BUT, keeping the comment periods out of the lame duck period would allow voters to punish the party making what are controversial/vote-losing regulations. Simply put, important everyday government responsibilities and functions are subjected to partisan screwing that would not otherwise happen IF voters knew about them in time to sway votes. As it stands now every outgoing presidency flips a big fat finger at the incoming administration and the country this way.

It does not mean paying a fee to participate is not betting, simply it is not considered a "bet' or "wager" as defined by UIGEA.

Yes, they have defined parameters, thus the Federal Trade Commision standards apply (skill games subsection of the sweepstakes rules.

Also, you are forgetting, "contests", in your answer, specifically from UIGEA:



`Sec. 5362. Definitions

• ←→
  `In this subchapter:
  
  • ←→
    `(1) BET OR WAGER- The term `bet or wager'--
    

`(E) does not include--

(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions.......

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4954

obg

http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/...licy-42301.htm


what do u guys make of thisz...sounds pretty good

" Any regulations that are being imposed for "overtly political" reasons stand to be swiftly withdrawn."

Whoever wrote this article either misunderstands the word swiftly when it comes to regulatory changes or does not realize the procedures required. They may eventually be replaced but will remain in effect for a very long time if the past quoted timelines for their implementation are accurate. Even new regulations would still need to comply with the law as passed by congress. A successful court challenge may be the quickest method.

Jimbo

The two things are apples and oranges. What the new Administration is looking at are executive orders and policies. The regulations we're expecting are the result of legislation. These aren't going to be turned over by Executive Order Number One.

No matter how bad the law, it's still a law.

Well stated, even Obama doesn't seem to realize he cannot overturn a law by an executive order:

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/200...nt-obama-says/

Nor is the Executive branch charged with determining the constitutionally of a law passed by Congress and signed by a President. That authority rests with the Judicial branch. Didn't he teach constitutional law?

Jimbo

Exactly, unless they are published after Nov. 20, 2008 thus taking effect after the new administration takes office.

Other options do exist, provided this issue is even on Obama's teams agenda.

obg

Executives orders only, yes.

While laws themselves cannot be simply overturned seems many or most laws passed during the Bush administration were acclompanied by "signing" statements or rules of intrepretation on how they should / should not be followed according to Bush, these quasi "laws" or statements can be over turned by his views.

signing Statements Bush:

http://bushsigningstatements.com/

obg

Whatever happened to Alfonse Damato. I thought he was going to be the savior of online poker. Did he just collect a paycheck and run? Useless

I'm curious to hear how you think he could have stopped development of the regs. Perhaps the PPA should hire you as a consultant.

Re: signing statements

These seem to have become a real part of the Bush legacy. When did this become common practice and can someone point to this practice in the Constitution?

I thought Congress passed laws and the Administration executed the laws, not as a quasi-judicial branch.

Signing statements began in 1803. The absolute number and effect of Bush's signing statements is overblown, most of them are just honorable mentions of cool little sayings, like a greeting card.

Jimbo

In case nobody has posted it yet, from the PPA today:

Just one week after a historic election the Poker Players Alliance is pitted in a fight to keep anti-Internet poker regulations from being enacted and we NEED YOUR HELP!

The current Administration is hastily finalizing a number of “midnight rules” before they leave office and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) is on the list. See the 11/06 story in Dow Jones. Just like UIGEA was snuck into legislation in the dark of night in 2006, our opponents are again trying an 11th hour sneak job. We need you to help us expose and stop this reckless rulemaking.

Please call the U.S. Federal Reserve and tell them not to approve the UIGEA regulations -- Consumer Complaints, 888-851-1920 or Public Affairs, 202-452-2955.

Tell them:
• The federal agencies responsible for our nation’s economy should not be focused on Internet poker regulations.
• Finalization of the UIGEA rules will add additional burdens on our already crippled financial systems.
• Internet poker is a game of skill and form of recreation for millions of Americans; it should be exempted from the UIGEA.
• Please do not finalize the UIGEA regulations until their impact on our banking systems and average Americans has been fully studied.

Tell us how the call went by clicking here.

Your call will make a huge difference and will add the public’s voice to these last minute policy decisions our government is poised to make. We can’t stand idly by while they make decisions that will impact our right to play America’s card game. PLEASE CALL TODAY!

Proud to play,
Alfonse D’Amato, Chairman
Poker Players Alliance

Materials submitted to the OMB from Friday 11/7 meeting

Those guys sound smart. Is there any reason why all four of the documents listed there are in favor of stopping this from happening? Not sure exactly what site this is, but itd be nice if there was nothing submitted to them in favor of these regulations.