Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

[managra]

Recommend everyone reading the WSJ article quoted in The Professor's post. If you do, please don't forget to vote on the poll there about whether internet gambling should be banned (it will take only 3 seconds and every little bit helps).

Early on in this thread some poster mentioned that the industry has been experiencing these threats numerous times and collectively staged a response. So, presumably there is know-how on how to approach the current threat collectively and in the most effective manner possible.

I just hope this thread isn't a good example of such collective action. Action type posts got buried, and overlooked, between numerous posts that had not much, or nothing, to do with this topic. Well-meaning posters have been ridiculed by people soliciting them to take action. Yeah, you really stir people into action by offending them because they make suggestions to collectively come up with a better product! This was followed by pages commenting whether the ridicule was justified or not. Many opinions were voiced that the current situation was serious only to be followed by other posts saying that there's not much to worry about it. It only creates confusion and induces readers . . . to do nothing.

You want action?

-Start with a new thread that discuss the problem (which is described in the WSJ article. The problem is NOT that Adelphia cut off access to gaming sites for a few hours last week; so don't bring it up again, please).
-Describe in this thread what action would be desired by anyone visiting CM (don't overlook the lurkers!).
-Post a good draft of a letter/email to be used by readers and give this letter a good title for the email's subject line so that it will not be tossed by the recipient.
-Post email addresses of everyone to whom the letter/email should be/could be sent
-Closely monitor this thread and move all unnecessary posts to another thread.
-Email the link of this new thread to ALL registered CM users, at a minimum to those from the US, and ask them to please visit the thread in view of the gravity of the situation.
-Consider the impact of passing this proposed legislation on non-US players and explain what action, if any, they could take.

If you want action, use all the resources you can get, stop bickering, leave the big ego at home, and, by all means, treat everyone with respect.

[jetset]

Well considered post and a sound idea to keep attention tightly focused on fighting the efforts of Goodlatte, Leach and Kyl to ban online gambling in the USA.

In the past organisations like the IGC framed draft letters to politicians and widely publicised awareness and possible counter-measures.

Perhaps they are gearing up for that again at present, but that does not stop individuals who feel strongly about the principles and possible repercussions of this sort of legislation from taking independent action.

[sdaddy]

Professor,

Thanks for the link to the WSJ article. Reading that really did raise my awareness of how energized the opponents of internet gambling are in the US Congress this year. I've been procrastinating, but I'll be getting an email off to my representative ASAP expressing my strong opposition to HR 4777. I also concur with all the sentiments about trying to put our differences aside and uniting in this effort.


As far as my earlier post that my Adelphia PA service might be blocking Bellerock casino downloads, I now don't believe that's what's going on. I was getting this error when clicking the download link:

Your client sent a request that this server didn't understand.
Request: VT=429317289&url=
http://66.212.235.247/Download/TempD...loadhelper.exe

However, I found that when I manually copy URL for the download file into my browser I can successfully start the download. I'm still not sure why I don't have to do that from my work ISP, but there's apparently no filtering going on in this case.

[Cynthia777]

You may want to save this link in your "Favorites" folder. It is a daily roll-call of the votes made by the Members of the House of Representatives (number of "yeas", "nays", and "not voting".

It updates daily, and lists the issue/proposal voted on (the one vital to us will be H.R. 4777, of course). To see the specific tally of votes, click on the "Roll" number (first column). I still have not noticed anything yet, and I worked on the Daily Digest last night. Just thought I would provide this for the members, if you want to check periodically, on the status of the proposed bill.


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp

[managra]

It updates daily, and lists the issue/proposal voted on (the one vital to us will be H.R. 4777, of course). To see the specific tally of votes, click on the "Roll" number (first column). I still have not noticed anything yet, and I worked on the Daily Digest last night. Just thought I would provide this for the members, if you want to check periodically, on the status of the proposed bill.


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp

Thanks, Cynthia, for posting this link. What does the roll call mean exactly? Should we try to email appropriate people before this roll call or wait until then? Just trying to ascertain what timeframe and what window of opportunity (to speak out) we have and what would be the most effective time to email.

Jetset, much respected here and very knowledgeable about the industry, posted that in the past the IGC et al raised awareness and published draft letters but he is unaware whether a similar effort is being mounted by them at present. This, again, might induce people to wait until the IGC comes up with some directives and loudly sounds the alarm. HR4777 is quite dangerous given the current climate in which outright banning of internet gambling might finally be passed. Yet, i don't sense a great sense of urgency to do something from what i have been reading in this thread. What's your take on it, Cynthia?

[Cynthia777]

The Roll Call in the House of Representatives is an electronic voting machine that is used by each member in attendance (and some not physically present under special circumstances) to which they vote in favor of, or NOT in favor of, the proposed bill. A member can also decide to not cast their vote either way and just list "present" for their attendance. However, before the proposed bill can pass through the House and onto the next step in legislation, it has to be approved (voted YEA) by three-fifths of the Members.

It then goes onto the Senate for review and approval/disapproval, but generally has to have UNANIMOUS approval (this is where the likelihood of NOT passing the bill, or at least major time delays can happen - Senate can make changes/amendments to it, then would have to go BACK to the House for review, put on a calendar (future date) for review, and possibly conference between the two houses (House of Reps. and Senate).

