Berge20
07-11-2006, 08:16 AM
CQ TODAY
July 10, 2006 – 7:47 p.m.
GOP Offers Gambling Bill as Abramoff Elixir
By Kathryn A. Wolfe, CQ Staff
Some Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation the House likely will pass Tuesday as evidence that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s influence is gone — even though the measure would protect many of the gambling interests he once represented.
Abramoff’s lobbying activities, including actions he took on behalf of the Connecticut-based gambling company eLottery, are under Justice Department investigation. He separately pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to conspiracy and fraud charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of a gambling boat fleet and was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison.
Gambling Interest Contributions
eLottery, which helps state and international governments and Indian tribes market lottery tickets online, hired Abramoff to lobby against a 2000 bill that sought to establish criminal penalties for Web sites offering Internet gambling, including those selling tickets for state lotteries online. He sought to kill the bill entirely, or alternatively to carve exceptions for certain powerful gambling industries. The measure was defeated on the House floor July 17, 2000.
This year, lawmakers, eager to turn the Abramoff scandal into something positive, have begun a new push to enact slightly different legislation intended to curb Internet gambling. Much of the rhetoric swirling around the bills portrays them as the mop with which lawmakers will cleanse the Capitol of Abramoff’s influence.
During a House Financial Services Committee markup on March 14, Jim Leach, R-Iowa, a sponsor of one measure to curb Internet gambling (HR 4411), hinted at Abramoff’s past involvement in killing the 2000 bill, suggesting the affair is a stain on Congress.
“Congress is in certain disrepute,” Leach said. “[The bill] is part and parcel of what I consider to be necessary to clean up the Congress.”
Leach’s bill would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online gambling bets.
Republican leaders decided to fold another Internet gambling bill (HR 4777) by Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., into Leach’s bill for floor action Tuesday.
Goodlatte’s bill — approved 25-11 by the Judiciary Committee on May 25 — would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It also would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to Internet gambling, not just sports bets placed over telephone wires.
Democratic Support
It appears likely the gambling legislation will win sizable Democratic support on the floor. Goodlatte’s bill was supported by four Democrats on the Judiciary panel. The Financial Services Committee approved Leach’s bill by voice vote.
However, some congressional aides and policy analysts who have followed the legislation say little has changed since Abramoff succumbed to scandal.
“If they pass this bill, it will be clear that Abramoff has won and everything he fought for is still protected — all the industries, carve-outs and exceptions,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the bills.
Indeed, neither Goodlatte’s nor Leach’s bill would apply its prohibitions to interstate online wagering on horse races. And Goodlatte’s bill contains an exemption for online state lotteries.
Both measures also contain exemptions for fantasy sports leagues that offer cash prizes at the behest of Major League Baseball and grass-roots fan organizations such as the Fantasy Sports Association.
Goodlatte’s bill expressly states that it would not prohibit activities allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act (PL 95-515), the 1978 law that allows off-track betting facilities to accept interstate horse bets. The horse wagering industry and the Justice Department are locked in a battle over whether that law allows online interstate horse betting.
GOP leaders decided to allow one floor amendment to be offered to the bill, which would eliminate all waivers or exceptions for certain types of Internet gambling.
Goodlatte bristles at suggestions that his bill contains “carve-outs” for the horse-racing industry, arguing that it does not get involved in the issue. “I have very carefully stayed away from that debate,” Goodlatte said. “This legislation is not the place to get into this issue.”
But Radley Balko, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says that by remaining silent on the debate, the measures in effect contain an exemption.
Balko said the horse-racing industry will likely attempt to use the bills to bolster its case in its spat with the Justice Department by arguing that lawmakers’ silence on the issue is tacit approval from Congress.
“This is exactly the bill Jack Abramoff would’ve wanted,” Balko said. “So to push it as the anti-Abramoff bill is disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching on . . . to the backlash to try to push this through.”
Goodlatte has been particularly vocal about the online wagering issue’s connection with Abramoff. During a February appearance on CNBC, Goodlatte noted that he introduced his bill with 116 cosponsors, saying many who voted against the 2000 bill “were misled by Mr. Abramoff and others about the function of the legislation [and] are now saying ‘We want on board.’”
Those who voted against the 2000 measure who this year are cosponsoring Goodlatte’s bill include House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; Gene Green, D-Texas; Bill Jenkins, R-Tenn.; Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; and Fred Upton, R-Mich. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, also signed on as a cosponsor, although he has since resigned from Congress.
The lawmakers who answered requests for comment on the matter — Blunt, Camp and Green — brushed aside suggestions they were influenced on the 2000 bill by Abramoff’s efforts, saying this year’s bills simply take a better approach. The rest did not return calls seeking comment.
“Congressman Blunt had concerns regarding potential loopholes in the bill when the House last voted,” said spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger. “His major concerns have been addressed and it is clear that the benefits of getting this bill done expeditiously outweigh any other concerns.”
Supporters of cracking down on Internet gambling, including the conservative Christian group the Traditional Values Coalition, view online gambling as a conduit for money laundering and a breeding ground for a host of social ills.
Opponents of the bills include professional and recreational gamblers, the online gambling industry, libertarian groups and some financial institutions, especially small banks, which fear it will be impossible to comply with the bills’ directives.
