Witness the birth of the "Poker lobby"

[cartman]

hxxp://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193700297&subSection=Breaking+News

On of the targets of online poker player's wrath was Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa. He was the one that sponsored the house bill to ban financial transactions related to online wagering. Since Frist was leaving the Senate, Leach got the full brunt of the backlash. He was not re-elected to the House. Who knows how much, if any, the poker opposition weighed in on his defeat, but it certainly won't deter the emerging Poker Lobby from continuing their efforts.

[Fighter of Foo]

AKA the leave people the **** alone coalition?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

AKA the leave people the **** alone coalition?

This is a political slogan I can fully get behind.

[stevew]

Glad that someone paid the price for this legislative stupidity. I wonder how many people the ban was the "last straw" for them in who they decided to vote for?

[dixieflatline]

A little late aren't they? Where were they when the bill came up in the first place? Believe me, now this bill is law it will be much harder to overturn than it was to pass.

[Subby]

Haha. What a load of crap.

That election had absolutely nothing to do with on-line gambling and everything to do with discontent with Bush and the Republican party.

I don't think there could possibly be a less effective lobbying organization than the Poker Players Alliance...

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Subby

I don't think there could possibly be a less effective lobbying organization than the Poker Players Alliance...

I don't know. They were effective in giving me $5 and a free t-shirt. (Party gave a $25 bonus for a $20 donation to the PPA.)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

AKA the leave people the **** alone coalition?

That's an interesting way of putting it, but that concept is one of the central tenets of libertarianism.

[Icy]

Umm as i don't know anything about USA politics, I want to ask you this, guys.

Could this affect the law? Can it be removed of softened?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Icy

Umm as i don't know anything about USA politics, I want to ask you this, guys.

Could this affect the law? Can it be removed of softened?

The newly elected officials would have to pass a new law that cancels the old law. Then the President would have to sign the new law.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by cartman

The newly elected officials would have to pass a new law that cancels the old law. Then the President would have to sign the new law.

And i guess that is not in their inmediate plans, or have the democrats said anything about it? have they been critics in the past when it was aproved?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by cartman

The newly elected officials would have to pass a new law that cancels the old law. Then the President would have to sign the new law.

I suppose Congress could also pressure the federal regulators promulgating the rules relating to the legislation to craft less restrictive regulations.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by digamma

I don't know. They were effective in giving me $5 and a free t-shirt. (Party gave a $25 bonus for a $20 donation to the PPA.)

You should have held out for capri pants.

THAZ WHAT ALL THE BALLERZ ARRE WEARIN' THIS SEASON, YO!

[famatu]

Originally Posted by Icy

And i guess that is not in their inmediate plans, or have the democrats said anything about it? have they been critics in the past when it was aproved?

Considering the president signed the old law, I would assume he would not sign a new law repealing the old one he just signed.

[kcchief19]

It would be very simple to tack a repeal of the law onto another bill. I don't know if it will happen quickly, because I doubt that Democrats are eager to make online gambling one of the first bills out of the spigot.

[Subby]

Gambling is an easy thing to oppose, particularly when you start dropping buzz words like money laundering and terrorism. I seriously doubt the Dems want to have anything to do with it - too easy to sound byte the repeal in the '08 elections.

The only way this gets repealed is if the financial services lobby starts pushing hard...

[dixieflatline]

Originally Posted by Subby

Gambling is an easy thing to oppose, particularly when you start dropping buzz words like money laundering and terrorism. I seriously doubt the Dems want to have anything to do with it - too easy to sound byte the repeal in the '08 elections.

The only way this gets repealed is if the financial services lobby starts pushing hard...

Don't forget that online gambling hurts families. Luckily for us online lotto, online horse betting, and online futures markets are pro family, anti-terrorist, and anti-RICO. There is a zero percent chance the Dems touch this.

I do think there is a chance that the WTO stepping in might also help. The Antigua case just didn't have enough teeth behind it but several of these sites are base in the UK and that might make a difference. Not holding my breath though.

[cartman]

I just find it interesting that the argument that the Republicans use against tax hikes is that "the Democrats think they know how to spend your money better than you do". The recently passed legislation sure sounds to me like the powers that be seem to think they know how I should spend my money.