What the Real Focus Needs to Be This Year to Legalize/Help Poker

[BluffTHIS!]

What I am going to say here is mostly a repeat of what I and others have said in past threads, but I feel it needs to be constantly stressed.

Even *if* Frank's or Wexler's bill, or a combo of both, were to pass the house, that legislation is DOA in the senate where Kyl and others will place an immediate hold on it. So the real focus of lobbying by the PPA and other allies needs to be on the leadership of both houses, and on the committee chairs of major committees. Because the ONLY way we are going to get something passed is via the same route the IUGEA passed, i.e. by being attached to must pass legislation in conference committee.

So the current processes ongoing in the house need to be looked at as merely fine-tuning the language to a form that is acceptable to the most legislators in both houses, for subsequent attachment to some other bill, rather than as processes that will produce a stand-alone bill that has a snowball's chance of making it to enactment on its own.

And even that attachment is a longshot, which means all that can be done needs to be done to neuter the pending regs.

So here are the multiple points of what needs to be the real focus in the congress:

1) getting online poker legalized by attachment in conference committee to must pass legislation, which means cultivating the leaders and committee chairs in both houses;

2) watering down the regs as much as possible so as to have no chance to be effective, or *better yet* to reject the regs in their entireity which congress can do, or the equivalent action of refusing to fund enforcement of them.


This is the only political strategy that has *any chance* of bearing fruit this year, by either getting pro-poker legislation passed, or at least not making the status quo worse (despite the wishes of party poker to the contrary which seeks to harm the sites still in the US market).

The PPA and others should waste no further resources in seeking to get more co-sponsors for the bills in question, but rather on fine-tuning the language and lobbying the democratic leadership of both the house and senate to be willing to attach such language to something else. When all is said and done, it won't matter if there are 300 co-sponsors and a bill passes the house when Sen. Kyl just has to put a secret hold on it to kill it in the senate.

[TheEngineer]

Interesting comments BluffTHIS, as usual. You make very important points about what we'll need to do to pass legislation. I guess I'll share my two cents.

[ QUOTE ]
Even *if* Frank's or Wexler's bill, or a combo of both, were to pass the house, that legislation is DOA in the senate where Kyl and others will place an immediate hold on it. So the real focus of lobbying by the PPA and other allies needs to be on the leadership of both houses, and on the committee chairs of major committees. Because the ONLY way we are going to get something passed is via the same route the IUGEA passed, i.e. by being attached to must pass legislation in conference committee.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only issue there, IMHO, is that we have to win the smaller battles before we can fight the war. After all, we lost the HR 4411 [the bill that became the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...t8Vqw:e220380:] vote 317-93. We really have to win in the Financial Services Committee before the next battle, I think. We should all fight hard to get Senate support, of course (I've been writing to mine often and have kept this as a "Fight for Online Gaming" action), but it seems right to focus on the current battle. After all, Frank doesn't have the committee votes yet. And, he said he needs 50 cosponsors to move forward for a House vote (after all, we don't gain anything by losing badly in another House vote), so we need to participate in this before moving on to a Senate fight.

[ QUOTE ]
So the current processes ongoing in the house need to be looked at as merely fine-tuning the language to a form that is acceptable to the most legislators in both houses, for subsequent attachment to some other bill, rather than as processes that will produce a stand-alone bill that has a snowball's chance of making it to enactment on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill still has to pass the Financial Services Committee. No matter what, that's the next step. I guess that's job #1 for us. If we build one success on another, our momentum will carry us into the Senate. Even if we don't pass legislation this year, we can at least build our movement.

[ QUOTE ]
watering down the regs as much as possible so as to have no chance to be effective, or *better yet* to reject the regs in their entireity which congress can do, or the equivalent action of refusing to fund enforcement of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. That's been our Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread focus for the past few weeks, and will continue to be until the regs are focused.

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA and others should waste no further resources in seeking to get more co-sponsors for the bills in question, but rather on fine-tuning the language and lobbying the democratic leadership of both the house and senate to be willing to attach such language to something else. When all is said and done, it won't matter if there are 300 co-sponsors and a bill passes the house when Sen. Kyl just has to put a secret hold on it to kill it in the senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but Frank says he needs 50 cosponsors to win this round of the fight. I say we make the calls to help. After all, if we can't find 50 cosponsors, how can we pass this bill?

[TheEngineer]

My letter to McConnell:


Senator Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator McConnell:

I am a recreational poker player who is upset that nothing has been done in the Senate to introduce and advance HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. Quite frankly, I find it ridiculous and shortsighted that Congress refuses to move this industry onshore, complete with regulation and taxation. Poker is, after all, an American institution. What I find truly absurd is the fact that it is still completely legal to place interstate wagers on horse races over the Internet. Surely the “problems” cited by the opponents of poker (a game of skill) exist in horse betting (which is mere chance). It seems quite hypocritical, at least to me, that one is expressly permitted while the other is not.

