[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Another nice thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the number on our side, I wonder how many of the B's are soft. Not necessarily that they are against us at all, but rather not for us *right now*. This especially could be the case if domestic gaming interests really do see a benefit in squeezing the offshore sites prior to legalization. However, if you count all the B's or better, then it appears that to actually pass Frank's or Weixler's bill, that all of the democrat neutrals have to break for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We still have our work cut out for us, no doubt. I wrote this not to sugarcoat our situation, but to use existing data to show where we stand.

The data show us a number of things. We see opposition to Internet gaming isn't really bipartisan, and it isn't homogeneous across the nation. With Republicans/Southerners out of leadership in the House and Senate, many of our opponents have been cut off at the legs. For example, I hear the latest FoF letter fell on deaf ears in this Congress. The NFL letter, OTOH, has gained traction. As Congress is no longer knee-jerk against us on general principle, our letters rebutting the NFL's letters are more likely to have an effect in this Congress than in the last one.

Finally, once a cause gets attention, sponsorship of a committee chair, and support from half of a chamber, compromise becomes an option. We may get the Frank bill added to must-pass legislation as part of the funding source under paygo. Or, these guys may get tired of us and give us the Wexler bill to get rid of us to save the rest of the prohibition (they can see the folks fighting back are primarily poker players) until they figure out what to do with the domestic industry. The Wexler bill also has a benefit of being more consistent with the laws of many states in terms of allowing skill-based gaming but not games of chance.

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering about another matter as well. Which is how many of those in the F categories against us, also support horse racing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I hear the horse racing folks are getting concerned that some banks will block all gaming transactions once the UIGEA regs take effect, including horse racing. Although UIGEA excludes horse racing, as the act doesn't define illegal gaming, the Treasury Dept. cannot either. And, as the DoJ claims the IHRA didn't legalize Internet horse racing [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], they're in murky territory as well.

To further pressure the equine industry, our letters have repeatedly pointed out that we can get out of the WTO issues by banning all Internet gaming, including them (we'd still owe for past noncompliance, of course).