Waiting for the other shoe to drop .... any sign of a Senate bill ?

[TruePoker CEO]

From Senator Kyl:

“For more than a decade, I have fought for legislation to enforce Internet gambling prohibitions,” said Kyl. “Today’s action in the House is a very encouraging step, and I will work with my colleagues to explore all ways to move this much-needed legislation through the Senate this year.”

Interesting comment, as he did not rush any bill into contention. Perhaps, will we see some sort of Amendment offered to some less-than-germane piece of larger legislation ?

Can the re-elcetion effort in Arizona pre-occupy Senator Kyl, who seems comfortably ahead in polls but is tied to the War in Iraq and opposition to immigration reform ?

Anyone from the Hill have any insights as to how this will surface in the Senate ? (The later, the better.)

[RedBean]

We need to throw a mountain of support behind Kyl's challenger, whether it be monetary, or voting support for those who reside in his district.

The effect would be to keep Kyl busy fighting for his own seat, and having to spend less time on the hill swinging deals to get passage, and more time back home firming up his base to keep his job.

Kyl holds the key, to some extent, and the important thing is not to "get to him", because you can't on this issue, he is dead set. The important thing is to "get rid of him", or at least put enough opposition pressure on him that it diverts his primary focus from passing this bill, to getting reelected instead.

That's one key avenue to approach.

The other approach is a simple one, but one that many people don't want to take the time or sacrifice to do. Send a snail mail to your senator expressing your concerns, included with a $100 donation to his campaign.

Money talks, however token small, and after many years of greasing the palms of my own senate representatives in this perfectly legal manner, I can certainly attest to it's effectiveness. I've had my local senator, while serving in a senate leadership role, personally call to help settle even the most trivial disputes on my behalf, ranging from minor city ordinances, to local homeowners association issues, just for the simple reason that he remembered I was one of a handful of individual and concerned voters in his district that routinely sent him a check every year.

If your representative is dead set against the measure, however, then by all means, do NOT send him a donation, instead send the donation via snail mail to his opponent in upcoming elections, and CC your incumbent on the letter. Explain thoroughly your choice, and mention that you are contributing to the opponent because you find the incumbents attempts at restricting your civil liberty appalling and do not wish to see him re-elected.

The other avenue is to get the ACLU on this, as an issue of civil liberties. It isn't a 1st amendment free speech issue as many have said, but they overlook that it could very well be a 5th amdnt. 'due process' issue in the hands of the right lawyer in front of the right court. If by chance this goes into effect as law, we need to locate that right court, and get a test case going in that jurisdiction.

And lastly, I personally don't see this getting through the senate this year, and it may not require us to rally the troops just yet, but we also shouldn't take the chance and sit back on our haunches with hopeful optimism. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to defeat a bill than it is to repeal a law.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
.....

And lastly, I personally don't see this getting through the senate this year, and it may not require us to rally the troops just yet, but we also shouldn't take the chance and sit back on our haunches with hopeful optimism. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to defeat a bill than it is to repeal a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the key

[damaniac]

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that you can win this on (substantative) due process. You'd be damned lucky to get passed summary judgment before you even get to trial. The state has always regulated/banned gambling, I don't think a court is going to find a right to gamble or, in the language of Lochner, some sort of right to practice your profession as a gambler.

[tipperdog]

Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar. However, placement on the calendar doesn't mean much at all--a Senator (almost always the Majority Leader) must move to bring the bill from the calendar to the floor in order for it to be considered.

I wrote a longer post about Senate process and prospects here. Posts prefaced with "I know what I'm talking about" are almost always useless, but I did work legislation in the Senate for over a decade, so (forgive me but) "I know what I'm talking about."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...rue#Post6504854 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=law&Number=6504854&Se archpage=1&Main=6503430&Words=+tipperdog&topic=&Se arch=true#Post6504854)

Also, RedBean is correct about Kyl's reelection effort. The Democrat there is a longshot but not a hopeless one. In fact, he's outperformed most observers' expectation to date. This is the kind of "dark horse" race that might wind up much closer than people expect.

You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com. (http://www.Pederson2006.com.)

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but this is actually incorrect. Bills received from the House are generally "read twice" by the Clerk and referred to a Committee, unless directed otherwise by leadership. Sometimes, a bill is ordered held at the desk under the provisions of rule XIV, other times it is placed directly on the calendar (which, for those of you wondering, is not a calendar in the conventional sense, but rather a list of bills eligible for floor action). Between the time the bill is received and the time it is actually referred to a committee, it is technically on the calendar, but is only there for the purposes of either a first or second reading.

