|
|
#71
02-25-2007, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rumors about effort to repeal UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Barney Frank is the maaan. He's been on our side the whole time. We ought to have an actblue or something for him. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.actblue.com/page/poker http://www.actblue.com/page/poker [/ QUOTE ]If anyone ever wants me to do something with that page, please send me a PM. [/ QUOTE ] Berkley and Frank are each listed twice... can you consolidate them? 
|
|
#72
02-26-2007, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Send an email.
[ QUOTE ]
Berge, