not see a recorded vote by any of the US Senators on this gambling bill.

BTW - The senators do this this no vote thing so that they can cover their asses... "What do you mean I'am a bad guy for taking away your freedoms... I did not vote for THAT law..."

It is just a matter of time.

All the casino affiliates had better start taking down their affiliate links or face five years in US federal prison.

The US justice dept. has used far less stringent laws to enforce their prohibition of online gambling...

Word of warning: the sites that are sitting at the top of the search engines (the easy ones to find are going to be the first ones targeted)

Does anyone know if the Cayman Islands offer political asylum???
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Webzcas
Must Read New York Proposes Strict Ban on Online Sweepstakes Games
Replies
1
Views
313
conker
conker
Webzcas
Must Read Mississippi and Maryland Move Closer to Banning Sweepstakes Casinos
Replies
1
Views
318
conker
conker
jetset
Pennsylvania the fourth state to pass online gambling regulatory and licensing measur
Replies
3
Views
3K
samoas
S
maxd
A Visit to the Vault From the Pit to the Podium: Phoenix Awards 2011 & 2015
Replies
0
Views
788
maxd
maxd
nikantw
European Commission and monopoly in online gambling
Replies
6
Views
2K
Valerius
V

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top