I yield back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

EDIT: Also, just to clarify from the post you linked to, holds are no longer secret after a few days. The practice of anonymous holds was ended a few years ago.

[Berge20]

Sadly, I laughed at that King

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
I yeild back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lawman007]

Hey, TruePoker CEO, how come the online gambling sites haven't been throwing tons of money into lobbying against this bill? Relying entirely on the Poker Players' Alliance to lobby against it sure seems stupid to me, considering all of the money that's at stake.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but this is actually incorrect. Bills received from the House are generally "read twice" by the Clerk and referred to a Committee, unless directed otherwise by leadership. Sometimes, a bill is ordered held at the desk under the provisions of rule XIV, other times it is placed directly on the calendar (which, for those of you wondering, is not a calendar in the conventional sense, but rather a list of bills eligible for floor action). Between the time the bill is received and the time it is actually referred to a committee, it is technically on the calendar, but is only there for the purposes of either a first or second reading.

I yeild back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

EDIT: Also, just to clarify from the post you linked to, holds are no longer secret after a few days. The practice of anonymous holds was ended a few years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my luck to run into a bunch of Hill Rats on a Poker board /images/graemlins/grin.gif I was just trying to keep things simple!

However, if you want to nit, I double nit your nit. My statement "Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar" is 100% true (as you acknowledged). Bills are usually referred to committee from there, but any Senator can object to referral and it will remain on the Calendar. In fact, the House-passed bill is on the Senate calendar right now. Also, a motion for consideration is almost always required whether a bill has been approved by Committee or not.

Procedural nits aside, the fundamental point remains. TruePoker was really asking "does the House action automatically facilitate Senate action?" The answer is a big fat "no." The Senate can be a graveyard for House-passed bills and vice-versa.

Also, you are correct that the Senate claims to have abolished the practice of secret holds, but I understand the practice continues. I won't claim this to be 100% true since I've been off the hill for a while, but my understanding is that the secrecy "clock" only runs when the hold actually blocks an action. For example, a Senator makes a motion and the leader says "I object on behalf of a Senator on my side of aisle." In the good ol' days, that would be enough. Today, the holding Senator would now have a limited period of time in which to identify him/herself or the hold would expire.

However, as a practical matter, these "floor showdowns" rarely occur. Typically, a Senator inquires through the policy committees if holds exist on their bills. If so, they can usually find out who placed them with relative ease. But, the entire process is off-the-record and entirely out of the public eye. ("Secret" hold was always a misnomer, anyway. The term should have been "unpublished" hold or something similar).

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I yeild back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to see that the typos of others are the issue at hand.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I laughed at that King

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sure sign that you should leave the hill. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Berge20]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I double nit your nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner!!

We're generally in agreement on the process, but I thought I'd just take a little potshot for fun. I too am off the Hill, so I could be wrong about exactly how the holds are working right now. What I said was based on the publicly announced rule change eliminating secret holds, and an incident where leadership outed a few members who were holding a bill up a few years ago. Most of the time, there is no way to know whether a bill has holds until the leadership tries to hotline it (e.g. call it up) for passage or the motion to proceed. Heck, I could go on, but we're already neck deep in dorkdom.

Also, I don't mind being called out for typos. Afterall, I was trying to call somone else out on a technicality. Might as well be expected not to make technical mistakes myself when doing so.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
Heck, I could go on, but we're already neck deep in dorkdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm a dork myself but I'm enjoying this and learning something in the process.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I yeild back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to see that the typos of others are the issue at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little levity never killed anyone. Just saw humor in the misspelling being in the same sentence as "pwnage" All in good fun.

[Berge20]

I ask unanimous consent to take HR. 4411 from the desk, amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause, read a 3rd time and pass the bill as amended.

[tipperdog]

I believe that you inadvertently omitted the most important part of your UC request.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask unanimous consent to take HR. 4411 from the desk, amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting the following new text, Section 1. Internet gambling is lawful. Section 2. Dutch Boyd shall auction his bracelet on EBay and use the proceeds to reimburse PokerSpot depositors. Section 3. The national motto shall be changed from E. Pluribus Unum to "If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every time." , read a 3rd time and pass the bill as amended.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ajsuited]

It won't hit the Senate this session. We must all be thankful the the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist is regarded, correctly as inept in the ways of the legislative process in the Senate. Kyl has a potentially tough Senate race, DeWine in OH is a toss-up at this point.