If the Senate should have unanimous approval without further consideration (it takes only one Senator to have a slight reservation, or want to amend some part of that bill) ... it would then go onto Budget Review and presentation to the President to approve or veto the bill (he has 10 days to do this, or if he does not sign action either way within the allotted time frame of 10 days, it automatically passes). It is stated that if a bill is not of a controversial nature (AND WE KNOW THIS IS NOT THE CASE! ... does it usually receive unanimous approval by the Senate and goes through "without a hitch", so to speak...

The time to take action as far as presenting our opposition is now, while it is under review by the subcommittees and task forces, so I would hope that everyone is getting their letters together. Another word of advice, is better to send your correspondence via email, because of the heightened security measures in the Washington, DC, paper mail may be delayed (I personally would send both, even if it is delayed, it is still early, but at least you have your email responses in, and with the addition of the paper mail, this produces more volume of responses of opposition to this.)

If a public hearing is arranged, the House has to give at least one week's notice before it takes place. I have not seen anything yet as far as dates, and I have checked various calendars and subcommittees. I will keep an eye out on this, and post as soon as I can make it available, and it certainly doesn't hurt for the members here to check those website links I provided earlier, in case I can't get to post here in time enough, etc.

There is quite a bit of work still to be done in the process before it goes to the House and voted by Roll Call. We are somewhere around step 5-6 of the Legislative process and the Roll Call is Step 11.

I have no doubt that organizations such as IGC will more than likely draft their opposition this time around as well. I have checked their site and the latest press release I noticed was Feb. 2006 when this bill was presented again, so I am sure that if they haven't already done so, it is in the works.

[Casinomeister]

Thanks Cynthia777, some great posts there.

Here is another link that members can use to voice their opinion to their representatives.
http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersallian...lertid=8522976

This is from "Poker Players Alliance" and the text is primarily poker focused, but you can edit this at will: fill out the address, choose "email" or "snail mail" and send it - it automatically goes to your rep. Pretty nifty.

I would suggest people personalize their letters. You don't want these reps think that they are receiving some poker/casino spam

[Casinomeister]

Okay,

I've moved the postings that pertain directly to the Internet Prohibition Act to this new thread. If you want to keep commenting on the possible ISP blocking, US Constitution debate, APCW meltdown whatever, feel free to continue to post this stuff in the other thread. I want to use this thread as reference and discussion on the Internet Prohibition Act only. Thanks!

[sdaddy]

I think we need to keep our eye on the US Senate now too. There's a report in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal that Senator Kyl may introduce a similar ban this week on the Senate floor.

Foes of Web gambling plan legislative move

Mar. 08, 2006 | Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

WASHINGTON -- Supporters of an Internet gambling ban may try this week to add the prohibition to lobbying reform legislation on the Senate floor.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., on Tuesday, said he may offer an online wagering ban amendment as early as today.

Online gambling revenues reached $10.9 billion in 2005, according to the research firm eMarketer. The exact number of gambling Web sites is uncertain, but the total is believed much higher than the 1,800 that existed in 2000.

Kyl, who has been trying to outlaw Internet gambling for more than a decade, was asked if the industry may have become too large and powerful to be banned.

"That is a concern," he said.

Meanwhile, Kyl has gained a Democratic ally -- Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- in pushing for an Internet gambling ban.

"Basically, the way the Internet has functioned is that it's really opened a lot of communities -- a lot of people to gambling that otherwise they couldn't do," Pryor said.

One of the reasons Kyl and other lawmakers are renewing efforts to ban Internet gambling is the fall of Jack Abramoff, a once-powerful lobbyist who pleaded guilty in January to three felonies in a fraud and bribery case.

Abramoff, who is cooperating in a federal investigation of corruption in Congress, has been accused of killing a House bill in 2000 by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., that would have banned online wagering.

Abramoff collaborated with an aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to defeat the proposed ban because it would have put one of his clients out of business, according to the Washington Post.

Ironically, DeLay is one of 118 co-sponsors of Goodlatte's bill this year.

Goodlatte re-introduced his bill on Feb. 16, saying Abramoff had been responsible for "widespread disinformation" about the 2000 measure.

Pryor said he agrees.

"It did appear that there were clearly some shenanigans on the House side perpetuated by Abramoff and (Republican consultant) Ralph Reed and others that basically cost the bill its passage," Pryor said.

Sharyn Stein, a spokeswoman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, said he will not decide how he will vote on the Kyl-Pryor amendment until he has had a chance to review it.

"In the past, Senator Reid has opposed Internet gambling because he has not been convinced it can be regulated by the same strict standards as casinos in Nevada," Stein said.

Calls to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., were not returned.

Find this article at:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...s/6249960.html

[sdaddy]

Cynthia,

Do you know what's going on with this Kyl amendment at present? I caught the end of the Senate session today when leader Frist announced that the lobbying reform bill was being held up because of efforts to introduce a non-germane amendment. He said that a cloture vote was therefore being filed for Friday.

Was that in fact the Kyl amendment on internet gambling that Frist was referring to? If so, that's good news that Frist is trying to kill it.