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

[managra]

What can we do? Mount a campaign that we strongly disagree with this action. By "we" i mean the casinos, pokerrooms, Netellers, gambling forums, ISPs, and players.

Last week i sent an email to express my opposition to the Dubai Ports deal. The well-written email was drafted by a website and it allowed me to edit it, i.e. make additional comments. Then, all i had to do was click the "send" button. I did have to furnish some personal info (name and address) but i was assured that it would not result in any spam or used for telemarketing purposes. It was a risk i was happy to take as i wanted to speak out.The email automatically went to the White House and every congressman and senator in my State. CM, if you want a link to this website to get some ideas let me know. I'll be happy to PM you about it. You might want to consider canvassing for volunteers for a task force on this issue. I'll be happy to assist you with any endeavor in any way as well as i'm fed up by the Religious Right trying to take important rights away.

The reason why credit cards are no longer allowed for online gambling is a little more complex, if i'm not mistaken. There was a woman who had worked up $77K in gambling losses and all by using her credit cards. She then successfully sued the credit card companies to have these charges reversed to her account. CC companies not wanting to be burned again, stopped the use of cc for gambling. Since then you can use your own money for online gambling.

This is so hypocrytical!!! You can buy lottery and scratch tickets on every street corner. Now, these are products with horrible odds and purchased mainly by people who can least afford these gambles. This is all heavily promoted by State Gov't.

Frankly, it made me feel good to be able to speak out and voice my opinion without engaging in street protests. I suppose lots of people feel the same but don't know how to go about it and don't want to spend the time finding the appropriate email addresses. In frustration they decide to do nothing. So, doing all the groundwork for them is likely to result in a lot of email action.

 

[BubbleG]

The reason why credit cards are no longer allowed for online gambling is a little more complex, if i'm not mistaken. There was a woman who had worked up $77K in gambling losses and all by using her credit cards. She then successfully sued the credit card companies to have these charges reversed to her account. CC companies not wanting to be burned again, stopped the use of cc for gambling. Since then you can use your own money for online gambling.

This is so hypocrytical!!! You can buy lottery and scratch tickets on every street corner. Now, these are products with horrible odds and purchased mainly by people who can least afford these gambles. This is all heavily promoted by State Gov't.

The US Govt is only pissed cause its getting none of the action.... Just like the above eg, God dam nanny states.... How the few can fuk it up for the many... Its ok, its not your fault your a retard, who can we sue

Its bad here in the UK but as far as gambling goes, LOOL, its going nowhere!!Practically every event has major casino/poker/sportsbook sponorship....

 

[mattysgirl]

censorship

All I can say is, the USA government has other issues to worry about!!
OMG we have a war going on, the state of LA to fix, the FEMA situation to correct, child porn, the homless and the hungry, running out of social security, schools that dont have enough funds to run properly, teachers underpaid, drug smugglers that bring drugs into this country in animals or any other way for that matter, eldery people that cant afford medication to keep them alive.... this list could go on!!!

They need to get a clue and focus on some real issues, not the issue of what people choose to do in the privacy of there own home.

Funny that state lotterys use the funds to fund schools, is this not gambling??
talk about being hypocrites, use gambling funds for schools, yet gambling corupts kids "BTW little johnny your new books came from gambling" lol that should teach kids a nice leasson about gambling..lol

Another perfect example about this is I went into a riverboat and had to pay a $2 entrance fee (yeah i was thinking i am pretty sure i will give you at least $2 when i go in there) I was told the fee was mandated by the state and that it goes to schools.

This is all coming down to the all mighty dollar!

mattysgirl

 

[Peaceful1]

And, as far as the bill goes (H.R. 4777)

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

...just food for thought...along with Adelphia's policy and the speculation of "testing".. it does make one wonder.


One particular portion of H.R. 4777:

(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling
of access to, an online site violating this section, or
a hypertext link to an online site violating this section,
that resides on a computer server that such service controls
or operates; except this limitation shall not apply if the service
is violating this section or is in active concert with a person
who is violating this section and receives actual notice of the relief;
(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service
and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;
(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to
monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity
violating this section;
(D) specify the interactive computer service to
which it applies; and
(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link
to be removed or access to which is to be disabled..


It implies that notice/communication would be provided upfront, however, that is once (and if) it is actually in effect, (doesn't say anything about having to disclose any testing/preparation procedures, same goes for the ISP)..and it demonstrates that "filtering" measures are strongly being considered and outlined in this Bill.

The Bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for review, and thus far I have not seen any scheduled hearings in the Daily Digest, or on their weekly calendar for legislation topics, but they still have time for this. But we are at approximately step 5 of 18 as far as a bill actually being signed/vetoed by the President.. so we still have a ways to go.