I don't think this bill will be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee this cycle though. The GOP committee memembers are a mix of right wing nuts, religious conservatives and some moderates.

Right now for sure there are 4 CERTAIN VOTES for banning internet gambling (Hatch-R UT, Kyl R-AZ, DeWine R-OH, Brownback R-KS).

If similar legislation was taken up by the Senate, the legislative strategy to pursue would be to lobby the Democratic members and lock down 1 or 2 R's to guarantee that the bill would not make it out of committee.

We need to form a PAC - the Poker Players Alliance at this point to my knowledge doesn't have a PAC. Heed the advice of Samuel Gompers, "Reward our Friends and PUNISH our enemies."

Yeah the system sucks, but if the PAA registered as a PAC with the FEC we could give out 5K contributions to friendly senate judiciary members. We need to get our act in gear as this legislation most likely will die this cycle, but if the GOP controls Congress next cycle look for this bill to be resurrected. And if that's the case I repeat: we need to get our act in gear.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I ask unanimous consent to take HR. 4411 from the desk, amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause, read a 3rd time and pass the bill as amended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. The yeas and nays have been requested, the Clerk will call the roll.

EDIT: Whoops, objection is heard. The question now arises on the bill, as modified by the tipperdog amendment.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that you inadvertently omitted the most important part of your UC request.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask unanimous consent to take HR. 4411 from the desk, amend the bill by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting the following new text, Section 1. Internet gambling is lawful. Section 2. Dutch Boyd shall auction his bracelet on EBay and use the proceeds to reimburse PokerSpot depositors. Section 3. The national motto shall be changed from E. Pluribus Unum to "If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every time." , read a 3rd time and pass the bill as amended.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD!!!

[spatne]

Speaking of holds, what are the odds that Reid puts on hold on this? He seems the logical choice, but does his position as minority leader make it more or less likely that he would do so?

[TruePoker CEO]

"Reward our Friends and PUNISH our enemies."

Geez, in another life in D.C, I always ascribed that to either JR Hoffa or Richard Nixon, depending upon who I was talking to.

I really appreciate the apparent expertise appearing out of the woodwork in this forum.

I haven't looked at FEC rules/regs in a while, but I recall they were onerous.

[TruePoker CEO]

Uhm .... Bill of attainder issue, I'm afraid ....

[TruePoker CEO]

Hey, if I had tons of money, I would throw it against this bill. .... So, come play at our site; if I get tons of money, I'll throw tons of money against it.

(No, I never claimed to be an altruist.)

[TruePoker CEO]

Great post, except for the ACLU part .... We want to be Player, we do NOT want to be litigants.

[LadyWrestler]

"Great post" +1!

Also, this should cross party lines.

[AZplaya]

[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com. (http://www.Pederson2006.com.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter /images/graemlins/smile.gif Any other thoughts?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of holds, what are the odds that Reid puts on hold on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the odds of that are extremely slim.

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

[ QUOTE ]
While Nevada lawmakers in the House sought to block an Internet gambling ban, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I'm going to vote to ban it (online wagering)."

Reid, a former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, has said he does not think Internet gambling can be effectively regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-12-Wed-2006/news/8447514.html

[antneye]

Any idea what the latest update means..........

This is taken from the senate web site moments ago:

4. H.R.4411 : To prevent the use of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Leach, James A. [IA-2] (introduced 11/18/2005) Cosponsors (35)
Committees: House Financial Services; House Judiciary
House Reports: 109-412 Part 1, 109-412 Part 2
Latest Major Action: 7/13/2006 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 519.

[CrashPat]

This is probably relevant:

Some clippings from my correspondence with Senator Enzi (R-WY)

Yeah, I'm registered in Wyoming. Ugh. I grew up there, it truly is a backwards hick state.

[ QUOTE ]
I am concerned that
gambling makes promises of wealth that are unattainable and I have seen
families torn apart by an addiction to gambling. The closer a home is to
gambling facilities, the more likely the addiction; and online gambling
puts it in every home and removes the social contact


[/ QUOTE ]

some discussion about house bills 4411 and 4777, then this one

[ QUOTE ]
No similar legislation exists in the Senate. However, Senator John Kyl
(R-AZ) has led the charge against Internet gambling in the past, and I
expect him to do so during the 109th Congress. I support Senator Kyl's
efforts to find a solution to this important issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I emailed my other senator as well, but I have not recieved a reply. I expect an identical reply from him, if not carbon copy, basically carbon copy.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
Calendar No. 519

[/ QUOTE ]


mmmm i like.

