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

[jetset]

The Law Journal report is interesting in that it indicates that wily old Kyl is trying his "coat tails" strategy again, and that Abramoff is his major leverage tactic this year. In that context the 180 degree whirl of DeLay to my mind shows what sort of person he is (and not in a flattering way)

Based on past history, Kyl is one to watch, because he knows the system inside out and is prepared to exploit it to the full to get his proposals through.

BTW, Managra - in my earlier post I was definitely not advocating that objectors wait for IGC to make a move (as I think I said at the time) Now is the time, I believe to influence political representatives before they start the wheeling and dealing on the Hill.

[jetset]

The WSJ has unwittingly provided online players with a great opportunity to (additionally to contacting politicians) express their feelings about a U.S. Internet gambling ban in a very influential and high profile publication.

Please take a moment to cast your vote and share your thoughts with the Wall Street Journal editors.

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/mess...sages&msg=3828

Get your voice heard - vote today. Please pass this message onto your contacts.

Voting on the site today on the question "Should Internet gambling be banned" is Yes: 998 (21 percent) and No: 3742 (79 percent)

[chuchu59]

Originally Posted by Professor

Guys here is WHY legislation didn't pass the last few times around and why it's far more likely to be approved this time.

Please read this article from today's Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...f_main_tff_top

Evein if YOU dont see legislation as a possibilty, we really DO need to work together to do everything we can to ensure this thing doesnt make it into law. Don't just assume everything will fall into place on it's own. Please be active.

Is this an omen or a coincidence? I clicked the link and voted and when I viewed the results, there were 4777 votes casted with a majority of 79% voting nay.

[Pinababy69]

there were 4777 votes casted

And it's Bill 4777 right? Funky coincidence, lol.

[jetset]

I've just checked on http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/mess...sages&msg=3828 and it's currently as follows:

Should Internet gambling be banned?

Yes:1027 (20 percent)

No: 4237 (80 percent)

[Westland Bowl]

While polls like the WSJ poll can be interesting, they are not scientific or statistically valid. As long as there is no "ballot stuffing" it COULD show what a valid survey would likely show. BUT if one of those mega-church preachers get an itching to "cast your vote for God", they could urge their 4,000 or 10,000 or 15,000 church members to vote in the poll to shift it the other way.

An impartial survey organization, not influenced by personal bias and/or bribes nor have any fraternal/societial affiliations, should be used to get an honest, accurate poll.

I just wanted to make everyone aware that it could shift if a large group of people went on a mission to artifically alter the results.

[jetset]

You are right, but nevertheless this is a high profile opportunity that can be used quickly and without hassle to make a point, and points in the WSJ are generally taken.

So I suggest, while we all wait for someone to persuade someone else to put a pricey formal audit together....GET OVER THERE AND VOTE!

[Cynthia777]

Originally Posted by 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.

We should be so lucky if it [Kyl's amendment to H.R. 4777] could be "squashed" that easily.. No, unfortunately it wasn't the Kyl amendment to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.. what you saw yesterday was referring to the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (a lobbying reform bill).

Thus far, nothing has been formally introduced onto the Senate Floor concerning this... we had slews of bills in last night to work on, and I have not come across this (I double checked the Daily Digest in case it did not reach my desk to work on).. but they are in session again tonight, and it is only 12:00pm here, so there is a lot of time left for it to be presented. Congress stays in session, sometimes very late (on occasion past midnight).
I would not doubt that the Kyl-Pryor amendment is in the works, though, so I will keep this in mind when going through the bills we receive and keep an eye out.

[Casinomeister]

This just in from the River City Group:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who has been trying to ban online wagering for about
10 years, had planned to introduce an online gambling prohibition amendment
today by attaching it to S2349 (the Lobbying Reform Act). However, the
debate over the Lobbying Reform bill was sidelined by a proposed amendment
aimed at preventing a United Arab Emirates company from managing several key US ports.

It would appear that now the U.S. Senate will take up the
lobbying reform bill next week but the bipartisan managers of that bill have
pledged to disallow any non-germane amendments to that bill as drafted. This
would eliminate the opportunity for Senator Kyl to move his prohibition bill
in the Senate by attaching it to this particular vehicle. IGN will continue
monitoring this situation and keep you apprised.

[Cynthia777]

CM, earlier when I looked at the text of the original Lobbying Reform Act, it seemed a little sketchy but I had a slight feeling it may somehow have a connection to Kyl's intention of amendment to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (IMO, I thought perhaps his use of it would highlight the Reform Act's provisions concerning cash/gifts/"entertainment expenses", and relay it to the Abramhoff situation when this issue was put forth the last time).



Here is an excerpt from Kyl's proposed Amendment to the Lobbying Reform Act :


"SA 2953. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. PRYOR) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2349, to provide greater transparency in the legislative process; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:



TITLE __X--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING
SEC. __X. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006''.

SEC. __X. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

(a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER IV--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ``§5361. Congressional findings and purpose

``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

``(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.

``(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers"