How many Representatives are for or against Online Gambling?

[pokerpunchout]

Out of the 100 U.S. Senators and 438 Congressional members how many are for or against gambling?

I am neither a Republican or Democrat, but my guess is that even though Republicans champion themselves as the party of less government, and less government intrusion, there would be more representitives from this party against online gaming. There are a variety of possible reasons for this to be, geographical location, larger religious conservative membership, age of elected officials, lobby pressure, ect..


Does anyone know where to find this information. I can give you the breakdown for my state (Arizona). Maybe if others could find the information in their own state we could get an idea of how this vote is split by demographics such as Democrat vs. Republican, geographical location, age of representitive, ect.

[Copernicus]

probably better in the legislation section. I would disagree that Republicans are anymore for less intrusion in your life, just a different kind of intrusion. In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suggest the tax revenues wouldnt be significant? California Indian Casinos alone, with a volume that is miniscule compared to current online gambling (much less where the volume would go if the taint of illegality were removed), generate 120 million a year in revenues to Ca. Two Connecticut casinos generate over 300 million in "fess" a year. Tax revenues from online sites alone would generate on the order of a trillion a year in taxes. On top of that, with the cooperation of the online sites, documenting the winnings of gamblers for personal income taxation would be trivial. The numbers are so big I find it hard to believe they havent pushed to get their hands on them years ago.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the case of online gambling I would expect the dems to be more opposed though, because they are more inclined to want to "protect you from yourself".

[/ QUOTE ]

But arent repubs more on the "its a sin" side?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suggest the tax revenues wouldnt be significant? California Indian Casinos alone, with a volume that is miniscule compared to current online gambling (much less where the volume would go if the taint of illegality were removed), generate 120 million a year in revenues to Ca. Two Connecticut casinos generate over 300 million in "fess" a year. Tax revenues from online sites alone would generate on the order of a trillion a year in taxes. On top of that, with the cooperation of the online sites, documenting the winnings of gamblers for personal income taxation would be trivial. The numbers are so big I find it hard to believe they havent pushed to get their hands on them years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how does the US government tax corporations that are based outside the US?

[illeagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of support for this is more of a "we can't get much in taxes from this so let's wrap our thuggery in the moral and nanny blankets". Plus I'm sure there's pressure from b & m casinos to get rid of some competition of theirs.


[/ QUOTE ]
You call it pressure. I call it campaign contributions.

[wmspringer]

Responses from Colorado's senators:

Wayne Allard (R) - against online gambling, supports the ban
Ken Salazar (D) - noncommittial

[pokerpunchout]

Found this link to the senate vote on including the Kyl ammendment.

Most of the ""No" votes are by extreme left liberal democrats.

Interesting, it would seem in the senate that the liberal wing of the Dem. Party is the most Pro-Online Gaming.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...=00229#position

[pokerpunchout]

Here is a link to the co-sponsers of the House bill H.R. 4411.
I have not checked to see if there is bi-partisianship, or other demographics associated with the sponsering of this bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:HR04411:@@@P