[TruePoker CEO]

That is terrible news.

If EVERYONE who visits Las Vegas during the WSOP stops by Senator Reid's office to explain they support online poker and are in Las Vegas for the WSOP because of Online Poker, then he may see it differently.

PLEASE go visit Senator Reid's office .... It is downtown

Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030

about 4 blocks from Binions and 2 blocks from Fremont Street and Las Vegas Boulevard.

Ask Harry to support the AGA bill, not a ban on online poker.

[TruePoker CEO]

What does putting it on the Calendar 519 mean ? Should we assume it can be taken and scheduled at any time by Frist's request ?

[disjunction]

I just want to throw this thought out there. Perhaps it is an impossible task in the next month to convince legislators that the bill is unpopular, and the proper strategy for the bill's opponents at this time is to just not draw further attention to it, so that it doesn't get assigned priority.

[mdrudeen]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to throw this thought out there. Perhaps it is an impossible task in the next month to convince legislators that the bill is unpopular, and the proper strategy for the bill's opponents at this time is to just not draw further attention to it, so that it doesn't get assigned priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in the sense that you may wan't to think twice before writing a letter to the editor but I do not think that telling your senator that this bill sucks balls will draw attention to it.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
What does putting it on the Calendar 519 mean ? Should we assume it can be taken and scheduled at any time by Frist's request ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Calendar numbers mean little to nothing in today's Congress. Just a required practice, so don't read anything into it. Not as if #15 is any different that #500

Reid's comments are very bad.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calendar No. 519

[/ QUOTE ]


mmmm i like.

[/ QUOTE ]

This number bears no significance whatsoever to the order in which the bill would be called up. It is merely a numerical identifier.

As for being "placed on the calendar," I am surprised to a degree. The bill COULD have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, but it was not. Depending on your level of anxiety, this is either:

Bad news in the sense that this bill could, at any time, clear the Senate in 30 seconds by unanimous consent (someone just asks that it passes, and if nobody objects, it is passed right there and then -- no vote, nothing... there is a process of pre-clearance that has to happen before anyone does this, but that pre-clearance is often only an hour's worth of calls to offices, also known as "hotlining" a bill), or by voice vote, which for the purposes of this bill is the same as unanimous consent (e.g. there is not a roll call vote, and nothing is really ever rejected by VV).

or

Good news in the sense that one possible course of action involves the Judiciary Committee coming up with its own bill on net gambling, has a hearing on that bill, marks it up, and reports it out for consideration. The Senate would then call up the House bill, strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert the text of the Senate bill. This process involves both time and potential modifications to the bill, which as I have described before result in the need for more time prior to passage.

Personally, I do not know what to think. I believe we'll know more in 10 14 days.

[Berge20]

Good point King

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Reid's comments are very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those opposing this bill, Berge20 is absolutely correct. Reid is significant to this debate for two reasons: 1.) he is the most natural Senator, given his background and his home state, to oppose this bill. 2.) Being the Democratic leader, he is in a position to throw up obstacles to passage by objecting either himself or on behalf of other Dem Senators, to unanimous consent requests to advance the bill. He may also be in a position to talk to other Dems who may be teetering on the issue, and his view may influence theirs -- meaning they may be convinced not to oppose.

I would say his remarks double the chances for passage this term, from an unknown x to 2x. As I have said elsewhere, we may have a better clue as to what range of values are most likely for x in about 10 to 14 days.

EDIT: Additional analysis -- I don't know what kind of hit onling gaming stocks hit on foreign exchanges the other day when the House bill passed, but Reid's comments are warrant for additional drops in share price given the high % of the market that U.S. customers represent and the now-increased likelyhood of Senate passage.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reid's comments are very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance this signals a change in direction/strategy on behalf of the B&M industry -- from 'neutral' on HR 4411 to 'supporting its passage'? I was treating Reid as a bellwether on where the B&M industry stood. If they're now backing this bill, or even not actively opposing it, that would seem to be very bad.

[Wynton]

Here is me at my most optimistic:

Reid is aware that the bill will not come up for a vote in the senate this year, or believes that it won't. Thus, he figures it's better for him to come out with some brief anti-gambling statement, to make it appear that he is not overly beholden to the gambling industry.

