sweetjazz
07-12-2006, 11:19 AM
Here is a comprehensive article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501539_pf.html) that discusses how the original Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 was derailed.
A couple of things to note:
* That year, the legislation passed the Senate. It was only derailed in the House after an intense lobbying effort.
* Jack Abramoff was the person who effectively killed the legislation, working through a series of intermediaries. The opposition to the bill in 2000 was not based on the desire to protect civil liberties -- it was based on the fear that Republicans would lose seats by being portrayed as *soft* on gambling (because that bill had exceptions for horse racing and jai alai).
* What politicians in Washington (outside of representatives from Nevada) seem to fear most on this issue is that they are going to be seen as friendly with gambling interests. That means we need to consider whether it is in our best interest in terms of public advocacy to make the very reasonable civil liberties argument or to focus on trying very legitimately smear the politicians involved for giving into those online gaming interests with the most lobbying power in Washington. Another approach is to vigorously support the Poker Players Alliance, with the hope that they convey to Washington a large voice of voter displeasure with this bill.
A couple of things to note:
* That year, the legislation passed the Senate. It was only derailed in the House after an intense lobbying effort.
* Jack Abramoff was the person who effectively killed the legislation, working through a series of intermediaries. The opposition to the bill in 2000 was not based on the desire to protect civil liberties -- it was based on the fear that Republicans would lose seats by being portrayed as *soft* on gambling (because that bill had exceptions for horse racing and jai alai).
* What politicians in Washington (outside of representatives from Nevada) seem to fear most on this issue is that they are going to be seen as friendly with gambling interests. That means we need to consider whether it is in our best interest in terms of public advocacy to make the very reasonable civil liberties argument or to focus on trying very legitimately smear the politicians involved for giving into those online gaming interests with the most lobbying power in Washington. Another approach is to vigorously support the Poker Players Alliance, with the hope that they convey to Washington a large voice of voter displeasure with this bill.