Reality of Passing HR 2046

[Elijah Bailey]

There seems to be a general feeling that this bill doesn't have much chance of passing. I think this and other controversial bills have a pretty good chance of becoming law. The Senate voted yesterday to deny funding the war in Iraq without setting a time limit for troop withdrawal. The president has said this is unacceptable and will veto this measure. At this point, the political process kicks in. Congress will agree to a more fluid date on the troop withdrawal in exchange for getting the president to sign some formerly controversial items. HR 2046 will probably become an attachment to this compromise legislation and become a footnote in a much larger picture.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
HR 2046 will probably become an attachment to this compromise legislation and become a footnote in a much larger picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I think the bill has been drafted and something similar is unlikely to become a rider. In other words, if I'm not mistaken, HR 2046 CANNOT be added to another bill.

Also, understand that in order for the bill to be passed, it needs to have the majority approval of Congress. Right now it probably doesn't even have that.

[autobet]

If it did pass, it would also have to avoid being vetoed by the president.

[Skallagrim]

Politics is a strange thing, especially in Washington, DC.

Most of the congress really has no opinion on Internet Gambling and goes with the flow and the party leaderhsip.

A small vocal group can convince a majority to go with them in a number of ways, attaching a bill as a rider is only one of them.

I am guardedly optomistic here, the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us. The growing PPA is a plus. The writing campaigns are a plus. The polls that show when asked most americans support the right to play internet poker is a big plus. The closeness of recent elections is a plus because it shows how a small committed voting block can make a difference (think NRA). The compromise provisions of the bill (which would let born again South Carolina and the NFL opt out) are a plus. The fact that very little fraud or underage gambling has occurred at internet sites is a plus. The fact that no real money laundering has occurred (real as in money that wasnt already "illegal" gambling money) is a plus.

Dont give up now, write your representatives!

Skallagrim

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
... the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there been any confirmation that any bank has made a public fuss about UIGEA? It's logical they will, but until they do isn't this speculation?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... the money and clout of the banks who hate the UIGEA is a big plus for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there been any confirmation that any bank has made a public fuss about UIGEA? It's logical they will, but until they do isn't this speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in a hurry to go drinking, treywilley, so no links. But I have read more than a few articles (some with links posted in these forums) that include short quotes from various representatives of the banking lobby stating how they are displeased with the requirements of the UIGEA because it will cost them money to do the monitoring the UIGEA requires. Its not that any of them said they were on our side and support poker, but they are saying "hey, if your gonna ban this stuff make someone else responisble."

Skallagrim

[adanthar]

Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[TheEngineer]

The odds of new legislation making the status quo WORSE passing any day soon is roughly zero! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

And, if we make a good showing here, it should slow down enforcement of the existing opportunities.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bill allows companies in the US to start their own site (does it say that? I've heard both ways) , Harrah's/MGM/etc... will be all for it, and we all know what state the leader of the Senate's from.

Has Bush used his second veto yet?

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]


Has Bush used his second veto yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

He;s about too.

[demon102]

So bush has a limit of only use 3 vetos?

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
So bush has a limit of only use 3 vetos?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he doesn't have a limit.

[tautomer]

No but I think that's as high as he can count.

[DMoogle]

[ QUOTE ]
No but I think that's as high as he can count.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT and LOL factor.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bill allows companies in the US to start their own site (does it say that? I've heard both ways) , Harrah's/MGM/etc... will be all for it, and we all know what state the leader of the Senate's from.

Has Bush used his second veto yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bill passes, why would it need to give a company explicit permission to start up a legal business?

[tautomer]

Every business needs to file the proper paperwork.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You dont feel like Bush is going to veto this at all? Wouldnt he not want people saying "Bush supports internet gambling" at all?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You dont feel like Bush is going to veto this at all? Wouldnt he not want people saying "Bush supports internet gambling" at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's passed on its own somehow, it'll have to have fairly wide Republican support

If it's attached to something else, nobody will care

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it are roughly 99.999999999%.

The reason Bush has only used two vetos is that he had a congress with a majority of his party. This has changed for this congress, and I expect to see many items that will be Vetoed by Bush.

Our only chance if its passed with an unrelated bill Bush needs to sign

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You dont feel like Bush is going to veto this at all? Wouldnt he not want people saying "Bush supports internet gambling" at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, THAT would destroy his cred.

Can we wait until the bill is past step one before we worry about the last step?

[llayner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You dont feel like Bush is going to veto this at all? Wouldnt he not want people saying "Bush supports internet gambling" at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he'll go where the banking lobby goes and take advantage of the tax opportunity. Easy positive spin.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Every business needs to file the proper paperwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point being?

[joeker]

Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is less of a threat than a standard veto.