July 10, 2006 – 7:47 p.m.
GOP Offers Gambling Bill as Abramoff Elixir
By Kathryn A. Wolfe, CQ Staff
Some Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation the House likely will pass Tuesday as evidence that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s influence is gone — even though the measure would protect many of the gambling interests he once represented.
Abramoff’s lobbying activities, including actions he took on behalf of the Connecticut-based gambling company eLottery, are under Justice Department investigation. He separately pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to conspiracy and fraud charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of a gambling boat fleet and was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison.
Gambling Interest Contributions
eLottery, which helps state and international governments and Indian tribes market lottery tickets online, hired Abramoff to lobby against a 2000 bill that sought to establish criminal penalties for Web sites offering Internet gambling, including those selling tickets for state lotteries online. He sought to kill the bill entirely, or alternatively to carve exceptions for certain powerful gambling industries. The measure was defeated on the House floor July 17, 2000.
This year, lawmakers, eager to turn the Abramoff scandal into something positive, have begun a new push to enact slightly different legislation intended to curb Internet gambling. Much of the rhetoric swirling around the bills portrays them as the mop with which lawmakers will cleanse the Capitol of Abramoff’s influence.
During a House Financial Services Committee markup on March 14, Jim Leach, R-Iowa, a sponsor of one measure to curb Internet gambling (HR 4411), hinted at Abramoff’s past involvement in killing the 2000 bill, suggesting the affair is a stain on Congress.
“Congress is in certain disrepute,” Leach said. “[The bill] is part and parcel of what I consider to be necessary to clean up the Congress.”
Leach’s bill would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online gambling bets.
Republican leaders decided to fold another Internet gambling bill (HR 4777) by Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., into Leach’s bill for floor action Tuesday.
Goodlatte’s bill — approved 25-11 by the Judiciary Committee on May 25 — would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It also would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to Internet gambling, not just sports bets placed over telephone wires.
Democratic Support
It appears likely the gambling legislation will win sizable Democratic support on the floor. Goodlatte’s bill was supported by four Democrats on the Judiciary panel. The Financial Services Committee approved Leach’s bill by voice vote.
However, some congressional aides and policy analysts who have followed the legislation say little has changed since Abramoff succumbed to scandal.
“If they pass this bill, it will be clear that Abramoff has won and everything he fought for is still protected — all the industries, carve-outs and exceptions,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the bills.
Indeed, neither Goodlatte’s nor Leach’s bill would apply its prohibitions to interstate online wagering on horse races. And Goodlatte’s bill contains an exemption for online state lotteries.
Both measures also contain exemptions for fantasy sports leagues that offer cash prizes at the behest of Major League Baseball and grass-roots fan organizations such as the Fantasy Sports Association.
Goodlatte’s bill expressly states that it would not prohibit activities allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act (PL 95-515), the 1978 law that allows off-track betting facilities to accept interstate horse bets. The horse wagering industry and the Justice Department are locked in a battle over whether that law allows online interstate horse betting.
GOP leaders decided to allow one floor amendment to be offered to the bill, which would eliminate all waivers or exceptions for certain types of Internet gambling.
Goodlatte bristles at suggestions that his bill contains “carve-outs” for the horse-racing industry, arguing that it does not get involved in the issue. “I have very carefully stayed away from that debate,” Goodlatte said. “This legislation is not the place to get into this issue.”
But Radley Balko, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says that by remaining silent on the debate, the measures in effect contain an exemption.
Balko said the horse-racing industry will likely attempt to use the bills to bolster its case in its spat with the Justice Department by arguing that lawmakers’ silence on the issue is tacit approval from Congress.
“This is exactly the bill Jack Abramoff would’ve wanted,” Balko said. “So to push it as the anti-Abramoff bill is disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching on . . . to the backlash to try to push this through.”
Goodlatte has been particularly vocal about the online wagering issue’s connection with Abramoff. During a February appearance on CNBC, Goodlatte noted that he introduced his bill with 116 cosponsors, saying many who voted against the 2000 bill “were misled by Mr. Abramoff and others about the function of the legislation [and] are now saying ‘We want on board.’”
Those who voted against the 2000 measure who this year are cosponsoring Goodlatte’s bill include House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; Gene Green, D-Texas; Bill Jenkins, R-Tenn.; Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; and Fred Upton, R-Mich. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, also signed on as a cosponsor, although he has since resigned from Congress.
The lawmakers who answered requests for comment on the matter — Blunt, Camp and Green — brushed aside suggestions they were influenced on the 2000 bill by Abramoff’s efforts, saying this year’s bills simply take a better approach. The rest did not return calls seeking comment.
“Congressman Blunt had concerns regarding potential loopholes in the bill when the House last voted,” said spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger. “His major concerns have been addressed and it is clear that the benefits of getting this bill done expeditiously outweigh any other concerns.”
Supporters of cracking down on Internet gambling, including the conservative Christian group the Traditional Values Coalition, view online gambling as a conduit for money laundering and a breeding ground for a host of social ills.
Opponents of the bills include professional and recreational gamblers, the online gambling industry, libertarian groups and some financial institutions, especially small banks, which fear it will be impossible to comply with the bills’ directives.