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

[GrandMaster]

You should tell him that if really want to be of assistance, he should come out in unequivocally against the prohibition of online gambling, or else you will be voting for his opponent. As he is trailing in the polls, he might even listen to you.

[silcnlayc]

Should this bill come before the full Senate I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Unbelievable! This is the same letter I reveived by mail last month word for word exept for the different senate member name! Talk about actually LISTENING! NOT! Geezes, what is it going to take for them to actually hear us?

[sdaddy]

Unbelievable! This is the same letter I reveived by mail last month word for word exept for the different senate member name! Talk about actually LISTENING! NOT! Geezes, what is it going to take for them to actually hear us?

Really? WTH, is there some brush-off form letter they're circulating around to use on us? Not cool.

You should tell him that if really want to be of assistance, he should come out in unequivocally against the prohibition of online gambling, or else you will be voting for his opponent. As he is trailing in the polls, he might even listen to you.

Yeah, I guess I was not direct enough to get his attention.
I think I'll be writing his opponent now to see if he'll listen.

[SlotsWizard]

Bad news or false alarm? The anti-freedom bill has been tacked on to a bill for military/defense/weaponry crap.

http://www.eog.com/news/industry.aspx?id=6892

A lobbyist told EOG that the Internet gambling bill is likely to pass.

He states, "Disguised in a huge defense bill, do you want to try and be the one guy to hold up a litany of programs for troops and weapons because there is a small (and trust me, this is a small thing in the big scheme) provision in it about online gambling? Absolutely not. Granted, this isn't a spending bill (which is even more necessary) but it is still a bill that is very hard to oppose on extraneous merits."

"Sorry I can't give you more than that, but this is a hard one to analyze. I really think this is bad news."

[jetset]

I'm open to correction here, but my understanding of that long and interesting report is that this has not yet been accepted into the defence proposals and that conference negotiating is still ongoing, with the defence committees reportedly against including extraneous material like abortion and online gambling onto a military bill.

There are still holds that can take place by politicians opposing the inclusion and thus complicate and maybe delay the issue, and the military guys reportedly want to avoid that.

My interpretation of the report was that staff may be working on trying reach a compromise over this weekend, but that it won't be known until late Monday whether the online gambling measure is to be included, and exactly what the wording of that measure being pushed by Frist is going to be.

This weird (to me, anyway) process of American law where a totally unrelated item can be tacked on to a bill in order to circumvent normal democratic debate mystifies me and suggests that political tap-dancing and cunning is more important than the will of the people in deciding these matters.

Still, this does represent a danger that should not be underestimated, and if accepted by the military proposers it could create unforseen problems.

[Cynthia777]

just wanted to post this quickly.. and I'll be back with more details.. but Kyl attempted to do this early in the game (attaching prohibition of gambling) to another bill completely irrelevant to the subject ... and it was quickly "ordered to lie on the table" (not up for further consideration). This practice is generally frowned upon for obvious reasons. Let me check a couple of things and I will post shortly.

[Cynthia777]

The term I was looking for is "non-Germane" amendment (provision proposed as an amendment which is considered irrelevant to the bill it is presented under). The article referred to above mentions the lobbyist's concern that this could pass, quoted below:

"He states, "Disguised in a huge defense bill, do you want to try and be the one guy to hold up a litany of programs for troops and weapons because there is a small (and trust me, this is a small thing in the big scheme) provision in it about online gambling? Absolutely not. Granted, this isn't a spending bill (which is even more necessary) but it is still a bill that is very hard to oppose on extraneous merits." "

However, if this provision concerning Internet gambling was proposed as an amendment (still researching and I will update)... it can quickly and easily be dismissed "ordered to lie on the table".. as many are every Session ... without being the cause for delay of a Bill in itself passing or not passing.

**********************

The Kyl amendment I mentioned earlier, in which he attempted to do the similar, can be referred to at:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...html#post92578

and the process of "invoking cloture" contains this important guideline-

- All amendments must be relevant to the debate. (Sen. Kyl's amendment
2953 would have been considered non-germane (not relevant [primary
issue being the U.S. Ports/Dubai company]))

[Cynthia777]

I think that (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Bills the article were referring to concerning Defense appropriations are S.2507 and H.R.5122.. briefly scanning over their summaries/proposed amendments.. I found it difficult to find this provision on Internet gambling (not to say that it is not there) but this issue must be so miniscule with no emphasis whatsoever... Personally, I would not worry about this as far as being the vehicle to get the prohibition on Internet gambling passed.

The debate/consideration of HR5122 (one of the Defense bills) is lengthy and involved as it is :
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
I am sure (IMO) that any irrelevant subject matter would be 'tossed' so to speak when it comes to this debate.

*************

Just to mention: On my way home from work, in what had to be a HUGE banner approximately 1/8 mile long, was an advertisement for an online sportsbook right along a major thoroughfare in Washington, DC. I cannot remember the name (and do not feel at liberty to quote if I did) but the sportsbook uses actress Nikki Cox as the sponsor in their ad.

Someone trying to get the message across in the Capitol?? (Good for them.. )

[lots0]

My understanding of the Frist amendment, is that all it does is make it illegal to use your credit card to fund online gambling.

Even if this passes and that is doubtful, it won’t effect the way things are that much... I mean, come on, how many folks use credit cards to pay the online casinos anymore anyway?

Write your Congressmen and Senators let them know your watching and how you feel, a lot of these guys figure no one cares about this issue but the Religious...

[Westland Bowl]

This weird (to me, anyway) process of American law where a totally unrelated item can be tacked on to a bill in order to circumvent normal democratic debate mystifies me and suggests that political tap-dancing and cunning is more important than the will of the people in deciding these matters.

The American law process indeed has many weird ways of passing and changing law. It's a con game in many ways and many people say "Those crooks in Congress" and they say it in jest but they ARE really closer to truth than they realize. The side-stepping, talking out the side of their mouth, using confusing language, etc. suggest the moral character of most politicians is low. Most are blackmailable. Whenever you hear of a Congressman retiring, quitting, or stepping aside, to "spend time with family", it is likely he/she was threatened with blackmail by the powers that be.