While I am a proud Kentuckian who values our commonwealth’s equine heritage, I also value my freedoms. Therefore, in the name of equitability, I ask you to either support HR 2046 or support the repeal of the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978. Many in Congress support eliminating this exemption for horseracing, including Rep. Shelly Berkley of Nevada, Rep. Julia Carson of Indiana, and Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut. If my poker-playing friends at the 600,000 strong Poker Players Alliance and at the many poker web sites and blogs join in to insist that we should be treated at least as well as horses, I imagine we will be heard. At that point, various pro-family groups will likely join us to eliminate the horseracing loophole. After all, they are very consistent on this point, as you surely know.

My personal opinion is that we should choose to support both poker and our commonwealth’s equine industry. After all, we both know Internet gaming can be regulated for age verification and for prevention, compulsive behavior, and money laundering. This was proven conclusively at the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services committee hearings on the subject. I am glad you recognize that fact. After all, if you did not you would not have supported the horseracing exemption in last year’s Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Many Americans wish to have the right to play poker online. Many more do not feel it is the government’s place to prohibit this. Some polls have shown over 75% opposition to UIGEA. I do feel there will be a continued backlash in 2008 to this, especially as our party continues to fracture along ideological lines.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046 and our equine industry. Let’s have a regulated, taxed, and legal Internet gaming industry. It’s not about supporting gaming; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, if we can't find 50 cosponsors, how can we pass this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]


You missed my point Engineer. We don't need the bill to pass, and thus not any of the next steps in the process, because even if it passes it is dead in the senate in a stand-alone fashion. Getting to the point the bills are now to raise awareness of the issue and garner supporters and fashion some language is fine. But my point is that lobbying resources are now better spent on getting the agreement of leaders and committee chairs in both houses to attach that language to another bill that is must pass. This is the only way any such language reaches the president's desk. Reps. Frank and Wexler, the PPA, and all of us, should be focused on getting the "language" passed in the only way that is realistic politically, and not on getting any certain "bill" passed, especially a stand-alone one that dies the moment it reaches the senate.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After all, if we can't find 50 cosponsors, how can we pass this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]


You missed my point Engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't miss your point. I simply disagreed with it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After all, if we can't find 50 cosponsors, how can we pass this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]


You missed my point Engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't miss your point. I simply disagreed with it.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's fine I guess, assuming that you think you know more than our forum political insiders who have agreed with that point in the past, and that as well you trust the PPA to do what is maximally effective and not maximally promoting of the *illusion* of being effective.

If I'm stuck in the desert, 50 miles from the nearest town, with a 5 gal. can of gas and a choice of either putting that gas in a sub-compact or a Cadillac, I'm going to be more concerned about about actually reaching town than in reaching it in style, and I take the sub-compact every time.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine I guess

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a right to my own opinion? Gee, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
assuming that you think you know more than our forum political insiders who have agreed with that point in the past

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't disagree with them. After all, you didn't post any quotes from any "forum political insiders" advocating us fighting 20 battles at once. You merely posted your opinion as fact. Perhaps you could quote an expert for us.

Anyway, I disagreed with you and with the authoritarian manner with which you presented your ideas, and your dismissive tone toward my reply.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm stuck in the desert, 50 miles from the nearest town, with a 5 gal. can of gas and a choice of either putting that gas in a sub-compact or a Cadillac, I'm going to be more concerned about about actually reaching town than in reaching it in style, and I take the sub-compact every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you're talking about splitting the five gallons between 10 cars....ah, forget it. It's not like you're looking for opinions. Enjoy your thread. Cheers.

[KEW]

Can something(language) be attached in the Senate if it has not passed the House first?????

Could somebody please explain to me in layman's term what a "hold" or "secret hold" is??? How they work??? How they can be removed????

[TheEngineer]

One more thing. Saying that our chances are better by getting on a "must pass" bill is like saying the ocean is blue and wet. Saying that our "real focus" should be to hope leaders of both houses to do this for us just because a couple of lobbyists said they should, OTOH, seems naive. Don't you think they'd to this only if they feel their constituents want it? For this to happen, shouldn't we keep writing and calling, as we have been? Doesn't building support for the bills out there now do exactly that? So, shouldn't our real focus be right where it is now....getting Congress on our side, so they'll wish to attach our interests to "must pass" legislation? After all, there is revenue associated with IGREA. They'll eventually need it, as everything is under pay-go now.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Can something(language) be attached in the Senate if it has not passed the House first?????

Could somebody please explain to me in layman's term what a "hold" or "secret hold" is??? How they work??? How they can be removed????

[/ QUOTE ]

A bill may orginate in either house at any time. Spending bills are supposed to originate in the House. Any Senator can put a 24hour hold on any legislation. Some longer tricks are out there. Anything thru the Senate takes 60/100 votes to even vote on it.
Bluff is saying what I've been saying, all we are doing is bitching until something happens we can't really influence. What we are doing is longer term. Our efforts have had a decent effect of making some people listen, but our votes are still disregarded. But bitching is better than being meek and silent.