arty: 
David,
If there are different bills in the House and Senate, then it goes to reconciliation and a compromise has to be hammered out. If Shrink's info is correct, then the current system is probably safe for the time being. We'll just have to see what happens when (or if) it comes back. This is definitely good news though.
If there are different bills in the House and Senate, then it goes to reconciliation and a compromise has to be hammered out. If Shrink's info is correct, then the current system is probably safe for the time being. We'll just have to see what happens when (or if) it comes back. This is definitely good news though.
The banks are NOT happy with this stupid bill. It places all the risk and penalties on them. It would require millions of dollars of investments in their software and tracking systems. The bank lobby has been working hard to beat it. The Feds want to control gambling and force private businesses to do the work while threatening them with penalties of they fail. The thing never had a chance. If it did somehow pass, the banks would tie it up in court. Such bullshit.
k: 
From what I was told only the House version ever had it since it was only Oxley pushing it. Even though it got hyped here, this was one of the least consequential amendment out there from a big picture perspective. Don't forget outside our circle no one really gives a damn about online bettors except the friggin religious right. Write them a letter telling them too bad their latest morality challenge got shot down...yet again.
