Mechanisms for expedited Senate passage

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

The sentiment seems to be that it is unlikely, though far from impossible, for an Internet gambling bill to pass through committee and go to the floor for vote before adjournment this year, provided that it proceeds on a normal schedule.

However, I'm wondering what mechanisms Kyl/Frist could use if they wanted to expedite passage?

[zombies kill]

i was also wondering on the timeframe were talking about... if it actually was to pass

[TruePoker CEO]

1. An apathetic group of online poker players.

If you are from the US and really want to say goodbye to online poker, sit this one out.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
The sentiment seems to be that it is unlikely, though far from impossible, for an Internet gambling bill to pass through committee and go to the floor for vote before adjournment this year, provided that it proceeds on a normal schedule.

However, I'm wondering what mechanisms Kyl/Frist could use if they wanted to expedite passage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short version - they could ask for unanimous consent to call up and pass the House-passed bill. That's not likely to happen (for a number of reasons).

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sentiment seems to be that it is unlikely, though far from impossible, for an Internet gambling bill to pass through committee and go to the floor for vote before adjournment this year, provided that it proceeds on a normal schedule.

However, I'm wondering what mechanisms Kyl/Frist could use if they wanted to expedite passage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short version - they could ask for unanimous consent to call up and pass the House-passed bill. That's not likely to happen (for a number of reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I read somewhere that Kyl could also try and attach a rider to another piece of legislation?

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sentiment seems to be that it is unlikely, though far from impossible, for an Internet gambling bill to pass through committee and go to the floor for vote before adjournment this year, provided that it proceeds on a normal schedule.

However, I'm wondering what mechanisms Kyl/Frist could use if they wanted to expedite passage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short version - they could ask for unanimous consent to call up and pass the House-passed bill. That's not likely to happen (for a number of reasons).

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I read somewhere that Kyl could also try and attach a rider to another piece of legislation?

[/ QUOTE ]

He could offer it as an amendment to just about anything (the Senate being the Senate), but that would potentially create conference problems with the House - it assumes that everything else in the bill being amended is acceptable to the House, and that isn't really happening a lot these days.

[Nyago123]

The Senate has only about 40 days left in this session and has to get busy spending my taxes before they can worry about how I spend my discretionary income(http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0706/071006cdam2.htm).

As with anything political, I think it depends on how "high profile" the bill is, not its actual importance to anyone (e.g. the Pledge of Allegiance bill). In that regard, I'm not sure if a lot of media or very little media would be helpful to us as opposers of the bill- I think a lot of media might help if there was enough public outcry against it (and consensus seems to indicate people support online gaming- or at least oppose restrictive regulation on the Internet) but it seems also like the House thought this was a good way to boost their political public standing ahead of the upcoming election.

[mrhat187]

Imagine the senate as the biggest weak tight player of all time, and your trying to get them to raise you on every street when you have a royal flush and they have 7 high. Thats about the chances of quick turn around in the senate. IMHO there just isn't enough time and the Head of the Banking committee already crushed kyl once.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
1. An apathetic group of online poker players.

If you are from the US and really want to say goodbye to online poker, sit this one out.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the online poker rooms doing?

I think most individuals are on the legislative forum since they are interested in doing something.

[Sponger.]

What does it mean if they don't get the senate to vote on it during this session?

[tipperdog]

Hi Nate,
I might not know the best way to play a middle pair vs. a threatening flop, but I'm darned sure a good authority on your question.

The answer is "it depends." Unlike the House, the Senate is very much a consensus-operating institution. Any single Senator can block consideration of any bill for days, which effectively kills it--unless the majority is willing to dedicate considerable floor time to its passage.

Also unlike the House, there are no "rules" that dictate the terms of debate. That's good and bad.

The good side is that the majority can't limit amendments as they did in the House. The bad side is that (as your message suggets) bill supporters can offer the legislation as an amendment to virtually anything at any time. The fact that it hasn't cleared committee isn't really important. So, we're far from out of the woods.

However, bill sponsors generally don't like Senators offering controversial amendments to their bills, if they appear to be sailing ahead smoothly. They don't like it simply because it potentially creates problems where none exist (such bills are known as 'Christmas Trees' because other senators 'hang ornaments' on the tree that seems to be headed for passage).

