Why banning i-gaming is easy; Judiciary CMT contact info

[Warren Harding]

Do not recline and hope private business can overcome this legislation. Here is the road map to prevent i-gaming period, legislatively and executively:

1) Put netteller, etc, through so many hurdles, that they will no longer be able to operate in the US uness they say 'please' before so much as wiping their collective ass. Read about how Paypal was screwed by the gov't teamed up with outside interests in Aug/Sep 2005 Reason Magazine to see how this can happen to companes we rely on to get paid.
2) Ban credit card companies from online gambling transations. Credit card companies have the power to control legslation (2005 bankruptcy act), but they abstain from doing business with ofshore gambing sites due to the murky legality of it. Unlikely bright side: this may force a confrontation with congress wherein credit companies use their weight to gain clarity and approval of gaming.
3) Supoena ISP records to see which users are ruining 'merica an' hatin' Gawd. Recall RIAA vs Verizon, Verizon fought to keep music-stealing customer IDs secret, but lost (I think this was a civil case though, correct me if need be) EDIT: Goodlatte wants to force ISPs to disable hyperlinks to gaming sites.
4) Bush. Claims the power to wiretap w/o telling a secret court that grants all requests, uses sneak 'n peak, etc. There is no oversight of Bush, and where there has been a glimpse into administration's violation of liberty in the name of the war on terror, we have seen that it has been extended to domestic money launderers, drug dealers, etc., which are akin to gambling in the eyes of the ruling Pharises.
5) Don't waste your time at the Supreme Court. With Bush's support, CT, AS and JR place gov't deference (especially to the exec branch but especially to Bush) way above liberty. Alito will 90% likely fall in line, but in his first ruling he concurred to stay an execution (!) and thus there is a slight glimmer of hope he may be an independent thinker. Lastly, of the 4 'liberals' and Kennedy, 2-3 should side with the gov't as demonstrated in the recent Just Dept v. Medicinal Pot User ruling which says, "the hell with citizens, up with banning actions that don't hurt anyone beyond the individual".

This bill will go to committee, where we have the best chance of fighting it. email/call every damn member of that committee and tell them what to do. If they are outside your district, tell them why this is bad for ____ party, how it will hurt them in any given election, and that it will make you stay home on election day.

COMMITTEE

His previous anti-gaming bill eeked out of committee by 6 votes, even with 155 cosponsors.

Go to: http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx and contact a handful of members close to you geographically (or mass mail all of them) and tell 'em what you think.

From http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/
[ QUOTE ]

106th Congress

Mr. Goodlatte introduced H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999, on October 21, 1999. This legislation had 34 cosponsors and passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on April 6, 2000 by a vote of 21-8.

H.R. 3125 was brought up under suspension of the Rules on July 17, 2000. This legislation failed by a vote of 245-159.

107th Congress

Mr. Goodlatte introduced H.R. 3215, the Combating Illegal Gambling Reform and Modernization Act, on November 1, 2001. This legislation had 155 cosponsors and passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2002 by a vote of 18-12.

On October 1, 2002 the House passed H.R. 556, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act (Leach-LaFalce bill) by voice vote. This legislation incorporated provisions from Goodlatte’s H.R. 3215.

109th Congress

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act on February 16, 2006 with over 100 original cosponsors.
[\quote]

[jj_frap]

155 sponsors? That's a lot of stupid Americans electing a lot of stupid fascists.

[Berge20]

Not really when you consider the number of individuals that still feel the government should legislate morality. I enjoy playing online as much as anyone on 2+2, but the fact remains that gambling at large remains frowned upon by a large segment of the population (and yes, in their view they consider poker gambling).

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really when you consider the number of individuals that still feel the government should legislate morality. I enjoy playing online as much as anyone on 2+2, but the fact remains that gambling at large remains frowned upon by a large segment of the population (and yes, in their view they consider poker gambling).

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws are essentially a reflection of a society's morals, so I don't know how you wouldn't legislate them. What I think you mean is people who wish to ban activities by consenting adults the negative results of which primarily impact the person deciding to perform the activity, in which I case I basically agree with you that they ought to leave that alone.

With regard to co-sponsorship...

1) People co-sponsor anything, including...

2) Bills they aren't even going to vote for. Not that this may be that common, but I remember my old gov't teacher telling me that when he worked in Congress, a bill came up that his boss didn't like but his constituents did. So he asked over at the Whip's office what the chances of this passing or even coming to the floor was. Answer: Not a snowball's chance in Hell. So he said, "Put me down for a co-sponsorship."

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to co-sponsorship...

1) People co-sponsor anything, including...

2) Bills they aren't even going to vote for. Not that this may be that common, but I remember my old gov't teacher telling me that when he worked in Congress, a bill came up that his boss didn't like but his constituents did. So he asked over at the Whip's office what the chances of this passing or even coming to the floor was. Answer: Not a snowball's chance in Hell. So he said, "Put me down for a co-sponsorship."

[/ QUOTE ]

Happens all the time. My question in this case is: how many folks outside the Beltway are clammoring for their representatives to pass this legislation? That's something I don't have an answer for yet, but the mail on this one can't be overwhelming.

[addickt]

"The Beltway" Probably hase more casinos than anywhere in the country excpet for vegas

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Beltway" Probably hase more casinos than anywhere in the country excpet for vegas

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The Beltway" Probably hase more casinos than anywhere in the country excpet for vegas

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm tired of scrambling for games myself.

[damaniac]

Where is the nearest one? AC is all I can think of...any Indian casinos in the vicinity?

[Berge20]

None that I'm aware of and AC isn't exactly next door.