-
28 July 2010, 9:35 am
#41
The "unnamed" representative was Campbell, a Republican from California.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:37 am
#42
Rep. Kilroy is offering an amendment that would ban inappropriate advertising for online gambling properties. She's specifically mentioned targeting keywords/search terms for used by kids and problem gamblers.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:37 am
#43
The amendment passed with no debate.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:38 am
#44
The Bachus-Bachman amendment is up now.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:42 am
#45
Bachus reiterates he opposes the bill. But he wants to limit the damage it does if it moves forward. He wants all online gambling firms who have knowingly taken bets from Americans on poker, casino, sports betting or casinos, explicitly banned from participation from any new regulatory scheme.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:43 am
#46
Frank doesn't like the fact that the bar applies to employees. Says putting a lifetime ban on lower level employees doesn't make sense.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:45 am
#47
Frank says it violates the principles of fairness. Says a janitor shouldn't be culpable for the crimes committed by a company. Bachus seems pretty smug about this.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:46 am
#48
Frank is skewering Bachus right now for being an incompetent nitwit.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:48 am
#49
Bachman is jumping in to defend Bacchus. I don't think it's in Congress' interests to provide outs for criminals.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:49 am
#50
Frank reiterates there is know presumption of innocence.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:49 am
#51
Sherman says the amendment lacks due diligence clauses.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:50 am
#52
Sherman says unintentional violations of law should be exempted.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:52 am
#53
The amendment has been withdrawn without prejudice and can be resubmitted.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:52 am
#54
Bacca amendment is up now.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:53 am
#55
The Bacca amendment would ensure Native American tribes could participate in offering online gambling.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:54 am
#56
Frank just cut Bacca off, saying the amendment is non-germane because the committee doesn't have jurisdiction over the Johnson act.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:54 am
#57
Bacca's second amendment would require states to opt into the system instead of opting out of the system.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:56 am
#58
Basically, he says states count on gambling revenue too much to be an opt out instead of an opt in.
-
-
28 July 2010, 9:59 am
#59
Bachus likes this amendment. He likes the opt in. It's much stronger he says. "If we're going to legalize gambling on every iPod in America," this bill sweeps away the state's rights to enforce. "At least what we ought to do is before a state has to accept a federal mandate that would allow gambling in every house, that state should opt in." Bachus also doesn't like the 90-day opt out period saying many legislatures won't even meet within 90 days after this bill is passed (That's actually a valid point).
-
-
28 July 2010, 10:00 am
#60
Sherman says he will have an amendment that changes the time frame surrounding opting out.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules