Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has introduced new anti-online poker bill S.3376: "A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers." Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are cosponsors.

The title of that bill reads like it was negotiated by government committee.

lobbyists gonna lobby

corruptors gonna corrupt

Text of bill is blank at this point. Is it known yet?

a truly awful name for a bill. just off the top of my head, i've got:

the return to safe america act
the comprehensive internet anti crime protection authorization
the child home protection and financial security act
the ronald w reagan american home safety to stop obama now act

it's too easy. these guys are complete jokers

This is from the PPA

http://theppa.org/static/pdf/cotton_bill.pdf

It says the DoJ opinion of 2011 cannot be used to interpret the Wire Act


Problem as I see it, it would be the DoJ to bring a case for Wire Act violations, so . . . .

if the DoJ is of the opinion that ipoker doesn't violate the Wire Act, they aren't going to enforce it as such.

I suppose the hope is that POTUS Trump would order the AG to shut down online poker sites currently licensed in US states, but ....

many a slip twixt a cup and lip

I don't think the president can order the AG to take action like that. However, keep in mind that Adelson has a letter signed by 8 state AGs in opposition to the 2011 DoJ findings. Just choose an AG from that list, generate a couple of hearings on a poker ban, get Graham to question the AG nominee on what he deems to be the DoJ making laws, and who knows?

Sen. Cotton's anti-online poker bill, in its entirety:

************************

114TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION

S.3376 - A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. LEE, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on _______.

A BILL

To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

The Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, dated September 20, 2011, shall have no force or effect for the purposes of interpreting section 5362(10) of title 31, United States Code.

*************************

See the original at http://theppa.org/static/pdf/cotton_bill.pdf

You could ask Elliot Richardson and Robert Bork, but they're both dead:

"Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department), to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to Congressional oversight committees that they would not interfere, but Bork had not. Although Bork would later claim that he believed Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he still considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job."[6] Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as Acting Attorney General, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox.[7] Initially, the White House claimed to have fired Ruckelshaus, but as The Washington Post article written the next day pointed out, "The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Has the PPA come out publicly to oppose this bill ?

Yep. In fact, my questioning of the ability of the president to order the AG to take action came from changes made in the aftermath of Nixon's actions. I don't know where current law is on that.

That being said, that list of 8 AGs who already say they disagree with the findings probably renders this moot. Why put in someone hostile when it's not necessary, assuming the next president wishes to overturn the 2011 findings?

Yes, we strongly oppose this bill.

The money we save on this bill could buy every American their own gun. ####ing conservative A holes. We want small government and no regulations, except of course when we want to tell you what to do with your time, money, and reproductive organs. Just cuz we are God fearn Americans. It is almost funny now how friggging stupid and arrogant they are. Oh, and don't forget it's good business to not pay taxes and complain how bad our roads are too. Okay, my zanax has settled in. Still meant every last word though. So vote Trump. Make Merica 1957 again.
Somehow I get the feeling I will be told this isn't the proper venue for my rant.

What does the bill do?

This clown will be running for President in 2020.

sponsored by Sheldon Adelson? probably

Yep, $20 million.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/28/senate-republicans-revive-legislation-to-ban-online-gambling/

maybe its time we get off our ass and do something productive :/

It's gonna be great when all these baby boomers finally leave office, can't ****ing wait.

If Cotton is who I think he is...
a. He's not a boomer. I am 60 and the boomers are 95% older than myself. He is I believe 40ish. +/-
B. I believe he is gearing up for a 2020 run.
To be a true boomer I think you probably have to be at least 57. Pre-1960. Not scientific, but...
Saw an awesome video at my work before I just retired explaining the different generations, the post ww2, boomers, gen X, and millennial. Kind of how to work with your fellow little beaters. It was extremely informative and explained why people think like they do.

ahhh my bad i assumed he was 60+ i guess he's Gen X then. My experience is mostly with Boomers (my parents and relatives) and Millenials so IDK how Gen X thinks.

"A bill to ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers."

Seriously what does that even mean? Federal Government lawyers can make any opinion a law?

What this kind of Bill is NOT about

Morality of Gambling
Protecting Children
Protecting Families
Protecting American Values
Doing what Jesus wants

It IS about putting more money in a few rich Aristocrats pockets
by a few ( paid for senators). That is ALL this is about.

Next hand

As currently written, nothing really.

See the Poker Legislation thread about this bill:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...-bill-1630639/


Political showmanship though I guess.