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.

Poker: a dangerous illegal hobby.

Assault Weapons: a safe hobby/sport, suitable for even your 5 year old son/daughter.


And you also gotta love the irony of a Republican Senator from Arkansas whose name is "Cotton".

I don't see how this bill can be taken seriously.

Even if it were to somehow get passed in the lame duck session of Congress, a giant stretch of the imagination considering the lack of debate on the issue thus far, it wouldn't change anything.

Short of explicitly amending the Wire Act with language that is not ambiguous, it is still subject to interpretation. The DoJ would have to bring a case against NJ, NV, and DE (unlikely regardless of who wins in November) and then demonstrate the Wire Act applies to online gaming as offered. A judge is going to have to make a ruling on the application of the Wire Act, a ruling that could/would be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The DoJ isn't going to bring a case where they don't believe the law applies. This bill is meaningless.

I suspect this was a quid pro quo for Uncle Shelly, so he'd throw some millions to the Congressional GOP, who are holding on for their lives

I think it's a play for the next AG to take action. It could also be a placeholder for an excuse to add something to lame duck legislation.

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

He should look into hiring someone to help him name his bills.

The DOJ is still the one who has to interpret the Wire Act to determine if they want to bring any charges against anyone. If their interpretation is the same, all they have to do is either (1) nothing; or (2) if they feel like it, pull up the September 20, 2011 memorandum opinion in Microsoft Word on their computer, change the date to the present, print it out and sign it. And if their interpretation is different, they could reverse their course without this bill anyway.

I don't really get what Tom thinks is the point of this bill, unless it is for show for political reasons.

Well, Adelson has a letter signed by 8 state AGs in opposition to the 2011 DoJ findings. If the next president were to choose an AG from that list, Adelson could 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?

This bill, as it is currently written, means nothing. It does not change any federal statutes, nor add any new ones. Legislative bills need language to do one or both of those or they will not change or add to the current laws. This bill does not have such language. It is either a political show or a placeholder for real legislative language.

That could happen without this bill though. The important variable there is there being a new AG who interprets the Wire Act differently. This bill doesn't really do anything.

Both are freedom issues. And both issues get demagogued. It is kind of hard to take make a consistent case for poker when you do the same thing on assault weapons that Tom Cotton does on poker.

There are no Republicans advocating 5 yr olds shoot what would be considered assault weapons. And assault weapons kill between 100-200 people a year, or a fraction of the amount of people who die from shower slip and falls. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/su...apon-myth.html

Something I shared in NVG:

Actually, it is designed to look like it does nothing, like the bill to defund President Obama's teleprompter. However, it's a true wolf in sheep's clothing.

It would do one thing immediately. It would push financial institutions away from processing any online gaming transactions. These businesses are very risk-averse when it comes to government compliance. Expect them to take new legislation on gaming very seriously.

Next, it opens the door to revisiting the 2011 DoJ findings on the scope of the Wire Act. It does this by definition, as it's a new law. The DoJ does not HAVE to open a new review, but this bill will give them the ability to choose to do so.

How worried should we be about the next attorney general? Well, Sheldon Adelson has a letter signed by eight state AGs in opposition to the 2011 DoJ findings. So, it's not like the next president would have to impose a litmus test on his or her nominee. Rather, it would simply be a matter of choosing from the list.

Speaking of that nominee, he or she will go before the Senate for confirmation, where the last few nominees have been asked about Internet gaming by online gaming opponents like Sen. Lindsey Graham. You can expect the next AG to go through that. This, plus new legislation, could leave this person feeling empowered by Congress to root out what is being touted as lawmaking by the Obama administration.

None of this would force states to shut down online poker. They could go to court, but it would be problematic.