One thing that seemed odd from the reports of the new prohibition to effectively stop online gaming:
The bill going through was about security in ports. At the last minute a provision preventing funds passing through banks and credit card agencies if the funds were for, or from, online gaming was tacked onto it.That, de facto, stops the gaming. Now, that has nothing to do with the main bill. So how was that permitted?

Under the British unwritten constitution that would not be allowed. Our rule is against what we term 'A Town Clerk's Clause'. No bill is to have any provision in it which does not relate directly to its main purpose.

[ Why the name? Because at one time it was nigh on impossible for an ordinary person to get a divorce. That required a private Act of Parliament for each case. So a town clerk who had prepared a lengthy, dull bill concerning something to do with some town matter, like drainage or sewage, craftily added a clause saying 'And [the town clerk of..] is hereby divorced' ]

It is my understanding that this type of thing, whether right or wrong in the grand scheme (my vote is for the latter), happens all of the time in this here country.

It does. Rcently, the Republicans forced a vote on raising the minimum wage. Amazingly, they supported it, and even more amazingly, the Democrats voted against it. It seems the Republicans attached a provision to the bill which eliminated the estate tax, something that would benefit only those estates of more than a million dollars. The Republican said that it was only fair that if the poor got a break, then those at the other end of the financial spectrum got a break, too. The bill was, of course, defeated, as the Republicans knew it would be.

Now, you will see many Republicans campaigning with the words "I supported raising the minimu wage bill, but my opponent voted against raising the minimum wage", implying that somehow, the candidate actually cares about the working poor. One of America's many shames is that many people will buy that BS.