The biggest challenge here is passing both houses. Bush has shown an unwillingness to use a veto except on extremely controversial bills where has a strong, publicly known stance (i.e. iraq.) While this bill might be somewhat controversial, and he might have a moral stance, I don't believe it's a big enough issue to see a veto if it's strong enough to get to his desk.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is less of a threat than a standard veto.

The biggest challenge here is passing both houses. Bush has shown an unwillingness to use a veto except on extremely controversial bills where has a strong, publicly known stance (i.e. iraq.) While this bill might be somewhat controversial, and he might have a moral stance, I don't believe it's a big enough issue to see a veto if it's strong enough to get to his desk.

[/ QUOTE ]

During Bush's first 6 years, he had Rebpublican majorities. The next 2, is a Democratic majority. He will be using his Veto pen much more often.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No but I think that's as high as he can count.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT and LOL factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gif

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every business needs to file the proper paperwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling businesses would have their own paperwork to file under this bill. Nothing special.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

adanthar,

Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr4411sap-h.pdf) , which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year, which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

In political time, last year was decades away. Back then, the Republican Party thought they could maintain their majorities by appealing only to social conservatives. That strategy was blown out of the water in November! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I'm not suggesting he's going to suddenly support us, but he may be less willing to spend what political capital he has on this than he was in the past.

As an aside, imagine of someone tried to reintroduce HR 4411 today? The political landscape sure has changed.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year, which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

In political time, last year was decades away. Back then, the Republican Party thought they could maintain their majorities by appealing only to social conservatives. That strategy was blown out of the water in November! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I'm not suggesting he's going to suddenly support us, but he may be less willing to spend what political capital he has on this than he was in the past.

As an aside, imagine of someone tried to reintroduce HR 4411 today? The political landscape sure has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eng, is this just optimism?

How sure are you that the "landscape" has changed... certainly we will find out... but have you reviewed the numbers? HR4411 had a pretty strong majority.

Just to be clear... I have not yet reviewed the numbers... and my question is... has anyone else reviewed the numbers of who is still around from that last vote?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Eng, is this just optimism?

How sure are you that the "landscape" has changed... certainly we will find out... but have you reviewed the numbers? HR4411 had a pretty strong majority.

Just to be clear... I have not yet reviewed the numbers... and my question is... has anyone else reviewed the numbers of who is still around from that last vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong...it's still an uphill struggle and then some.

As for enacting the harsher HR 4411 provisions that didn't make it into UIGEA, it's unlikely, I think, that the Republican minority would feel any need to push something like this through. Their game plan of gerrymandered districts and 100% support of social conservatives has crumbled, and Leach and Frist are gone.

They thought we were easy targets, but now are finding out that, while we're not exactly the nation's most powerful lobby, the combination of D'Amato, PPA, us writing, some money, and Frank bill (which now has 11 cosponsors!) makes us something less than easy pickings. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheEngineer]

HR 4026 has 11 cosponsors!

Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
They thought we were easy targets, but now are finding out that, while we're not exactly the nation's most powerful lobby, the combination of D'Amato, PPA, us writing, some money, and Frank bill (which now has 11 cosponsors!) makes us something less than easy pickings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have any idea how many co-sponsors the average HR bill gets?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr4411sap-h.pdf) , which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different story. There's almost no way this bill passes (the Senate, especially) on its own; it has to be inserted somewhere. If that happens, a)Reid felt the need to do it [I don't see any other Senate Dems going on his turf to push this], b)it has enough Republican support that no one really objects to it, and c)Bush isn't vetoing anything important and pissing off the majority leader over this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They thought we were easy targets, but now are finding out that, while we're not exactly the nation's most powerful lobby, the combination of D'Amato, PPA, us writing, some money, and Frank bill (which now has 11 cosponsors!) makes us something less than easy pickings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have any idea how many co-sponsors the average HR bill gets?

[/ QUOTE ]

from http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/legislative_cosponsorship_networks.pdf:

"The average House bill was cosponsored by only 3–19 House members and the average Senate bill was cosponsored by only 3–5 Senators."

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Different story. There's almost no way this bill passes (the Senate, especially) on its own; it has to be inserted somewhere. If that happens, a)Reid felt the need to do it [I don't see any other Senate Dems going on his turf to push this], b)it has enough Republican support that no one really objects to it, and c)Bush isn't vetoing anything important and pissing off the majority leader over this.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. If Frank is successful in inserting his bill in a bill that passes the house, Reid does not need to do anything similar in the Senate. What would likely happen is that either A. Whatever legislation the rider is attached to is defeated in the Senate and it dies or B. a House bill with gambling language and a Senate bill without would go to conference committee and its fate would be determined there. If the conference committee leaves the rider on, no special action needs to take place on it, the whole bill just needs to be passed by the House and Senate and signed by Bush.