Only problem with this view is that I don't know why Reid would care whether people thinks he's a tool of the gambling industry. Does this guy have presidential aspirations?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is me at my most optimistic:

Reid is aware that the bill will not come up for a vote in the senate this year, or believes that it won't. Thus, he figures it's better for him to come out with some brief anti-gambling statement, to make it appear that he is not overly beholden to the gambling industry.

Only problem with this view is that I don't know why Reid would care whether people thinks he's a tool of the gambling industry. Does this guy have presidential aspirations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's thought of as a Presidential contender for '08, and I certainly haven't seen any maneuvering on his part that would lead me to believe that.

As you say, it may be some kind of political calculation, whereby he claims he supports this bill -- not so much to disavow himself of the gaming industry, but to give the Democrats some cache among social conservatives (that is, to ensure that the GOP can't claim that the Democratic leaders in Congress opposed this measure). This might be a reach, though.

I still believe his comments are troubling nonetheless.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

bellwether on where the B&M industry stood. If they're now backing this bill, or even not actively opposing it, that would seem to be very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

They haven't been nearly as vocal as you would think. And then they'll be shocked, shocked in a year and a half when casinos lose their popularity.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reid's comments are very bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those opposing this bill, Berge20 is absolutely correct. Reid is significant to this debate for two reasons: 1.) he is the most natural Senator, given his background and his home state, to oppose this bill. 2.) Being the Democratic leader, he is in a position to throw up obstacles to passage by objecting either himself or on behalf of other Dem Senators, to unanimous consent requests to advance the bill. He may also be in a position to talk to other Dems who may be teetering on the issue, and his view may influence theirs -- meaning they may be convinced not to oppose.

I would say his remarks double the chances for passage this term, from an unknown x to 2x. As I have said elsewhere, we may have a better clue as to what range of values are most likely for x in about 10 to 14 days.

EDIT: Additional analysis -- I don't know what kind of hit onling gaming stocks hit on foreign exchanges the other day when the House bill passed, but Reid's comments are warrant for additional drops in share price given the high % of the market that U.S. customers represent and the now-increased likelyhood of Senate passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although, much like yourself and Berge, I am disturbed by Reid's comments, consider that he is pulling a Shelly Berkely type thing and interested in "banning all online gambling" but very much opposed to the HR bill because of all the exemptions. I just find it hard to believe that he'd be a vocal supporter of this bill when all three reps in NV are against it, as well as the state attorney general and the AGA support of the "study" bill.

[TruePoker CEO]

Sen. Reid is an incredibly good political strategist, one of the best.

While his public comment should trigger poker players to ask him to oppose the bill, it does not mean he expects it to come to a vote.

On the other hand, maybe he is log-rolling for something else, like Colorado River issues ... allowing Kyl to trade water for an online gaming ban. Who knows at this point ?

In any event online poker players MUST communicate to Senator Reid's office that they are in Las Vegas for the WSOP BECAUSE of online poker.

Truepoker CEO

[TruePoker CEO]

Ostriches seldom win.

I would hope that poker players go to the opposite extreme and object like hell to their Senators every day.

I would like to also attack the "money-laundering" red herring, by extending that same 'concern" to the bill supporters .... i.e. eBay and Paypal, which with DIRECT transactions between parties offer the most direct opportunity on the net to hide money transfers.

If online poker COULD theoretically launder money, according to some FBI concern, then eBay and Paypal could 10x launder money ... as there is no incentive that anyone verify identities or items used for phantom "purchases".

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com. (http://www.Pederson2006.com.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter /images/graemlins/smile.gif Any other thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him his position on the bill?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com. (http://www.Pederson2006.com.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter /images/graemlins/smile.gif Any other thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him his position on the bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering when someone was going to ask that. I don't know the answer, but I bet it is not likely what most people in this discussion want to hear.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com. (http://www.Pederson2006.com.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter /images/graemlins/smile.gif Any other thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him his position on the bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering when someone was going to ask that. I don't know the answer, but I bet it is not likely what most people in this discussion want to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Until it turns out he's actually an enemy, too. I imagine it could be a subject in any debate between the two, and something tells me Pederson is not going to tell a bunch of fairly "conservative" Arizonans that he's all for internet gambling.

