Hartley et al, my understanding of the Sessions Bill is that the language it uses declares that any site accepting bets after the UIGEA was passed (namely poker sites like FullTilt and Pokerstars) was breaking federal law, and that's why the PPA opposes it. Because the Cohen case is only applicable to sports betting violating the Wire Act, not poker. And the language of the Sessions bill implies that the UIGEA was a federal law banning all online gambling, which is as we know patently false.
To quote one of the lawyers on 2+2:
"It (The Sessions Bill) is a nice bill for those companies that left the market on Ocotber 10/13/06, they are free from prosecution if it where to pass. LOL at companies like onGame/Bwin who left the market but did so AFTER 10/13/06. And keeping sites like Stars and FTP under the threat of prosecution does not please me as the DOJ continues its payment processor campaign. And that is all the bill actually does.
There is absolutely NO practical benefit to online poker players in this bill, and a mixed message in refusing to acknowledge that poker games offered after 10/13/06 are no more or less illegal than those offered before. That meant a negative score from me."
I would strongly suggest that anyone interested in this story read this thread:
The tide may be turning - Page 3 - Two Plus Two Poker Forum