If opponents of this bill really wanted to take a stand on this, the time would be now, while it is in the hands of the House Judiciary Committee. As this link Outdated URL (Invalid) quotes:

"Perhaps the most important phase of the legislative process is the action by committees. The committees provide the most intensive consideration to a proposed measure as well as the forum where the public is given their opportunity to be heard."

 

[managra]

Has anyone else thought that the main force behind this may be the b&m casinos within the USA pressuring the gov't (money talks) into blocking online gambling sites? I'm sure it's got to hurt their bottom line, even by just a little bit.

According to a Dec 2005 article in Forbes the opposite is true. The article predicts OG will be legalized by 2007. Here is the link:

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

 

[cipher]

Here's the facts!!!

First off the attached decision is the law of the land here in the United States and since the original decision it has been upheld on appeal.

The fact of the matter is that until someone or a group of persons put their money where their mouths are there will be nothing accomplished but a bunch of kvetching and moaning.

The Attorney General is going to continue to put the heat on anyone that he can and will continue to intimidate until he's stopped in his tracks with an Order for Injuctive Relief (an injunction).

There are some damn good attorneys in this field and it's high time that we collectively (casino owner, webmaster and player) alike put together a fund to hire a top notch attorney to stop these suckers.

I'm willing to pony up a $1,000.00 to get this thing started. This is our Internet not the governments Internet and it's about time that all of us start accepting the ownership of it and for it.

Have a good one.

 

[Peaceful1]

Here you go...

Old / Expired Link

Seems that you can click on each member to go to their webpage. You can even email them if you're in their district. If not, you can always call.

Thank you, winbig72 (I missed a lot of postings between yesterday and today.. worked Sunday night)

Here is another link:

Old / Expired Link

And, you'll notice the link for "Write your representative", however, for those outside the U.S., you could use the main address listed for the Committee on the Judiciary, and could specify to the attention of: Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and be sure to reference H.R. 4777 - the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.

You will see that, yes, Goodlatte is a member of this subcommittee, but members of the House and subcommittees have to adhere to House rules and take all into consideration, and remember, his opinion may not necessarily reflect those of others, even his fellow Representatives.

 

[Westland Bowl]

The link to the online gambling bill is buried within this thread so I'll post it again here: Outdated URL (Invalid)

You can check the status of this bill there. So far 118 co-sponsors have signed up, but only 2 joined since the bill's introduction on Feb 16th.

 

[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

Old / Expired Link

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.

 

[Westland Bowl]

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......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.

Well, Goodlatte is in Jerry Falwell country so it's no surprise he is for banning online betting sites. Most of the Virginian congressmen/women are on this bill including those in Pat Robertson country where I'm at. I'm a member of a heavily pro-Robertson church, in fact Pat Robertson's wife (though she's Catholic) goes there, but I'm against these efforts at censorship and discrimination of one form of betting over the others. So, here I am, lumped with the so-called Christian Right, who is NOT for banning online gambling sites. Falwell and Robertson do NOT speak for me though I'm active in their midst. It's time for me to write a letter to my congresswoman.

 

[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=
Outdated URL (Invalid)

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.

 

[Peaceful1]

IMPORTANT "QUICK" LINK

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.

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

 

[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.

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

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?

 

[Peaceful1]

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.

 

[The Dude]

Another message link

Thanks Cynthia777, some great posts there.

Here is another link that members can use to voice their opinion to their representatives.
Old / Expired Link

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

 

[The Dude]

Achtung! Achtung!

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]

Imminent Senate Action?

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:

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

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]

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

Old / Expired Link

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 Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) 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!

 

[Peaceful1]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[Peaceful1]

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"

 

[managra]

The WSJ poll is currently at 83% No and 17% yes with 6694 votes so far.

And quoting from the Discussion below that poll:

Gambling is perfectly acceptable to government so long as government gets a cut either directly as in the case of lotteries or indirectly as in the case of Las Vegas's economic growth. Once government doesn't stand to benefit, it is suddenly a moral issue that is destroying the fabric of our society.

 

[Peaceful1]

Introduction of S.AMDT.2953

Senator Kyl's most recent amendment in regards to his opposition of online gambling, is:

S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.


He has submitted this amendment under Trent Lott's pending bill S.2349-Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. As previous posts state, Lott's bill was motioned to invoke cloture on March 8, and this motion was rejected yesterday. (To explain, the motion to invoke cloture is to set a time limit for any further consideration and debate, usually 30 hours from the time the motion is granted, to get to the final voting process. "Motion to invoke cloture" was originally designed to prevent filibusters via lengthy debate.) However, since the motion was rejected (after the rejection, Senator Frist made a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked), Lott's proposed bill is still considered "pending" and placed on the Senate Calendar for the continuation of floor proceedings. The status of Kyl's proposed amendment remains as submitted (submitted to be printed in the Congressional Record as full text of his proposed amendment).

