Posted on 09/30/2006 9:43:50 AM PDT by Alterboy1964
Congress approves Internet gambling ban bill
By Peter Kaplan Reuters Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:52 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most forms of Internet gambling would be banned under a bill that received final U.S. congressional approval early Saturday.
The House of Representatives and Senate approved the measure and sent it to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
The bill, a compromise between earlier versions passed by the two chambers, would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.
Democrats had accused Republicans of pushing the bill to placate its conservative base, particularly the religious right, before the November 7 congressional 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," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican and a chief sponsor of the measure.
Negotiators from the Republican-led House and Senate reached a deal on the legislation Friday and attached it to unrelated legislation to bolster port security, which the Congress approved.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, recently appeared at a hearing in Iowa -- the state that holds the first presidential nominating contest for the 2008 election -- to listen to concerns about Internet gambling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I realize that while Congress has abused the commerce clause many times since the 1930s, that doesn't mean that it is abusing the clause again with this piece of legislation.
In fact, the federal government has legitimate reasons for banning internet gambling besides its interest in regulating interstate commerce. The biggest reason would that it would be very easy for internet gaming sites to defraud their customers by using software that would only allow the house to win. A particular customer could gamble repeatedly at a website, always lose, and never realize that no one else ever wins either. And it would be very hard for law enforcement to police these sites, much harder than it would be for them to oversee gambline establishments that exist physically within their jurisdictions.
Whether they have a reason to want to is a different issue than whether the original intent of the Commerce Clause grants them the authority to do so.
What's awful, the websites or the buddies?
I'd lay long odd that nobody was twisting your buddies' arms.
I can't see how any bill that stands between me and my money won't end up being abused.
I don't believe they forbade such transactions, they persuaded the CCs, so to speak.
Repaying the Abramoff money?
I see that you are replying to my comment at #10. If you read it, you will see that I said just that. Here it is again should you decide to read it:
The precedent was set when they banned the sale of online cigarette sales by forbidding credit card companies from allowing the transaction.(Perhaps forbidding is too strong a word, because the credit card companies agreed to this in exchange for some favor, but I can't remember what that favor was.)
Then at #212, freeper BritExPatInFla, posted that the favor was bankruptcy reform, which is exactly correct.
You give the politicians waaaaay tooo much credit. They do not know good from bad, right from wrong nor do they care what the people who elected them want. They are there to function on behalf of special interest--no matter if it is a minority.
I didn't think I needed to add a "sarcasm" label, but I guess I did.
So are your buddies too stupid to engage in SELF RESTRAINT?? What ever happened to personal responsibility?
So you support yet another intrusion into the lives of Americans? We're not talking about murdering a baby here. We're talking about TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO SPEND THEIR MONEY. I'm sorry, I'm not a gambler, but I don't support this legislation.
And how pray tell would that be inforced?? More government watchdog programs? Maybe they should make sure we buy enough veggies too.
Are you saying the odds are worse or better live? Just curious as I'm not an online gambler.
All they have to do is relocate to another country. Congress can't stop that!
When its for real money, I would say they odds are the same. In poker you lose the ability to notice "tells" or stare somebody down, but everybody has the same disadvantage.
And its going to be more real, I think, than the play money games, where there is no incentive to not lose. Which is why there are so many "All-In A$$h*l3s" (I call them that because they do that every hand, just to go get more play money after each hand).
(Perhaps forbidding is too strong a word, because the credit card companies agreed to this in exchange for some favor, but I can't remember what that favor was.)
The favors were the new, recent restrictive laws passed on bankruptcy.
Sorry; I have a bad case of foot in front of brain disease. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.