Just a hunch. I don't really know where he is on this issue, so I could be wrong. If I had to guess, his position on the subject will be a non-position: criticize Kyl for focusing on the issue with so many other important things going on.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Additional analysis -- I don't know what kind of hit onling gaming stocks hit on foreign exchanges the other day when the House bill passed, but Reid's comments are warrant for additional drops in share price given the high % of the market that U.S. customers represent and the now-increased likelyhood of Senate passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

These comments were made two days ago. Since that time, gaming shares have gained a bit relative to the market.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Also, as a general comment, I think people are probably putting too much emphasis on what amount to throwaway comments by Reid, Kyl, etc. I also agree with the other poster that said we should know more once the time between now and the August recess has elapsed. Finally, I think it's somewhat encouraging that the media coverage of the bill's passage this week was comparatively light. Probably no more than 5% of Americans know that the bill passed through the House earlier in the week, whereas something like immigration reform has made headlines for months on end. Senators on both sides of the aisle can pick more visible issues if they want to score political points.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Additional analysis -- I don't know what kind of hit onling gaming stocks hit on foreign exchanges the other day when the House bill passed, but Reid's comments are warrant for additional drops in share price given the high % of the market that U.S. customers represent and the now-increased likelyhood of Senate passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

These comments were made two days ago. Since that time, gaming shares have gained a bit relative to the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Certainly not what I would have assumed. Of course what shares did relative to the market is not the only piece of info I'd want to have to decide if they moved appropriately as a result of the news. If the overall market was down for reasons that do not affect net gambling, and net gambling shares were also down, then the bill passage/remarks did have an effect, or some other force did.

Those comments may *seem* to be throwaway remarks, but I assure you that throwaway comments matter when you have a bill that could well pass in the span of 30 seconds at any given time. If this flies under the radar and nobody cares about it, nobody holds it, it will be very hard to stop. Reid's comments seem to indicate the possibility (though not a lock of) of a situation along exactly those lines.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is me at my most optimistic:

Reid is aware that the bill will not come up for a vote in the senate this year, or believes that it won't. Thus, he figures it's better for him to come out with some brief anti-gambling statement, to make it appear that he is not overly beholden to the gambling industry.

Only problem with this view is that I don't know why Reid would care whether people thinks he's a tool of the gambling industry. Does this guy have presidential aspirations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're dead on with the public perception point in your first point.

As to the question, the first point still plays - he probably doesn't want to be President (then again, every Senator thinks he/she can be President), but he DOES want to be majority leader. He'd like to avoid the "Shill for Big Casinos" label.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but this is actually incorrect. Bills received from the House are generally "read twice" by the Clerk and referred to a Committee, unless directed otherwise by leadership. Sometimes, a bill is ordered held at the desk under the provisions of rule XIV, other times it is placed directly on the calendar (which, for those of you wondering, is not a calendar in the conventional sense, but rather a list of bills eligible for floor action). Between the time the bill is received and the time it is actually referred to a committee, it is technically on the calendar, but is only there for the purposes of either a first or second reading.

I yeild back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

EDIT: Also, just to clarify from the post you linked to, holds are no longer secret after a few days. The practice of anonymous holds was ended a few years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just my luck to run into a bunch of Hill Rats on a Poker board /images/graemlins/grin.gif I was just trying to keep things simple!

However, if you want to nit, I double nit your nit. My statement "Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar" is 100% true (as you acknowledged). Bills are usually referred to committee from there, but any Senator can object to referral and it will remain on the Calendar. In fact, the House-passed bill is on the Senate calendar right now. Also, a motion for consideration is almost always required whether a bill has been approved by Committee or not.

Procedural nits aside, the fundamental point remains. TruePoker was really asking "does the House action automatically facilitate Senate action?" The answer is a big fat "no." The Senate can be a graveyard for House-passed bills and vice-versa.

Also, you are correct that the Senate claims to have abolished the practice of secret holds, but I understand the practice continues. I won't claim this to be 100% true since I've been off the hill for a while, but my understanding is that the secrecy "clock" only runs when the hold actually blocks an action. For example, a Senator makes a motion and the leader says "I object on behalf of a Senator on my side of aisle." In the good ol' days, that would be enough. Today, the holding Senator would now have a limited period of time in which to identify him/herself or the hold would expire.

However, as a practical matter, these "floor showdowns" rarely occur. Typically, a Senator inquires through the policy committees if holds exist on their bills. If so, they can usually find out who placed them with relative ease. But, the entire process is off-the-record and entirely out of the public eye. ("Secret" hold was always a misnomer, anyway. The term should have been "unpublished" hold or something similar).

