Bill Moves Forward To Re-Legalize Online Poker

from the ante-up dept

Looks like having poker lobbyists setting poker tables at both presidential conventions this year was effective. A new bill is successfully moving its way through Congress that would effectively re-legalize online poker, reversing a law passed two years ago that made it illegal for financial institutions to accept payment for online gambling (all in the name of national security, of course).

Of course, the new legislation would also add some regulations to online gambling, banning wagers on sports — though, of course carving out an exception for the time of sports gambling that politicians engage in: jai-lai, horse racing and dog racing — which would remain legal). Rep. Barney Frank who introduced the bill, noted: “Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do.” Of course, if that’s the case, why can’t they also wager on sports? Either way, considering the number of folks who have jumped through all sorts of hoops to continue playing poker online, this seems like a step in the right direction.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Bill Moves Forward To Re-Legalize Online Poker”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Cyryl says:

Re: Who Cares . . .

Ummm… Doesn’t it occur to you that the reason NO ONE has any money…is because there is no economy?

And WHY do you suppose that is?

STUPID SHIT such as banning gambling. Especially online. What you don’t seem to know is that a good deal of that money actually goes into our now-shitty economy.

You’re putting the cart before the horse.

Sam C says:

Re: Adults and their money

Absolutely. Even though It seems you were just after some sort of clever quip, you hit on an important topic. People have every right to do what they want, as long as it does not harm themselves. Certainly playing poker online fits within this category.

If prostitutes wish to sell their body for money, that is their business. Who are you to judge.

And by the way, tobacco deaths this year were over 440,000. Marijuana deaths were 0, just as they were for each of the previous 5000 years.

HFC says:

A step in the right direction.

This is a step, but a small step. Why restrict gambling at all? The bill should allow for all types of online gambling. Why can’t I bet on a football game, if I want to? Why horse and dog racing, but not human races? I should be able to place a wager on outcomes of TV game shows, golf tournaments, jai-lai, elections or the weather if I want to.

Dosquatch says:

Re: Re: Vote on this bill

The kneejerk reaction doesn’t really surprise me, given that so much legislation over the past few years has been so completely anti-consumer, anti-freedom, anti-citizen. If you don’t feel like wading through the legalese, voting “No” seems like a safe bet.

Just the same, though, if you don’t have an informed opinion, maybe voting ain’t your bag?

Hulser says:

Re: Vote on this bill

This is the 2nd TechDirt article I’ve seen recently that was for a bill, where the majority of the comments were also for the bill, but the vote survey was against it.

Don’t take this the wrong way but the oversimplified “for/against” mentality is one of the more dangerous aspects of politics. It’s what leads to pithy sound bites rather than substantive statements.

For example, you can be against online gambling restrictions and still not be for this bill because you disagree with the exceptions. If you vote yes for what you consider to be a fatal compromise, then you basically give up on your chance to get the bill you really want passed.

Maybe there’s already a way to do this, but I would like the ability to not only look up how my representatives vote, but their reasons. How hard would it be to allow for a (short) optional Reason field when voting? (I know. I know. Harder than you’d think.)

no more bills (profile) says:

Re: On Line Gambling

Or you could see it as an attempt to ON-SHORE a multi-billion dollar industry, instead of driving it offshore and underground.

Just saying the major online poker providers started out as US companies, and moved to “friendlier” climes to circumvent the laws only after they were forced to.

Again, I’m struck by a realization (that I’m sure NO ONE has EVER had before): “Prohibition creates crime!”

Dan says:

Bill Moves Forward To Re-Legalize Online Poker

I’m all for it as lone as gambling winnings are taxed just like the lotto and casino winning. Land of the free but you can’t play online poker??? Talk about big government.
The states rip citizens off every day with their lotto and scratchoffs but we can’t play online poker?
Where is the justice? Power to the people…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...