U.S. House Passes Internet Gambling Bill

[Fredfredson]

U.S. House Passes Internet Gambling Bill

Legislation, if agreed to by Senate, would require banks to block your online gambling payments.

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Tuesday, July 11, 2006

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,126392,00.asp

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House of Representatives today passed legislation that would ban most forms of Internet gambling and require banks to develop systems to block their customer's transactions to gambling Web sites.

By a 317 to 93 vote, the House approved the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, sponsored by Representatives Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, and Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. The bill amends the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits gambling using telephone wires, to include Internet gambling as a prohibited activity. The bill, which would have to pass through the Senate before becoming law, allows states to continue to regulate gambling within their borders.

What's in the Bill?

The bill, opposed by a new group called the Poker Players Alliance, would increase criminal penalties for gambling businesses that settle Internet wagers with credit cards, checks, or fund transfers, and it would require financial institutions to create systems for blocking payments to gambling sites. The bill allows states to continue to regulate gambling within their borders.

The bill is an attempt to stop U.S. gamblers from spending "over $6 billion a year [at] illegal, untaxed sites," Goodlatte said on the House floor. He called Internet gambling a "cash cow" for offshore gambling businesses.

The Poker Players Alliance has criticized the bill for targeting the popular online game. In addition, the bill would "deputize" banks to look into the financial transactions of their customers, the group has said. In addition, the bill does not ban existing online gambling industries such as horse racing and state lotteries, the group said.

The Family Research Council, a conservative religious organization, applauded the House for passing the bill. The bill provides "real protection to American families from destructive and unlawful" Internet gambling, Tom McClusky, the group's vice president for government affairs, said in a statement.

[ninjalooter1701]

Is there something deeper to this? Like people intentionally losing gambling bets at www.pokeralquaeda.com and funding terrorism?

[Underhill]

I'm a freak of nature as a liberal but I think all gambling should be banned for simply being stupid. I think the whole debate is like debating the legality of flushing your money down the toilet.

When I see the lines of low income people spending anywhere from $10-150 a week on lottery tickets I want to smack them and say 'WAKE UP'! I actually hear them hold up a ticket and say things like, "my retirement is right here". And I'm thinking, 'yep, your flushing it right away'. Nobody wins with any gambling accept the people collecting the money. It's that simple.

I don't want to hear even one of those people bitch to me about their financial situation. I may just have a stroke.

At least with drugs and alcohol there is a good feeling involved. Gambling is all the lows with 1 in a million getting the highs!

[potter]

It looks to me like they ar banning it simply because they cannot collect taxes on it.

If you can't tax it, make it illegal.

[Underhill]

Probably. But at least once in a blue moon they do the right thing. Even if it is for the wrong reasons.

[Dave]

I obviously have been following this. It won't get through the Senate, not in time for November at any point. Also the bill in it's current form is bordering on laughable.

[CockySOB]

I dunno Dave. I think the bill has a chance in the Senate, albeit a small one. The real problem will be enforcement of such legislation - which I would consider to be a major problem.

[Dave]

Hmm, the problem is Goodlatte and Kyle have two seperate bills. History suggests they will have to be 'merged' as it were. They have until November to get the bill passed before the session finishes.

From a post on the GPWA:

In short, there are 3 key elements.
The House of Representatives, The Senate, and The President.

Bills can introduced by either a House member, or a Senate member.

Every bill must be passed by the House, and the Senate before it can be sent to the President for the final approval, and passage into LAW.

As an example, you have the Goodlatte bill, {A House Member}, and you have the Kyle Bill, {A Senate Member}
Both bills contain some the same objectives.

When a bill is introduced, it goes to a committee of that Chamber.
They bullshit about it, pros/cons, etc., then approve it, or let it die.
Hence the phrase, "It died in Committee"
If it passes, it then goes to a Judicary Committee which is supposed to determine if the bill is constitutionally acceptable, and they discuss other legal ramifications of the proposed bill, etc., etc..
They can approve it, or send it back down the ladder to be refined.
{This is where the Goodlatte Bill is currently}
His Bill has passed Committee, and is approved by the Judiciary to go to the "Floor" for a Vote by the House.