[/ QUOTE ]

Tipperdog is correct - the practice continues. You could theoretically ask the cloakrooms who has a hold on something, but they ain't gonna tell you. A lot of holds are made public because a Senator sometimes WANTS people to know what he/she is doing. There are efforts underway (Sen. Feingold for one, I believe) to make all holds public, but that probably requires a rules change.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just my luck to run into a bunch of Hill Rats on a Poker board /images/graemlins/grin.gif I was just trying to keep things simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Where else would Hill Rats who play poker hang out?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[spatne]

I agree with you about Reid's savvy, but he gave a very clear and direct answer followed by a very succinct reason for his answer. Given that he's career was with the Nevada Gaming Commission, I'm taking him at his word that he doesn't think onling gambling is regulable. I guess I'm saying that if there's an angle, I don't see it.

A spokesman for Sen. Ensign, on the other hand, have the "politician's answer," saying that Ensign would review the legislation before making a decision. This, of course, means nothing, but it's the answer one expects from a politician who doesn't yet know how to frame his opinion.

The most optimism I can muster is that Reid and Ensign will somehow work together on this. It's a longshot, but their relationship is not known to be bitter or acrimonious. Personally, I've always thought of Ensign as a rubber stamper, so I don't have much faith in him. Maybe he'll call in a favor with Frist and it'll never come to the floor?

[spatne]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the question, the first point still plays - he probably doesn't want to be President (then again, every Senator thinks he/she can be President), but he DOES want to be majority leader. He'd like to avoid the "Shill for Big Casinos" label.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I just made a post that I couldn't see the angle to Reid's comments, but this could be it. He also might want to avoid the inevitable spin that DEMOCRATS /images/graemlins/heart.gif DEGENERATE GAMBLERS, which surely would follow.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
Only problem with this view is that I don't know why Reid would care whether people thinks he's a tool of the gambling industry. Does this guy have presidential aspirations?

[/ QUOTE ]
No he doesn't. Well, maybe pipedreams, but he's smart enough to know it'll never happen.

[TruePoker CEO]

"criticize Kyl for focusing on the issue with so many other important things going on"

See Arizona Congress Watch ...

Issues like: Immigration Reform .... a biggie in AZ
Minimum wage .... another biggie for his labor constiuency
The War in Iraq


The immediate issue for poker players however is not whehter he will win and be against us, it is to tie up Senator Kyl at home .... on whatever issue makes the race close.

What Pederson might do next year could not be more adverse to the rights of poker players than what Senator Kyl does every year. However, I asked him the following this afternoon:

"HR 4411 was recently passed. It seeks to ban online poker players in the US from playing poker on the Internet. Among other items, it seeks to criminalize activities enjoyed by millions of American adults, because the bill's proponents do not like ANY form of gambling.

The red herrings used to support the bill are generally, protection of the "Family" by the Federal Government and a theoretical "moneylaundering" threat, common to any internet-transfer sites ... including eBay and Paypal.

Your opponent is a BIG supporter of outlawing internet poker playing.

Do you have a position on this draconian bill ? Would you prefer the American Gaming Assoc alternative of studying the industry with a view toward possible regulation of any legitimate issues.

David Gzesh"

[AZplaya]

[ QUOTE ]
criticize Kyl for focusing on the issue with so many other important things going on"

See Arizona Congress Watch ...

Issues like: Immigration Reform .... a biggie in AZ
Minimum wage .... another biggie for his labor constiuency
The War in Iraq


The immediate issue for poker players however is not whehter he will win and be against us, it is to tie up Senator Kyl at home .... on whatever issue makes the race close.

What Pederson might do next year could not be more adverse to the rights of poker players than what Senator Kyl does every year. However, I asked him the following this afternoon:

"HR 4411 was recently passed. It seeks to ban online poker players in the US from playing poker on the Internet. Among other items, it seeks to criminalize activities enjoyed by millions of American adults, because the bill's proponents do not like ANY form of gambling.

The red herrings used to support the bill are generally, protection of the "Family" by the Federal Government and a theoretical "moneylaundering" threat, common to any internet-transfer sites ... including eBay and Paypal.

Your opponent is a BIG supporter of outlawing internet poker playing.

Do you have a position on this draconian bill ? Would you prefer the American Gaming Assoc alternative of studying the industry with a view toward possible regulation of any legitimate issues.

