Why does the Senate reject the bills (but the House passes them)?

[Arrash]

I am a Brit and wish to get some analysis from somebody more familiar with US domestic politics/legislative procedures.

Why do the anti-gambling bills tend to be successful in being approved by the House but then are always reject3ed when they reach the Senate?

I am familiar with the general principle that Senators have a much more diverse constituency and are hence more moderate but i would really appreciate some more in-depth analysis.

Goodlatte/Kyl/Leach have repeatedly failed so far, but to what are the key factors that cause this to occur. For example to what extent are the following factors relevant and what have I missed?:

1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

I would appreciate insights from who ever has the time to respond, but please re-irect me if this has been discussed in-depth already on the forum!

Many Thanks

Arrash
a.zafari@orbis.co.uk

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Who the hell knows. This whole "social conservative" thing is a scam. It's what they say to get elected but they never act on anything that they ran on in the first place. Chances are good this bill is going nowhere.

2. The carve-outs are for horseracing and state lotteries. That means the writers of the bill want to say that "this that and the other types of online gambling should be banned as it corrupts our (youth, country, phamilee values) but horsies and lotteries are good clean fun, they should stay." So in a nut shell, internet gambling: bad, horseracing lotteries: good.

3. See: flag burning, gay marriage, etc.

[chicagoY]

It isn't a Republican affair, a 3.5 to 1 majority never is. You don't have to convince Democrats for more than a few seconds that the state is good and needs to be in our life even more--from there any action undertaken by Washington becomes reasonable. The fedocracy and states steal 40 percent from our people so they can commit mischief and power games. If we cut them off and only give 10 percent then all of our lives will improve.

[Arrash]

Thanks for the feedback, also what is Kyl referring to with this comment:

Kyl praised the House vote but expressed caution about the ban's prospects in the Senate.

"The Senate procedures make it very difficult to get legislation passed in the time periods that we have here," Kyl said.

Thanks again!

Arrash

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the feedback, also what is Kyl referring to with this comment:

Kyl praised the House vote but expressed caution about the ban's prospects in the Senate.

"The Senate procedures make it very difficult to get legislation passed in the time periods that we have here," Kyl said.

Thanks again!

Arrash

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically the fact is that things move very slowly in washington. This is our greatest hope. If they don't get to it during the 109th congress (which ends this year) then it starts all over with the next congress (if anyone in office wants to try again).

With all that is going on in the world, and all the important legislation thats pending, and each of these clowns itching to go home and campaign for re-election, I am hoping that they just never get around to taking this bill up.

My gut tells me they will avoid it because they recognize that it may sound good on paper, but in essence they will be pissing off a bunch of people who are likely voters. Theres a saying that all politics is local.....well for 20 some odd american voters this is a very local issue. I have let each of my senators know that my future votes will be based on this issue.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery=Poor tax=Good
Poker=Bankrupts many college kids (and makes others rich)=bad



[/ QUOTE ]

A whole hell of a lot more college kids go bankrupt running up their credit cards at the mall and everywhere else than go bankrupt playing poker. And so what? They are ADULTS and should have the FREEDOM to do what they want with their own money without having the NANNY STATE telling them what to do for god's sake.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

In additioned to the aforementioned reasons, I suspect that the Senate is slightly less likely to pass legislation that they think will be feebly enforced.

[Jimmy The Fish]

Best to answer these in convoluted order, I think...

[ QUOTE ]
3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not strictly a Republican issue, as a lot of Democrats also voted for Goodlatte/Leach. But it is, at its heart, demagoguery; every member of the House is up for re-election in November, and voting for a "family-friendly" bill will be something that gets trumpeted in campaign ads, despite the fact that said bill may not actually become law.

[ QUOTE ]
1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election this year. (The 100 Senators serve staggered six-year terms, with 1/3 being up for re-election in any even-numbered year.) Most Senators are therefore more immune to the type of "family-values" hyperbole that surrounds this type of legislation. The Senate is not necessarily less socially conservative than the House, but it's less prone to rhetorical manipulation.

Another factor that may play a role in the Goodlatte/Leach bill's journey through the Senate is the fact that Jon Kyl is one of the Senators up for re-election. The Democratic Party has identified Kyl as one of the Republicans who are more vulnerable in 2006, and will not want to give him a significant legislative victory. Kyl has introduced numerous pieces of anti-gambling legislation in his Congressional career, and has spoken in favor of the Goodlatte/Leach bill.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic idea behind the carve-outs is to protect types of gambling that have previously been embraced by government. Lotteries are run by state governments; politicians therefore have a vested interest in allowing people to play the lottery as much as possible. The carve-out for horse racing is an attempt to sideline the relatively powerful horse-racing lobby, to prevent them from taking a side on this bill.