From a lobbying perspective, the online industry's best strategy is to have a few Senators they can count on to put a "hold" on the legislation passed by the House AND on any amendment that is similar to the house bill. A 'hold' is basically a Senator's promise to block a request for unanimous consent, if such a request is made. When a "hold" is on a bill, it means it won't pass without a fight. That should be sufficient to run out the clock on this session, since I can't imagine that the Majority Leader would want to dedicate substantial floor time to the issue.

Has any Senator placed a hold on the House bill? Beats me. Holds are secret, so we won't know anyway.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
What does it mean if they don't get the senate to vote on it during this session?

[/ QUOTE ]

It dies and we start the process again in January.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Nate,
I might not know the best way to play a middle pair vs. a threatening flop, but I'm darned sure a good authority on your question.

The answer is "it depends." Unlike the House, the Senate is very much a consensus-operating institution. Any single Senator can block consideration of any bill for days, which effectively kills it--unless the majority is willing to dedicate considerable floor time to its passage.

Also unlike the House, there are no "rules" that dictate the terms of debate. That's good and bad.

The good side is that the majority can't limit amendments as they did in the House. The bad side is that (as your message suggets) bill supporters can offer the legislation as an amendment to virtually anything at any time. The fact that it hasn't cleared committee isn't really important. So, we're far from out of the woods.

However, bill sponsors generally don't like Senators offering controversial amendments to their bills, if they appear to be sailing ahead smoothly. They don't like it simply because it potentially creates problems where none exist (such bills are known as 'Christmas Trees' because other senators 'hang ornaments' on the tree that seems to be headed for passage).

From a lobbying perspective, the online industry's best strategy is to have a few Senators they can count on to put a "hold" on the legislation passed by the House AND on any amendment that is similar to the house bill. A 'hold' is basically a Senator's promise to block a request for unanimous consent, if such a request is made. When a "hold" is on a bill, it means it won't pass without a fight. That should be sufficient to run out the clock on this session, since I can't imagine that the Majority Leader would want to dedicate substantial floor time to the issue.

Has any Senator placed a hold on the House bill? Beats me. Holds are secret, so we won't know anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a relatively powerful Senator like Senator Reid really wants to kill this bill for this session, the odds are quite high that he can, right? This basically seems pretty encouraging.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

So if a relatively powerful Senator like Senator Reid really wants to kill this bill for this session, the odds are quite high that he can, right? This basically seems pretty encouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Nyago123]

[ QUOTE ]

What are the online poker rooms doing?

I think most individuals are on the legislative forum since they are interested in doing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know FTP invited me to join the lobby Poker Player's Alliance, which has some visible members like Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson. I joined and sent them $20 and got a T-shirt. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
As with anything political, I think it depends on how "high profile" the bill is, not its actual importance to anyone (e.g. the Pledge of Allegiance bill). In that regard, I'm not sure if a lot of media or very little media would be helpful to us as opposers of the bill- I think a lot of media might help if there was enough public outcry against it (and consensus seems to indicate people support online gaming- or at least oppose restrictive regulation on the Internet)

[/ QUOTE ]

Two excellent points in your parenthesis, but I just want to point out that I'm interested in a lot of publicity mostly because I want a final resolution so this whole thing goes away.

[ QUOTE ]
but it seems also like the House thought this was a good way to boost their political public standing ahead of the upcoming election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, a good way for me to vote against a guy I've voted for in four straight elections.

[BluffTHIS!]

Hi tipper,

Thanks for that analysis. It is worth noting as has been before in previous threads over the months leading up to this that the 40 days left in this session alluded to above in another post depends upon the senate adjourning on time which is less than likely. However even with a common extension of another 30 days or so I imagine your analysis and answer to the question on the hold still applies, i.e. that barring a strong reason to fast track this in the senate (and only 1/3 of them face election and any perceived need to suck up to the anti-gambling folks), this bill still faces significant hurdles. Also, I can't imagine that the senate will ignore the effects of this thing on the small banks and the legal situation with the WTO as the house did.

It would be nice to have one poker playing senator stall on the bubble and run his time bank out.