IGREA now has 31 cosponsors

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

David Dreier (R-CA), 202.225.2305
John Campbell(R-CA), 202.225.5611


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the deal with these guys? As I have seen it thus far, support or rejection of Frank's bill has been fairly partisan. Are there any Republican cosponsors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter King for one, who was the head of the committee in charge of the Port Security bill and helped allow the rider to be tacked on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense to me. Did King flip sides on the issue?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

David Dreier (R-CA), 202.225.2305
John Campbell(R-CA), 202.225.5611


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the deal with these guys? As I have seen it thus far, support or rejection of Frank's bill has been fairly partisan. Are there any Republican cosponsors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter King for one, who was the head of the committee in charge of the Port Security bill and helped allow the rider to be tacked on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense to me. Did King flip sides on the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Many who supported UIGEA were only against Internet gaming because it is unregulated and untaxed (at least by the United States). It's only a minority in Congress who oppose gambling in general. Hopefully we'll all keep up our efforts to flip everyone we can, then to Leach out the remaining freedom-haters.

Here are the 31 cosponsors of IGREA:

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]; Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1]; Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]; Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8]; Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3]; Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7]; Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]; Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]; Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]; Rep Fossella, Vito [NY-13]; Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]; Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]; Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]; Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2]; Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3]; Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4]; Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]; Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]; Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3]; Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14]; Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7]; Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23]; Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9]; Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39]; Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2]; Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10]; Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12]; Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9]; Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]; Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4]; and Rep Young, Don [AK]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The following representatives are probably the most likely to join us, so let's try to get a quick call or letter to them, especially if you reside in their district. Thanks.

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), 202.225.2906, opposed HR 4411
Dennis Moore (D-KS), 202.225.2865, cosponsoring Berkley's study bill
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), 202.225.7944, cosponsoring Berkley's study bill
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), 202.225.6511
Jay Inslee (D-WA), 202.225.6311, opposed HR 4411
Paul Hodes (D-NH), 202.225.5206
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), 202.225.2435, opposed HR 4411
Al Green (D-TX), 202.225.7508, cosponsoring Berkley's study bill
David Dreier (R-CA), 202.225.2305, opposed HR 4411
John Campbell (R-CA), 202.225.5611
Tim Walz (D-MN), 202.225.2472
Pete Stark (D-CA), 202.225.5065, cosponsoring Berkley's study bill
Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD)), 202.225.3061, cosponsoring Berkley's study bill
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 202.225.2415, opposed HR 4411
Jon Porter (D-NV), 202.225.3252, opposed HR 4411

[/ QUOTE ]

[Route66]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP does not list cosponsors. Rather, it lists reps most likely to cosponsor IGREA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I misread. I've written Rep. Hodes previously on this issue, and will write again urging him to co-sponsor.

Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The OP does not list cosponsors. Rather, it lists reps most likely to cosponsor IGREA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I misread. I've written Rep. Hodes previously on this issue, and will write again urging him to co-sponsor.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, thanks. He sure beats his predecessor, Charlie Bass, who cosponsored HR 4411.

[Mr_Beeker]

I received a letter back from Rep. Walz from the 1st district in Minnesota, and he mentioned in his letter that he was not aware of any legislation that would repeal HR 4411. I sent him another letter detailing IGREA and asked him to speak with Rep. Frank directly (and of course to cosponsor). Will post if I hear anything back.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]

Jon Porter (D-NV), 202.225.3252

[/ QUOTE ]

Sent!

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

David Dreier (R-CA), 202.225.2305
John Campbell(R-CA), 202.225.5611


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the deal with these guys? As I have seen it thus far, support or rejection of Frank's bill has been fairly partisan. Are there any Republican cosponsors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter King for one, who was the head of the committee in charge of the Port Security bill and helped allow the rider to be tacked on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense to me. Did King flip sides on the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I live in King's district and like to tease my half-anti-gambling grandparents about how D'Amato (whom they used to campaign for) is the PPA lobbyist and King (our rep.) is a co-sponsor of the bill. My grandpa pointed out that King likely flipped due to his long back-scratching relationship with D'Amato. That's not to say other factors didn't play a role, but there you have it.

[kidpokeher]

BTW: Rep Porter is a Republican and sponsor (along with Shelly Berkley D-NV) of the bill to study whether Internet gambling can be effectively regulated. Here is the text of my letter:

- - - -

Mr. Porter:

As one of your constituents, I am writing to ask you to strongly consider co-sponsoring Rep. Barney Frank's bill, HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.

As I understand it, 31 house members currently cosponsor this legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, passed in the dead of night without debate via a shameful attachment to a "must-pass" port security bill. This smacks of politics at its worst and, regardless of any opinion of gambling in general, should be repealed simply for the manner on which it was passed. Your help is needed.

The need to repeal the UIGEA goes far beyond the general libertarian philosophy of Nevada residents like myself who consider gambling, whether in a casino or online, to be a personal liberty. We understand, as you do, that gambling as entertainment is a personal choice and realize that the majority of the population should not be made to suffer for the few who may be unable to gamble in a responsible manner.

Repealing the UIGEA is necessary not simply because national polls consistently show 75% of Americans oppose federal efforts to ban online gambling. It is necessary because we must, as a nation, strongly oppose any efforts to circumvent the normal legislative process in order to satisfy a personal agenda. It's no secret Senator Bill Frist attached the UIGEA in the manner he did because he knew he would not be able to get the support he needed to pass the bill on its own supposed merits. Already, the FBI is overreaching their authority and using the UIGEA to make the unsubstantiated claim that all online gambling is illegal. See the following link: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm

I know you have been working with Rep. Shelly Berkley to pass a bill that would study whether Internet gambling can be regulated. I appreciate the bipartisan effort, however the bill doesn't go far enough. Quite frankly, history has shown us prohibition simply does not work. When will we learn? I see little difference between the attempt to ban online gaming and the failed attempt to ban alcohol. You may as well be asking to ban the Internet. The question to ask is not whether Internet gambling can be regulated, but rather how can we best satisfy consumer desires to gamble online, while still providing the same checks and controls we have done successfully for years in our brick-and-mortar counterparts. Rep. Barney Frank's bill addresses these issues and for this reason I ask for your support.

Thank you for your time and service.

[WatchThis]

When you guys are writing to your Congresscritters, be sure to include your address-- otherwise your letter/e-mail gets trashed/deleted.