[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good starting point would be to identify who actually is or isn't an "ally."
[/ QUOTE ]
I have. See
http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news...le.php?DID=237
Rep. Berkey voted against HR 4411 (the bill that became UIGEA). She proposed an amendment to that bill to eliminate the horse racing and other carveouts (a poison pill amendment). She sponsored a Study bill. She cosponsored the Wexler bill. She cosponsored IGREA. She came to the PPA Fly-In reception to assure us of her support for our position. She supported us at the 11/14 hearing. Uhh...sounds like an ally to me.
I'm encouraged that someone out there thinks we're so strong that we should complain about this type of support, but I also think someone who makes numerous posts suggesting that we should oppose her over voting for "must pass" legislation cannot be serious.
We have plenty of opponents. It's a target-rich environment. I suggest you start with them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please define "must-pass" legislation?
Could you please address my hypothetical about whether the ports bill still would have been "must-pass" if, instead of the UIGEA, something even bigger had been attached to it?
If the ports bill was so crucial, then opposing the package would have done no harm, because even if the combined measure failed, a clean ports bill could/would have been quickly re-introduced and passed, right?
Can you document any horrendous political fallout for the two representatives who voted "no" on the combined bill?
What dreadful consequences do you believe would have befallen Rep. Berkeley had she voted "no" on the final bill, such that it was mandatory for her to support it?
I wrote above, "To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."" Can you put forward a plausible argument that I am wrong in that assessment of things? That is, do you agree or disagree that the primary motivating factor in Rep. Berkeley's vote in favor of the UIGEA was fear over what would be said of her if she went the other way? (She couldn't seriously have feared the bill not passing, when she was looking at a nearly unanimous vote, so I assume you won't bother arguing that she was actually concerned that the ports measure would fail.)
If you agree with my assessment, do you think it admirable or deplorable for legislators to vote a particular way based on fear of what will be said of them, rather than based on their convictions about what is right or wrong?
Finally, suppose that a straight, clean, simple, one-sentence repeal of the UIGEA provisions (leaving intact the ports security provisions) were introduced. Are you 100% certain that Rep. Berkeley would endorse it? I'm not. If you are, what, if anything, prevents her from introducing exactly such a bill anytime she wants to?