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

[Westland Bowl]

Just a note- Goodlatte currently has 118 co-sponsors of his proposed H.R. 4777 (inclusive of 3 that just jumped on board on 3/1/2006)

The House of Representatives is comprised of 432 voting members.. and when this goes to roll call he needs to get 2/3 of the vote for this, meaning 332 would have to vote in favor, so we have a very good chance, but your efforts are still crucial (writing your reps., etc.) Although we cannot be sure how the members who are not co-sponsors of this bill feel about this legislation, by them not co-sponsoring this bill lends to the influence we can have on their potential decision.

So this needs 2/3 of the WHOLE House to pass, NOT 2/3 of those who happened to be present at the time of the vote? In the early 1900's, the US income tax amendment was passed in very late night by simple majority of those who were present instead of by the whole congress.

I thought that Goodlatte would have strived to get a simple majority this time instead of 2/3 vote.

[Cynthia777]

Sorry, I should have elaborated more on this...but to confirm the above, if the vote does go to roll call voting method, it would require 3/5 vote of ALL House members... however,

it must first be determined by the reviewing House committees (which is the stage the bill is currently in), whether this proposed bill will be presented to the House as a whole.

From that point, depending on the requests of the Speaker or members present, several different actions/voting methods may occur.

The following links explain in detail:

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/voting_house.htm

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/rollcall_vote.htm

[Cynthia777]

Here is another excellent link to tracking events on this proposed bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4777

[sdaddy]

Cynthia,

Why are you saying that this bill will need a supermajority to pass the House? Is it going to be brought up on the suspension calendar?

[Cynthia777]

sdaddy,

That was not my intent, only if the vote is taken via roll call method will a 3/5 vote be required. And, as the other links explain, depending what happens when this actually goes to the House floor for debate, will we know what actions take place as far as voting, quorom, members present, etc. I have checked the agendas, calendars, and schedules of various committees, and thus far, nothing concerning H.R. 4777.

However, I did just contact (via email) the House Committee on the Judiciary for the status of whether H.R. 4777 is still under their review, and if there are any proposed "time guidelines" of when this will possibly go onto the next step. Also, what, if any, other committees this may have been referred to and any other information that they can provide me with. I will keep you and this site posted as soon as I have any confirmation from them, as well as any other information I can obtain and will be able to post.

[Cynthia777]

Yesterday proposed Senate bill S. 2402 - "To improve the prohibitions on money laundering, and for other purposes", was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The sponsor was Mr. Grassley; one of his 4 co-sponsors was Mr. Kyl.

To view details on this bill, here is the link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2402:


I found this to be rather interesting, not only because of the timing of the issues surrounding online gambling, and that Mr. Kyl is a co-sponsor of this proposed bill, which was introduced less than a week after Mr. Kyl's proposed S.AMDT.2953 to S.2349 (which had not been considered in that session and "tabled").

Please do not get me wrong. To state the obvious, the crime of money laundering in and of itself, and crimes, terrorist activities, etc. supported by such, are wrong, and laws and legislation should exist for these purposes.

However, and yes, this is opinion/speculation, I cannot help but wonder if [one Senator] does not see the "kill two birds with one stone" theory here. Or see this as a venue of indirectly implementing some of the provisions of his previous efforts to thwart Internet Gambling. You will notice that, within this newly proposed amendment, the term "Internet gambling" or "gambling online" do not appear within the text. However, and one may really need to be a legal analyst to "read between the lines", given the complexities/vagueness in some of the wording, you will notice proposed amendments to text concerning "money transmitting businesses" and "structured transactions". Yes, the text primarily refers to amounts in excess of $10,000, but also has provisions for amounts under $10,000, totaling such.

I just thought this might be an interesting point for the members of this forum, and, I, like others, post not only facts for knowledge and understanding, but also opinion for insight (like an editorial). If my speculation about a part of a Senator's motive is incorrect, my apologies...

This is such an important topic right now, particularly for members of this forum, and many others, that I believe any points of interest possibly relating thereto, should be made...(food for thought).

[Westland Bowl]

Cynthia777, I believe you are right in your speculation that Sen. Kyl is targeting the alternative forms of financing online gambling with S. 2402. The timing is just too coincidental otherwise. If passed, this will still affect us even if H. 4777 is struck down. Could be Kyl's back-up plan. This is showing how much thought and planning is going into trying to force Americans away from playing casino games online. I guess we have to follow, what, three bills now?

[Cynthia777]

I guess we have to follow, what, three bills now?

Its always a good idea to "look out for" or keep an eye on, any of the proposed bills and amendments that have/could come forth if they outline any of the provisions that can possibly relate to gambling and the Internet. H.R. 4777 is perhaps the most notorious right now since it is strictly, and directly, entitled the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act". Since this bill is the most direct, therefore gaining the most public attention, it becomes the most controversial, and is likely to face the longer-drawn-out processes in passing. I believe, in my opinion, that the smaller, indirect provisions in other proposed bills and amendments (yet applicable in preventing or causing ambiguity in an American's decision to continue online gambling) are the Senator's or Representative's "background ammunition" in speeding up their primary goal.

[managra]

Good points, Cynthia. Seems no matter what they are trying hard to push this ban down our throats in one fashion or another. When we write to our Rep. should we also mention our strong opposition to any bill that would indirectly prohibit us to gamble online?

[jetset]

Look out for HR 4411 which Leach has launched and is currently scheduled for markup by the Committee on Financial Services. It is anticipated that the bill will be reported and subsequently referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

BTW for anybody who hasn't yet voted on the Wall Street Journal poll, the current results are:

Against a ban: 6941 (85 percent)

For a ban: 1252 (15 percent)