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

I haven't gotten a reply from my Rep either. I'm sure he'll know where to find me when he's looking for campaign contributions :)
Someone reported a few posts above that there are now 130 co-sponsors to HR4777. Where can we find out who these folks are and how we can email them? Even though they may not be our state Rep, we can still let them know we won't forget for the next presidential elections and we will also broadcast their record of limiting citizen's freedom as much as we can. Most of the co-sponsors belong to the party that cherish right to life but then don't give you much freedom to do something with it. Thoughts?
 
Cynthia777 said:
And I must say that I think it is highly unprofessional in your State rep's capacity to not even provide an acknowledgement of receiving your email/opinion, whether he is for or against the issue, a good Rep. should take their constituents' views into polite consideration.
Couldn't agree more.

Not that it's an excuse, but perhaps my rep's attitude comes from being in a so-called safe Republican district. I think he's been in office six terms now, and never once had to face a Democratic opponent in the general election. I don't believe this year is going to be any different. This could easily lead someone to become insulated from public opinion/concerns.
 
Thoughts?

managra said:
Most of the co-sponsors belong to the party that cherish right to life but then don't give you much freedom to do something with it. Thoughts?

I would say good point. Two ideas that are supposed to compliment actually opposing of eachother.
 
And they call this the Land of the FREE indeed....

I am doing my best to drum up support against this Bill. I have written a few representitatives to vote against it. I would write my rep. from my state, but unfortunatley, it would do no good as I live in VIRGINIA. (That's right, the home state of the ID10T Pushing this bill.):sniper:

I will continue with my efforts to get rid of this thing.....


Cynthia777 You rock. Keep up the good work!
 
managra said:
Most of the co-sponsors belong to the party that cherish right to life but then don't give you much freedom to do something with it. Thoughts?

My thoughts Managra...are that this is the quote of the week!!!
 
managra said:
......Someone reported a few posts above that there are now 130 co-sponsors to HR4777. Where can we find out who these folks are and how we can email them? Even though they may not be our state Rep, we can still let them know we won't forget for the next presidential elections and we will also broadcast their record of limiting citizen's freedom as much as we can. Most of the co-sponsors belong to the party that cherish right to life but then don't give you much freedom to do something with it. Thoughts?

You can find out who they are by going to Outdated URL (Invalid) and clicking on "Cosponsors".
 
Thanks Westland Bowl and Cynthia for the info that i hope many of us will act on. It's time to let these co-sponsors know that their dictator-style and censorship may be good for Cuba or China but appalling to the average American (who really possess more intelligence than these co-sponsors give them credit for).
 
managra said:
Thanks Westland Bowl and Cynthia for the info that i hope many of us will act on. It's time to let these co-sponsors know that their dictator-style and censorship may be good for Cuba or China but appalling to the average American (who really possess more intelligence than these co-sponsors give them credit for).


Uh, I hate to tell you this, but these co-sponsers are proud of their stance on this issue as are a majority of their constituents. The cries of censorship will fall on deaf ears i am afraid, but it is worth the effort.
 
I came across this link and thought it may be of interest...granted the vote was taken almost 6 years ago.. it demonstrates who was for and against passing the proposed bill to prohibit internet gambling the last time this was brought to the floor (it was then H.R. 3125 proposed by Goodlatte). For the most part state Reps. listed on this roll call are still in office, but you can check it out for yourself:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



Plus, not to say their opinions have changed (unfortunately there are now 130 co-sponsors of this bill, back then there were only 34), and especially since the Abramoff situation, may be feeling pressure so as to not seem "conspicuous", despite what their true opinions are....but I just thought this might be interesting
 
Cynthia,

I'm curious if you know where the House leadership stands on these bills to restrict internet gambling? I see that Roy Blunt is a cosponsor to H.R.s 4777 and 4411, but how about Majority Leader Boehner and Speaker Hastert? I think that how strongly the leadership pushes these bills could have a big impact on whether they become law.
 
managra said:
Most of the co-sponsors belong to the party that cherish right to life but then don't give you much freedom to do something with it. Thoughts?

Actually it makes more sense if you use the non-politically correct term
"anti-choice"

-z-
 
There's an interesting article discussing the impact of the Abramoff scandal in the Washington publication The Hill right now.

And U.S. legal expert Lawrence G. Walters says that U.S. politicians' bid to ban online gambling this year is particularly dangerous, according to a story in IGN.

He says, "However, in this author's view, the online gambling industry has never been more vulnerable to adverse United States legislation than right now."
 
sdaddy said:
Cynthia,

I'm curious if you know where the House leadership stands on these bills to restrict internet gambling? I see that Roy Blunt is a cosponsor to H.R.s 4777 and 4411, but how about Majority Leader Boehner and Speaker Hastert? I think that how strongly the leadership pushes these bills could have a big impact on whether they become law.


sdaddy,

Unless his views have changed, unfortunately Majority Leader Boehner voted "YEA" to the prior bill to prohibit online gambling introduced by Goodlatte in 1999 according to the roll call vote taken in 2000. Surprisingly, because he is a big advocate of "free speech" by students in universities, and being "open minded" to abstract views...you would think this would parallel his opinion at least in some manner concerning the issue of online gambling.

As Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert generally refrains from debating and voting when issues are brought to the House floor...so we may never know. He does have the choice to do so, and has the same privileges of other House members, such as voting, etc.... but it has been stated that he generally refrains from doing so.
 
Another note about Speaker Hastert... after Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges this past January, he gave about $70,000 to charity from the money received in "campaign contributions" from clients of Abramoff. He felt "it was appropriate to donate the money to charity", after all this came to surface.

In my opinion, I think that he takes a somewhat objective stand on the matter.. after a mess/scandal, at least he turned some aspect of it into a positive contribution, rather than just making statements of condemnation and speculation/fear about it occuring again when a bill like this comes back to the floor..like other Members/Senators are doing
 
One thing that could push this and other bills over the edge into passage is a big story like the Calvin Arye/Bodog situation. Perhaps he was not arrested and allowed to do his thing because his would be later useful for media/public relations purposes in order to get public support to ban online gambling to prevent would-be billionaires from making money from it. The timing is suspicious. "Create a (fake) problem in order to provide a (bad) solution"
 
just released...

To top it all off... Abramoff's sentencing-

See:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


(this page has a link to charging court documents)


The opponents of online gambling and those proposing bills to do so will (IMO) try to take the ball and run with it...
 
What surprises me is that the general public (i.e. mainly non gamblers) and activists org have been staying quiet about this issue. Would have thought they would be turned off by the US Govt trying to impose censorship over the internet. As far as i know, other than gamblers no one is protesting this dangerous and treacherous development.
 
the irony of it all...

I know we have another thread concerning the issue/fear of ISPs blocking gaming sites (and I've posted an update there as well)... but I'm posting here to demonstrate the irony of these two issues (prohibiting Internet gambling - somewhat "limiting" our freedom, and the stance that one or more Senators have taken (and I'm sure some House Reps. as well), on gaining and providing legislation for "Net neutrality".....

Please see the following link:


Link Removed (invalid URL)
 
managra said:
What surprises me is that the general public (i.e. mainly non gamblers) and activists org have been staying quiet about this issue. Would have thought they would be turned off by the US Govt trying to impose censorship over the internet. As far as i know, other than gamblers no one is protesting this dangerous and treacherous development.


Managra ... please refer to my recent posts under the thread "ISPs Blocking Gambling Sites": https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/isps-blocking-gambling-related-sites-in-the-usa.11382/

Apparently we do have support in this area, including companies such as Yahoo, E-Bay, and even some politicians...
 
Attorneys General also call for gambling ban

Don't know if people knew this, I haven't seen a relevant post

"AGs Ask Congress for Federal Legislation on Internet Gambling"

22/03/2006

Attorney General Drew Edmondson and the attorneys general for 48 other states yesterday asked Congress to help combat illegal Internet gambling.

In a letter addressed to U.S. House and Senate leaders, the attorneys general cite the need for a coordinated effort to fight the problem which transcends state and jurisdictional boundaries and requires that all segments of the law enforcement community (state, federal and local) work together to combat its spread.

Gambling is prohibited under Oklahoma law with some limited exceptions.

Its typically up to the legislature for each state to determine what is and is not legal concerning gambling, Edmondson said. But Internet gambling transcends state lines, and should be addressed federally.

Edmondson said federal legislation clarifying the laws concerning Internet gambling could assist consumers and law enforcement.

We think its illegal in Oklahoma to run one of these sites, and we think its illegal for Oklahoma consumers to gamble on the Internet, Edmondson said. But thats not the case across the board. Congress should address the issue so there is no question about what the law says.

Edmondson today also warned consumers that in addition to violating state law, Internet gambling poses a significant risk to consumers personal and financial information.

These sites require consumers to give a credit card number to be able to play, Edmondson said. Whos to say the person running that website wont use that information to clean out your accounts?

Things do not look very good.

This seems to be becoming more and more into a photo-op with people lining up to say "I was also there".

What I want to know is beyond the law and order vote Congress think they are getting, who is putting Corporate money behind this (as in not ethical evangelical movements)?
 
I see what you're saying... and might I add, that with all the emphasis surrounding this in relation to the Abramoff scandal, I just hope that the sole focus is not only on "contributions" and funding in illegal forms of lobbying as a tool to "not pass the bill", but also an eye on monetary contributions used as persuasion TO pass this bill.
 
If there were some sort of reputable grassroots political organization fighting these prohibition bills, I would certainly donate to it. Maybe someone here knows of one?
 
DeLay resigns

So the U.S. Congressman and former House Majority Leader at the center of the controversy over the perceived nixing of previous internet gambling legislation announced his resignation today. I did not expect this.

Other than this removing a cosponsor to H.R. 4777, I'm not sure what effect, if any, this development will have on the bill. It's an interesting story on how hard and fast the politically powerful in Washington can fall, however.
 
Last edited:
It's ironic that while the anti-gambling lobby is not deprived of VALID evidence for their cause, they can't actually find any:

Who’s to say the person running that website won’t use that information to clean out your accounts?

Not exactly state-of-the-art, irrefutable, hard hitting evidence. Either these congressmen are clueless, or just totally lazy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top