David Gzesh"

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice. I asked him his position on the bill in the letter I sent with a donation, but I just sent it earlier this week so I haven't received a response. I agree that a close race will tie up Kyl and hopefully take his attention away from this bill. IMO, equally important is the fact that if democrats sense that they have a chance in a state as red as Arizona, I think they will do everything in their power to prevent Kyl from getting a bill that he is spearheading through the senate, especially this close to the elections. I'm sure democrats can already picture the ads Kyl would be running, preaching to all of the conservative bible thumpers here in AZ about how he saved the country from certain moral decline with his internet gambling ban. More about the race (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=67031) from a local newspaper. Note that the biggest issue, by far, is immigration.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

How is this issse likely to play in Arizona anyway? My understanding is that Arizona has always been more libertarian conservative than bible belt conservative. Also, the state has a fairly substantial Native American population, and the National Indian Gaming Association has come out against the bill. It just doesn't seem that Kyl has that much political incentive to get the bill passed, particularly since this looks like a one-issue (immigration) race.

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"criticize Kyl for focusing on the issue with so many other important things going on"

See Arizona Congress Watch ...

Issues like: Immigration Reform .... a biggie in AZ
Minimum wage .... another biggie for his labor constiuency
The War in Iraq


The immediate issue for poker players however is not whehter he will win and be against us, it is to tie up Senator Kyl at home .... on whatever issue makes the race close.

What Pederson might do next year could not be more adverse to the rights of poker players than what Senator Kyl does every year. However, I asked him the following this afternoon:

"HR 4411 was recently passed. It seeks to ban online poker players in the US from playing poker on the Internet. Among other items, it seeks to criminalize activities enjoyed by millions of American adults, because the bill's proponents do not like ANY form of gambling.

The red herrings used to support the bill are generally, protection of the "Family" by the Federal Government and a theoretical "moneylaundering" threat, common to any internet-transfer sites ... including eBay and Paypal.

Your opponent is a BIG supporter of outlawing internet poker playing.

Do you have a position on this draconian bill ? Would you prefer the American Gaming Assoc alternative of studying the industry with a view toward possible regulation of any legitimate issues.

David Gzesh"

[/ QUOTE ]

I have really enjoyed and appreciated the input you have added in this issue over the last few week on this board.
That being said, I have asked, and would suggest you maybe should have as well, the same question a little different way of candidates for these offices. I want to know their genuine opinions, not lead them on in any particular way of what I want to hear. I am currently awaiting an answer from the Democrat House candidate here locally in Kentucky, but he has no idea which side of the debate I am on (at least I believe).
Just a thought.
Les

[Eric Stoner]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this issse likely to play in Arizona anyway? My understanding is that Arizona has always been more libertarian conservative than bible belt conservative. Also, the state has a fairly substantial Native American population, and the National Indian Gaming Association has come out against the bill. It just doesn't seem that Kyl has that much political incentive to get the bill passed, particularly since this looks like a one-issue (immigration) race.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have only lived here for a year, so others who have been here longer can weigh in more heavily, but my perception is that the average citizen would care more about the immigration issue than anything else. Kyl might be preoccupied with that but I knew of his record to champion a Internet Gambling ban before I moved here.

I'm currently revising my response to my senators and Mr. Pederson. My state is dead weight though - we'll need some help.

[Ragnar]

Nate wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Arizona has always been more libertarian conservative than bible belt conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That used to be true. Now the demographics and politics of Arizona is incredibly complex. We have a Democratic governor and attorney general, but the legislature is solidly Republican, in fact within one vote of veto proof.

In addition the influence of Goldwater conservatism has been diluted. As an example John Shadegg is the son of Goldwater's original campaign manager, and is a religious conservative. Of the six Republican representatives four are religious conservatives, one (Flake) is a libertarian conservative, and the other (Kolbe) is a bit of a mixture.

Using this bill as an example the delegation split 4-4 with the two Democrats voting with Flake and Kolbe against, and the four religious conservatives voting in favor.

The important thing about Pederson is that he won't be carrying the water for ending Internet gambling. Even if he isn't on our side, removing one of the leading proponents of the ban would be a positive. If the ban doesn't pass this year Kyl will be pushing it again in the next Congress.

Other posters are correct in that this is a minor issue in Arizona. Immigration is the big issue, but I don't see this as a one issue campaign at all. Nor does Pederson. He is using the classic outsider theme, painting Kyl as having been in Washington too long, and being beholden to special interests.