The key is which bill Frank attaches gambling legislation to. If he attaches it to a bill to pull troops out of Iraq, its DOA. If it is a defense appropriation bill, it will likely be signed into law.

[adanthar]

You're right - I was thinking two separate bills in the two houses, not an appropriations bill.

[beaster]

[ QUOTE ]
HR 4026 has 11 cosponsors!


Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]


[/ QUOTE ]

SUPER news for New Yorkers.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HR 4026 has 11 cosponsors!


Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]


[/ QUOTE ]

SUPER news for New Yorkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Peter King the chairman of the committee that allowed the UIGEA into the Safe Port Act?

[onoble]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HR 4026 has 11 cosponsors!


Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]


[/ QUOTE ]

SUPER news for New Yorkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Peter King the chairman of the committee that allowed the UIGEA into the Safe Port Act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah he supported the UIEGA... I did email King though (he's my rep) so maybe my email changed his mind :-)

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They thought we were easy targets, but now are finding out that, while we're not exactly the nation's most powerful lobby, the combination of D'Amato, PPA, us writing, some money, and Frank bill (which now has 11 cosponsors!) makes us something less than easy pickings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have any idea how many co-sponsors the average HR bill gets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really depends on how much effort people place on getting cosponsors and how much pressure people in their district are making.

[HoldemCPA]

I say that they should appropriate the tax revenue associated with HR 2046 to the "war on terror" and homeland security. Then, by voting against it you are un-american. Thats how they got the UIEGA through.

Just a thought.

[curtains]

If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe fire has to be fought with fire, no matter how distasteful. After all everything in politics is distasteful these days.

[Eaglebauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people whose livelihoods are at stake can't afford the luxury of such principles, IMO.

[HoldemCPA]

Yeah. Morals are great, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I didn't criticize it much the first time, since it's totally standard Washington practice/the bill would've passed by a wide margin if it had been brought to the Senate on its own (that individual Senators can block this is another story.)

I'm certainly not about to criticize it this time.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I didn't criticize it much the first time, since it's totally standard Washington practice/the bill would've passed by a wide margin if it had been brought to the Senate on its own (that individual Senators can block this is another story.)

I'm certainly not about to criticize it this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Frank made any statements about attaching this legislation to anything else?... or is this just speculation?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Has Frank made any statements about attaching this legislation to anything else?... or is this just speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't seen such a statement from him, but I'm sure he knows that it's the ONLY chance that bill has. Even if the concept had general bi-partisan support which at this point it certainly doesn't, Kyl would and will put an immediate hold on it as soon as it got sent to the senate. So either Frank is able to get it passed via the same process as the IUGEA passed, or it never gets to the president's desk.

[Skallagrim]

My guess is that Frank has enough clout himself (especially with a democratic majority, and with the banks, and the PPA, etc..) to get this passed on its own in the house.

But the senate is indeed a different story (one senator can block a lot of things). So is the Bush veto threat.

I agree with adanthar that the only realistic way this becomes law is for Sen. Reid to get behind it and attach it to something else in the same way Frist did.

That avoids the ability of a single or small group of senators to block things, and puts Bush in a difficult spot indeed (if attached to a bill they like).

And the beautiful irony of that scenario actually appeals to me /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has Frank made any statements about attaching this legislation to anything else?... or is this just speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't seen such a statement from him, but I'm sure he knows that it's the ONLY chance that bill has. Even if the concept had general bi-partisan support which at this point it certainly doesn't, Kyl would and will put an immediate hold on it as soon as it got sent to the senate. So either Frank is able to get it passed via the same process as the IUGEA passed, or it never gets to the president's desk.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we know from the Congressional Record that this is now in 2 seperate commitees...

[ QUOTE ]
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. WATT, Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. CARSON, Mr. KING of New York, and Mr. ISRAEL):

H.R. 2046. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

DO we know what these other committees have on their plate and how much time they will spend on this?

[Jack Bando]

Senate question
---------------
A senator can block a fast track bill ("Hey, the House passed this, let's vote on it as is), but can they block a Senate version of Frank's bill as easy?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HR 4026 has 11 cosponsors!


Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Peter King [R-NY]


[/ QUOTE ]

SUPER news for New Yorkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Peter King the chairman of the committee that allowed the UIGEA into the Safe Port Act?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted for HR 4411 as well. Looks like we have a convert!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not shady. That's how politics works. The system is actually designed to work that way.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not shady. That's how politics works. The system is actually designed to work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's good and bad things about attaching. It's good because the system would crawl to a halt without it, but bad when the attachment makes no sense to what it's being attached to (Ports-UIEGA or the Simpsons episode where they attach a 100 million dollar rider for perverted arts to a bill to save Springfield.)

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that Frank has enough clout himself (especially with a democratic majority, and with the banks, and the PPA, etc..) to get this passed on its own in the house.

