Why does the Senate reject the bills (but the House passes them)?

[Arrash]

I am a Brit and wish to get some analysis from somebody more familiar with US domestic politics/legislative procedures.

Why do the anti-gambling bills tend to be successful in being approved by the House but then are always reject3ed when they reach the Senate?

I am familiar with the general principle that Senators have a much more diverse constituency and are hence more moderate but i would really appreciate some more in-depth analysis.

Goodlatte/Kyl/Leach have repeatedly failed so far, but to what are the key factors that cause this to occur. For example to what extent are the following factors relevant and what have I missed?:

1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

I would appreciate insights from who ever has the time to respond, but please re-irect me if this has been discussed in-depth already on the forum!

Many Thanks

Arrash
a.zafari@orbis.co.uk

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Who the hell knows. This whole "social conservative" thing is a scam. It's what they say to get elected but they never act on anything that they ran on in the first place. Chances are good this bill is going nowhere.

2. The carve-outs are for horseracing and state lotteries. That means the writers of the bill want to say that "this that and the other types of online gambling should be banned as it corrupts our (youth, country, phamilee values) but horsies and lotteries are good clean fun, they should stay." So in a nut shell, internet gambling: bad, horseracing lotteries: good.

3. See: flag burning, gay marriage, etc.

[chicagoY]

It isn't a Republican affair, a 3.5 to 1 majority never is. You don't have to convince Democrats for more than a few seconds that the state is good and needs to be in our life even more--from there any action undertaken by Washington becomes reasonable. The fedocracy and states steal 40 percent from our people so they can commit mischief and power games. If we cut them off and only give 10 percent then all of our lives will improve.

[Arrash]

Thanks for the feedback, also what is Kyl referring to with this comment:

Kyl praised the House vote but expressed caution about the ban's prospects in the Senate.

"The Senate procedures make it very difficult to get legislation passed in the time periods that we have here," Kyl said.

Thanks again!

Arrash

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the feedback, also what is Kyl referring to with this comment:

Kyl praised the House vote but expressed caution about the ban's prospects in the Senate.

"The Senate procedures make it very difficult to get legislation passed in the time periods that we have here," Kyl said.

Thanks again!

Arrash

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically the fact is that things move very slowly in washington. This is our greatest hope. If they don't get to it during the 109th congress (which ends this year) then it starts all over with the next congress (if anyone in office wants to try again).

With all that is going on in the world, and all the important legislation thats pending, and each of these clowns itching to go home and campaign for re-election, I am hoping that they just never get around to taking this bill up.

My gut tells me they will avoid it because they recognize that it may sound good on paper, but in essence they will be pissing off a bunch of people who are likely voters. Theres a saying that all politics is local.....well for 20 some odd american voters this is a very local issue. I have let each of my senators know that my future votes will be based on this issue.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
Lottery=Poor tax=Good
Poker=Bankrupts many college kids (and makes others rich)=bad



[/ QUOTE ]

A whole hell of a lot more college kids go bankrupt running up their credit cards at the mall and everywhere else than go bankrupt playing poker. And so what? They are ADULTS and should have the FREEDOM to do what they want with their own money without having the NANNY STATE telling them what to do for god's sake.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

In additioned to the aforementioned reasons, I suspect that the Senate is slightly less likely to pass legislation that they think will be feebly enforced.

[Jimmy The Fish]

Best to answer these in convoluted order, I think...

[ QUOTE ]
3. Are the Congressmen just pushing through the bills even though they know they will be defeated just to provide positive headlines for their constituents at a time when the Republicans are getting a lot of negative attention (e.g. Cheney, war in Iraq e.t.c)?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not strictly a Republican issue, as a lot of Democrats also voted for Goodlatte/Leach. But it is, at its heart, demagoguery; every member of the House is up for re-election in November, and voting for a "family-friendly" bill will be something that gets trumpeted in campaign ads, despite the fact that said bill may not actually become law.

[ QUOTE ]
1. That the Senate is less socially conservative? How is this different now than in the past? i.e. has the composition of the Senate become more or less socially conservative in the past few years? Hence, is the bill more or less likely to be approved moving forward on the back of this alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election this year. (The 100 Senators serve staggered six-year terms, with 1/3 being up for re-election in any even-numbered year.) Most Senators are therefore more immune to the type of "family-values" hyperbole that surrounds this type of legislation. The Senate is not necessarily less socially conservative than the House, but it's less prone to rhetorical manipulation.

Another factor that may play a role in the Goodlatte/Leach bill's journey through the Senate is the fact that Jon Kyl is one of the Senators up for re-election. The Democratic Party has identified Kyl as one of the Republicans who are more vulnerable in 2006, and will not want to give him a significant legislative victory. Kyl has introduced numerous pieces of anti-gambling legislation in his Congressional career, and has spoken in favor of the Goodlatte/Leach bill.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The whole carve-out issue? - this is mentioned a lot but I have never seen it explained properly in the press (British that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic idea behind the carve-outs is to protect types of gambling that have previously been embraced by government. Lotteries are run by state governments; politicians therefore have a vested interest in allowing people to play the lottery as much as possible. The carve-out for horse racing is an attempt to sideline the relatively powerful horse-racing lobby, to prevent them from taking a side on this bill.

[TruePoker CEO]

The best book you could possibly get on the subject, bar none.