Frank to introduce bill.....

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

What are the chances of this bill passing? Voting along Party lines would have it passing, correct?

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Jay is highly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the WTO situation, and his comments here should be given respect. However let's also note that the agenda of himself and others, like the majorwager site, is primarily oriented towards sports betting, whereas that of most of us is oriented towards poker.

Now I personally think all forms of fair gambling should be legal. But as I have noted many times before in other threads, opposition to sports betting is *FAR* stronger than that to poker, and we *CANNOT* allow the fortunes of poker to be tied to sports betting, or our cause will be *DOOMED*.

Let's face it. The only reason we care about the WTO proceedings is because of its potential, however small, to positively affect our cause. But if Rep. Franks' bill were to pass, a longshot as it is, we wouldn't give a rat's ass if the U.S. were otherwise non-compliant with WTO decisions as long as we could play poker, nor should we.

The bottom line is that if we hitch our poker wagon to the "all forms of gambling including sports must be legalized or nothing" cart, we will be taken for a ride off a cliff. Sure the issue doesn't have to be posed as only two alternatives, but that's effectively the way it's going to be because of the political and institutional (NFL) opposition to sports betting.

Again I'm not saying we should actively oppose sports betting or other non-poker forms of gambling, but just that we cannot allow our cause to be tied to the fate of those forms.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree 100% with everything you just said.

I also wish Jay the best of luck with his cause.

[Dunkman]

Unfortunately I don't think it's necessarily a partisan issue, so voting down party lines doesn't seem particularly applicable.

Also, of the arguments to be made to allow online poker, I think pointing out that it's a game of skill is way down the list (it's more of a "sneak it into a bill when no one's looking because no one will really care" thing than a cause someone is going to champion.) Much more effective are 1) it's taking away freedoms from people and 2) regulation is a more effective method of stopping the problems with online gambling than prohibition, which only stops law abiding players, which weren't ever posing a problem in the first place. I may be wrong, but I just don't think going for a poker exception has much of a chance, at least not nearly as much as some other tacts. If the others fail, of course we should try for a poker exception, but that seems like a long-shot to me.

As for the WTO stuff, the point I was trying to make earlier, and didn't make very well, is that, honestly, the Congress really doesn't care whether or not the WTO approves of how they handle this issue. The problem with international bodies like this is enforcement (especially against large nations), and there's only so much they can do to the U.S. in this matter. It's unfortunate, but being the world's largest economy, the U.S. can afford to call it's own shots and not have repercussions.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

"Unfortunately I don't think it's necessarily a partisan issue, so voting down party lines doesn't seem particularly applicable."

After having the republicans run [censored] for god knows how long you'd hope the dems could atleast stick together.

[BluffTHIS!]

KKF,

Most dems would have voted for the IUGEA if it had come up for a straight vote. Our best hopes, now or in the future, to get something like this passed, is to make it a non-partisan issue of consumers who should be able to spend their money as they please, just like all the luxury shoppers out there, and at the same time tout the financial benefits to gov't of taxing (note I don't say "regulating becuase we want *minimal* regulation so they don't micromanage limits, etc.).

[Dunkman]

There was strong bipartisan support for the UIGEA. The best bet seems to be convincing people that although maybe a ban was better than the status quo, regulation is better than either of them. I think it's a big mistake to attack Frank for introducing this bill. Mr. Henderson can want a repeal of the UIGEA all he wants, that [censored] isn't gonna happen, it had a ton of support, and if not for the horse-racing lobby it would have passed the Senate last summer out in the open rather than being changed and tacked onto a bill.

[Kodfish]

First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum. I also appreciate BluffTHIS for his level headedness (where is skallagrim? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Secondly, EVERYONE CONTACT YOUR REPS. Snail mail, email AND phone calls. ALL OF THE ABOVE. See if you can motivate ANYONE in your family or circle of friends to do the same...even if its writing out a generic letter for them to mail. We must all get behind this...we dropped the ball last fall, let's not do it again.

[PartyGirlUK]

Anybody want to offer some %s that the UIGEA gets overturned?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
First, thanks a ton to the Engineer for all his hard work in this legislation forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

We all know what to do now. Write and call, then write and call some more. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[DONKTARDO]

[ QUOTE ]
Please make sure that you write Rep. Ron Paul, who has already expressed to many people on these forums that he would support a bill like this. He's on the financial services committee that Rep. Frank chairs and he's a Republican. He gladly takes emails from outside of his district.

http://www.house.gov/paul/contact.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]