The next step for Kyl's amendment is to be referred to a committee (under Senate rules, similiar to rules of the House of Representatives). It then goes back to the Senate floor to be proposed for consideration, in which the final vote will be taken by Senate Members (accepted or rejected).

CM- I guess the thread title could be updated to:
"Fighting H.R. 4777/S.A. 2953" ??

... now that a similiar act has been introduced in the Senate as well.

 

[The Dude]

Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
Old URL

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!

 

[Peaceful1]

I really think that after reviewing the past couple days of events, in my opinion, that Kyl has been using what could be considered 'sneaky tactics' in his presentation of this amendment.

If cloture had been invoked, the following guidelines would have applied:

- 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]))

However, because Sen. Kyl submitted his amendment on March 8, and the petition to invoke cloture was made on March 8 (after Kyl's Amendment was submitted), and the decision on the motion was made on March 9, Kyl's Amendment may not have been thrown out because of the timing and possible protection under this next Senate guideline:

- No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.

I am not aware of any/all the loopholes when it comes to this type of situation, but it leant to my speculation when I learned that Senator Kyl voted "YEA" to motion to invoke cloture. (Meaning, he supported the process to 'speed up' voting on the Bill with minimized debate, which would have included Kyl's proposed amendment....if he thought that invocation of cloture would include 'throwing out' his 'non-germane' amendment, I am sure that he would not have voted "YEA" to this motion). But, knowing that his amendment had already been submitted, it may/would have been protected under the guideline that his amendment was not submitted between petition for cloture and the cloture vote (i.e., 'after the fact', hurry up and get it in there because there will be a rush and little review/time for debate.. so it can get voted on and possibly passed quickly).

Like I said, this is just my personal take on the matter, what some may term 'speculation' but it doesn't always mean that speculation is not correct, or leads to being correct, and I am basing it on facts of this process so far. What angers me the most, is if this was his intent, that he used the presentation of a Bill (S2349) and provisions of that bill, and debate that is revolving/focusing on such a sensitive matter (the Dubai ports deal (although they have now backed out)), that has conjured up high emotion in the U.S. and security issues, ... to serve his own personal selfishness in doing whatever he needs to do in getting Amendment passed (even his amendment co-sponsor Pryor voted "NAY" to invocation of cloture).

 

[sdaddy]

^Thanks for that great explanation of what happened with Kyl's amendment, Cynthia. I was confused myself as to why Kyl would support the motion to invoke cloture, but that clears it up.

So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

CM,

I think that given the recent course of events it would be wise for US players to begin contacting their Senators as well, expressing their opposition to S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Contact info can be found through this link:

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

 

[Webzcas]

Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
Old URL

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!

I've referenced this page on CasinoMeister on the article concerning this on my main portal. I will also be writing an article regarding this proposed act which will appear on the home page of my politics site which is fairly active.

 

[Peaceful1]

So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

More than likely, but his proposed amendment will not be formally referred until he has had the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration. Since his submission of the amendment was "ordered to lie on the table" (set aside, and determined to not be considered by the Senate floor in that session)...the only action taken thus far is the printing of the text of his proposed amendment in the Congressional Record.

In the meantime, before Sen. Kyl has the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration, he does have the right to "make an amendment to the amendment", outlining any additions, changes, or deletions to SA2953. Do not confuse the "motion to table" with rejecting his amendment, it has merely been "set aside" so to speak, until another Senate session. They were not in session Friday March 10, and will not reconvene until Monday, March 13.

 

[managra]

I have a question for Cynthia, since she has been so helpful in these threads and has been acting as our insider on the Hill. I wrote an email to my Representative. What other people (specific committee members???) could we email and where would we find their email addresses?

 

[Peaceful1]

Link to House Committee Members

Here is the link for the full member list of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary:

Old / Expired Link

If you scroll down to "Committees" on the left menu, it will give you a list, and concentration on this will likely be under the subcommittee: Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.

It will give you a list of members, and you can click on each name to get more information, including their individual website. For example, the Chairman of the Subcommittee Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property is Hon. Lamar Smith, and I have found under his website that you can sign up for his newsletter of ongoing events, news, and legislation to be emailed to you, and you can post comments as well to be sent to him. If the member's individual website does not post a direct email address, it does list the specific physical address, phone and fax number (probably easiest to fax as I can imagine the complexities trying to reach them by phone).

As well, this proposed bill (H.R. 4777) has also been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, and the link to the members of that committee is: Old / Expired Link

Hope this helps

 

[Peaceful1]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Peaceful1]

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:

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[Peaceful1]

another excellent link...

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

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

 

[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?

 

[Peaceful1]

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.

 

[Peaceful1]

intriguing...food for thought

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:

Outdated URL (Invalid)


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?

 

[Peaceful1]

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)