Whenever they schedule that vote, there will be time allotted for discussion on the floor. Members that support the bill will have the opportunity to speak, and those that oppose it will have the opportunity to speak.
After that debate, they will have a vote.
This is the VOTE that really counts on the House side of things.
If it passes at this point, it will be sent over to the Senate. Much of the same process will now occur in the Senate, as it did in the House.
The Senate generally is tougher on details, and they tend to SCRUTINZE more than House.
If the Senate eventually passes the Bill, it goes to the President.
He can sign it, or Veto it.

Now, in our case, we have a small twist in that Goodlatte, {A House Member}, and Kyle, {A Senate Member}, have introduced similar bills. While not mandatory, those bills will almost certainly have to be reconciled, before anything gets to the President.

So what will probably happen is that if one of their Bills passes in the House, or the Senate, and gets sent to the other side,....the two Branches will try to agree on ONE bill.
If they can do that, {which we hope they can't}, then whatever they wind up with will have to go back to House floor for a vote,....pass, then get sent to Senate,...and pass.

So as you can see, these bills from both Chambers still have a ways to travel.
They have gotten one of these type bills out of the House once, and over to the Senate before.
It was "Delayed" in Senate, {pardon the pun}, and the Session ran out.

Sessions are roughly two years, I believe.
If a bill is not completely approved by both Branches, and sent to the President before the end of a session, it is thrown in the garbage, and the entire process must start all over again in the next session if they want to re-introduce it.

Sometimes bills make it to the Presidents desk, and he doesn't approved it, but doesn't veto it either.
It just sits there until the session ends with no action eitherway.
That's known as a "Pocket Veto"
He didn't say YES, and he didn't say NO.
Sometimes they do this on controversial issues so as not to piss anyone off! LOL

That's basically the procedure. Of course, There are some other things that can happen to a Bill on it's road to the White House, but that's the basic procedure.

Needless to say, all the different Lobbys are in there all along the way trying to influence the votes either for, or against their position on a bill.
That's why it's so critical to have them, and why some are extremely powerful.
It's their job to throw wrenches into the process if they don't want a bill to pass.
Sometimes it's just a matter of throwing enough curve balls to slow the procedure down so time runs out.

In the past, there has not been much support for our cause, and they still have not been able to get anything passed. There does seem to be more support now than there has ever been, and the less political, logical members are starting to step up, and ask for studies on the subject. This is a good thing. We also have the WTO ruling now.
While that doesn't carry a hell of a lot of weight, it isn't something that can't just be totally ignored. So that also adds a little ammunition to our arsenal, too.

[Neko]

[quote=Underhill]I'm a freak of nature as a liberal but I think all gambling should be banned for simply being stupid. I think the whole debate is like debating the legality of flushing your money down the toilet.
quote]

Banning stupidity? Why shouldn't I be able to be stupid if I want to? I want to buy firecrackers and make them into flour bombs. I want to get a tattoo of Paris Hilton's face on my forehead. I want to go fishtailing down carpark ramps in a shopping trolley at 3am. Would you support making these things illegal too?

[Dave]

This is a good read concerning this bill http://www.winneronline.com/articles...nonlineban.htm

[Dave]

Last night in his monologue, David Letterman summed up the feelings of many with his take on the passing of the bill to ban online gambling.....

Letterman said "Congress has just acted to ban internet gambling...yep, they're gonna shut down internet gambling..."

After that, they may look into this North Korea thing...but for now, it's full speed ahead on the internet gambling prohibition."

[Dave]

I have just received the latest InfoPowa Report on Congress passing 4411.

This can be read here: House Votes In Favour of HR4411