But the senate is indeed a different story (one senator can block a lot of things). So is the Bush veto threat.

I agree with adanthar that the only realistic way this becomes law is for Sen. Reid to get behind it and attach it to something else in the same way Frist did.

That avoids the ability of a single or small group of senators to block things, and puts Bush in a difficult spot indeed (if attached to a bill they like).

And the beautiful irony of that scenario actually appeals to me /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I would LOVE it!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tipperdog]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I haven't seen anyone mention the importance of PAYGO rules, which positively impacts the chances of passage.

When Dems took back the House, they reinstated pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, which basically means that except for emergencies, Members of Congress have to proposing raise any money they plan to spend. For example, if you propose a new $1 billion health care program, the bill needs to include $1 billion in new taxes or $1 billion in program cuts. If not, it's out of order.

Needless to say, there are a lot more ideas out there for how to spend money than how to raise it. Because Frank's bill would tax/regulate online gaming, it's a big net money raiser.

Hence, I think it's quite likely that his bill will show up repeatedly as the attached funding mechanism for various social programs. For example, if I want to introduce a children's health insurance bill, I can attach the Frank bill, so it's compliant with PAYGO rules.

Of course, I'm not predicting the bill's passage, but this is a very important factor supporting it--it's free money.

(I apologize in advance for this clearly partisan statement, but I just can't resist: Did anyone else notice that the when the "fiscally-conservative" GOP took over the House, they reversed the PAYGO rule and when those "crazy-liberal" dems took back control, they reinstituted it?)

[Jack Bando]

Did they put PAYGO in? I heard about it in 2004 when Kerry said he'd do it, (followed by Bush saying "PAYGO FROM A LIBERAL RICHIE FROM MASS MEANS HE GOES AND YOU PAY! HAR HAR HAR!") but did they insitute it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read the whole thread, but I haven't seen anyone mention the importance of PAYGO rules, which positively impacts the chances of passage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point! I hadn't thought of that aspect. They could really use the money to push through bills. (Hopefully they won't use the TuffFish method of calculating tax revenue from poker games).

[tipperdog]

Yes, in the House.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those people whose livelihoods are at stake can't afford the luxury of such principles, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hey my livelihood is at stake.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they attach HR2046 to some random unrelated bill then we are all giant hypocrites for criticizing the first bill. I hope they don't do that, its a terrible practice and shouldn't be allowed, nor do I want to be the beneficiary of it.

All of the people who are commenting on how it should be attached to so and so bill to help our cause IMO are behaving no better than the group that originally got this bill to pass by attaching it to the port security bill. IMO its unethical to fight such shady behavior by turning around and doing the same thing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not shady. That's how politics works. The system is actually designed to work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, Its just that 90+% of the forum was up in arms about how terrible it was to attach the legislation to the Port bill. I also agree that there's something wrong with lumping a completely unrelated piece of legislation in with something else as the only method of ensuring it passes.

Whether it's proper or not, there's no way a law should be passed into effect just because it was attached to something else, when if it wasn't attached it would stand no chance of being so. That just seems like a ridiculous way to run a government.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Its just that 90+% of the forum was up in arms about how terrible it was to attach the legislation to the Port bill. I also agree that there's something wrong with lumping a completely unrelated piece of legislation in with something else as the only method of ensuring it passes.

Whether it's proper or not, there's no way a law should be passed into effect just because it was attached to something else, when if it wasn't attached it would stand no chance of being so. That just seems like a ridiculous way to run a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, it turns out the constitution of a small federal republic designed as a loose confederation of semi-sovereign entities with a limited central government doesn't scale very well on the 'thou shalt read the bills thou passeth into law' level when that government is expanded 100x or so. oops.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Its just that 90+% of the forum was up in arms about how terrible it was to attach the legislation to the Port bill. I also agree that there's something wrong with lumping a completely unrelated piece of legislation in with something else as the only method of ensuring it passes.

[/ QUOTE ]

People here were in arms mainly because we would have made it safely through the 109th Congress (and HR 4411's House approval would have expired) if it didn't pass the last day of the session. The reality is that HR 4411 (tougher than UIGEA) passed 317-93, and it would have passed the Senate by an even wider margin in an up-or-down vote, to be frank.

We had almost a decade of warning that legislation would come down the pike, yet we did remarkably little. Fortunately, we've all been woken up by UIGEA. Imagine if Goodlatte got the Wire Act amended and turned us all into felons (at least if we continued to play online)? So, now Congress is hearing from us. They now know that regular people play poker online for both profit and fun. The repudiation of the Republican social agenda in the last election has made it clear to many that the world is changing. So, that may require a procedural trick to two to get the bill, which does now represent the will of the majority (I think), past the promised Kyl block.