[TruePoker CEO]

The best book you could possibly get on the subject, bar none.

[NY60]

As you know, our "Congress" is made up of two (2) branches...the House of Representatives (the "House") and the Senate. The House members are elected according to population whereas the Senate is made up of two (2) Senators from each State. The Senate is constructed this way to ensure that a more populace State does not dominate a lesser populated State and that all States have an equal voice regarding legislation.

By contrast the House being constructed according to population size is supposed to be more reflective of the actual populace. Thus, the House is likened to the more common folk or commoners whereas the Senate is made of an elite, less common and more alfluent members.

The theory being that the House will be swayed more by emotion and public opinion which is supposed to be tempered by the more elite and level headed thinkers who are supposed to hear the cries of the commoners from the House and temper such cries for the greater populace and longevity of the Nation...theortically speaking of course!!!

This is why, supposedly, all legislative bills are to be first introduced and passed in the House before going to the Senate, although they have created procedural mechanism to allow the opposite as well.

This structure is why there are many bills passed in the House to only die in the Senate. Hopeflly, this is what will occur with the anti-gaming bill. Hopefully, those cooler heads in the Senate will realize the futility of passing unenforceable legislation, the danger to "Net Neutrality", and how we will be travelling down the path that China has taken regarding censorship of the internet.

When the dust settles, the Senate will let this legislation die thereby allowing the House Reps their public displays during an election year without harming the greater public issues and concerns regarding privacy and freedom albeit on the internet...after all it is in the internet that democracy places its greatest hopes of reaching the oppressed.

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery=Poor tax=Good
Poker=Bankrupts many college kids (and makes others rich)=bad

I kinda agree on that basis. Though I don't want this thing to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a college student and I receive preapproved credit cards probably once a month. Far far mor epeople go into debt from these being sent to students then what we will ever see from online poker

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
The best book you could possibly get on the subject, bar none.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on. Possibly the best non-fiction on any subject that I've ever read.

[Precision1C]

Every member of the House has to run for re-election every 2 years and the Senators run for re-election every 6 years. The average voter attention span is 18 months so the Senate can do what is correct instead of popular.

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery=Poor tax=Good
Poker=Bankrupts many college kids (and makes others rich)=bad

I kinda agree on that basis. Though I don't want this thing to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what the lawmakers think and it's wrong. College kids make up very little of the losing end and (IMO) more of the players that win. Who this bill targets is the guy who gets plowed playing poker and blows his next 3 paychecks on credit, not the college kids who deposit the minimum and play $5 SNG's.

The reason this is being brought up is this:

Lottery and interstate horse betting is tracked and taxed, govt gets a piece of the pie and the $ stays in the US

Poker is not taxed, is not tracked by the govt, and goes to offshore poker sites. This is why this is going through legislation.

[Oberonn]

As originally designed, the House was to represent the people and the Senate was to represent the interests of the States.

The Senators serve much longer terms and tend to be more keyed to thinking about issues in the long term including what the courts will do when the time comes to interpret the laws.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why, supposedly, all legislative bills are to be first introduced and passed in the House before going to the Senate, although they have created procedural mechanism to allow the opposite as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC this applies only to appropriations bills. Other laws can begin in either house and often similar legislation is introduced into each house at the same time.

[Chris Alger]

No. 3 is predominate. House members as a rule have to work harder to please constituents while Senators are freerer to consider "national" interests. Part of it is their respective election cycles, part of it is the sources of their financing. In this particular election it's critical for Republicans to get a big Christian turnout, and while there isn't much grass roots opposition to internet gambling, there's big opposition to it by evangelical pastors.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best book you could possibly get on the subject, bar none.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on. Possibly the best non-fiction on any subject that I've ever read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rank it a close second behind Richard Rhodes' incomparable "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", but I'm right there with you on that. Caro's book is outstanding. (Incidentally, is he any relation to Mike Caro? Just wondering.) Whatever his other strengths and faults, LBJ was possibly the most skilled operator of the machinery of government ever to occupy the Oval Office. If he hadn't been such an unlikeable cornpone personally (along with that little Vietnam problem he had), he might have ranked among our greatest Presidents.

I'm not worried about this bill's effect on my ability to play online poker. There is nothing in this bill that prevents me (if this bill becomes law) from taking a short vacation to the Bahamas to visit my brother-in-law's family, and while there opening up a checking account in a Bahamian bank (I only have to show up there once to open the account to get around the "know your customer" anti-laundering laws) which will serve as my fund conduit to Neteller and from there to the poker sites. The thing I'm worried about is that the fish are all going away if this thing passes, making it no longer profitable for someone like me who's just very good (as opposed to great or world class) to play online poker.

--Scott