Waiting for the other shoe to drop .... any sign of a Senate bill ?

[TruePoker CEO]

From Senator Kyl:

“For more than a decade, I have fought for legislation to enforce Internet gambling prohibitions,” said Kyl. “Today’s action in the House is a very encouraging step, and I will work with my colleagues to explore all ways to move this much-needed legislation through the Senate this year.”

Interesting comment, as he did not rush any bill into contention. Perhaps, will we see some sort of Amendment offered to some less-than-germane piece of larger legislation ?

Can the re-elcetion effort in Arizona pre-occupy Senator Kyl, who seems comfortably ahead in polls but is tied to the War in Iraq and opposition to immigration reform ?

Anyone from the Hill have any insights as to how this will surface in the Senate ? (The later, the better.)

[RedBean]

We need to throw a mountain of support behind Kyl's challenger, whether it be monetary, or voting support for those who reside in his district.

The effect would be to keep Kyl busy fighting for his own seat, and having to spend less time on the hill swinging deals to get passage, and more time back home firming up his base to keep his job.

Kyl holds the key, to some extent, and the important thing is not to "get to him", because you can't on this issue, he is dead set. The important thing is to "get rid of him", or at least put enough opposition pressure on him that it diverts his primary focus from passing this bill, to getting reelected instead.

That's one key avenue to approach.

The other approach is a simple one, but one that many people don't want to take the time or sacrifice to do. Send a snail mail to your senator expressing your concerns, included with a $100 donation to his campaign.

Money talks, however token small, and after many years of greasing the palms of my own senate representatives in this perfectly legal manner, I can certainly attest to it's effectiveness. I've had my local senator, while serving in a senate leadership role, personally call to help settle even the most trivial disputes on my behalf, ranging from minor city ordinances, to local homeowners association issues, just for the simple reason that he remembered I was one of a handful of individual and concerned voters in his district that routinely sent him a check every year.

If your representative is dead set against the measure, however, then by all means, do NOT send him a donation, instead send the donation via snail mail to his opponent in upcoming elections, and CC your incumbent on the letter. Explain thoroughly your choice, and mention that you are contributing to the opponent because you find the incumbents attempts at restricting your civil liberty appalling and do not wish to see him re-elected.

The other avenue is to get the ACLU on this, as an issue of civil liberties. It isn't a 1st amendment free speech issue as many have said, but they overlook that it could very well be a 5th amdnt. 'due process' issue in the hands of the right lawyer in front of the right court. If by chance this goes into effect as law, we need to locate that right court, and get a test case going in that jurisdiction.

And lastly, I personally don't see this getting through the senate this year, and it may not require us to rally the troops just yet, but we also shouldn't take the chance and sit back on our haunches with hopeful optimism. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to defeat a bill than it is to repeal a law.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
.....

And lastly, I personally don't see this getting through the senate this year, and it may not require us to rally the troops just yet, but we also shouldn't take the chance and sit back on our haunches with hopeful optimism. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to defeat a bill than it is to repeal a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the key

[damaniac]

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that you can win this on (substantative) due process. You'd be damned lucky to get passed summary judgment before you even get to trial. The state has always regulated/banned gambling, I don't think a court is going to find a right to gamble or, in the language of Lochner, some sort of right to practice your profession as a gambler.

[TruePoker CEO]

Great post, except for the ACLU part .... We want to be Player, we do NOT want to be litigants.

[LadyWrestler]

"Great post" +1!

Also, this should cross party lines.

[AZplaya]

[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Any other thoughts?

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on what I can do as an Arizona resident to stir up support for Kyl's challenger. I already sent him a letter explaining why I would be voting for him instead of Kyl, and included a couple of buy in's with the letter [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Any other thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you ask him his position on the bill?

[tipperdog]

Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar. However, placement on the calendar doesn't mean much at all--a Senator (almost always the Majority Leader) must move to bring the bill from the calendar to the floor in order for it to be considered.

I wrote a longer post about Senate process and prospects here. Posts prefaced with "I know what I'm talking about" are almost always useless, but I did work legislation in the Senate for over a decade, so (forgive me but) "I know what I'm talking about."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...rue#Post6504854

Also, RedBean is correct about Kyl's reelection effort. The Democrat there is a longshot but not a hopeless one. In fact, he's outperformed most observers' expectation to date. This is the kind of "dark horse" race that might wind up much closer than people expect.

You can learn more about Kyl's challenger at www.Pederson2006.com.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi True,

Any bill that passes the House is automatically placed on the Senate calendar.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but this is actually incorrect. Bills received from the House are generally "read twice" by the Clerk and referred to a Committee, unless directed otherwise by leadership. Sometimes, a bill is ordered held at the desk under the provisions of rule XIV, other times it is placed directly on the calendar (which, for those of you wondering, is not a calendar in the conventional sense, but rather a list of bills eligible for floor action). Between the time the bill is received and the time it is actually referred to a committee, it is technically on the calendar, but is only there for the purposes of either a first or second reading.

I yield back the balance of my time, and note the presence of procedural pwnage.

EDIT: Also, just to clarify from the post you linked to, holds are no longer secret after a few days. The practice of anonymous holds was ended a few years ago.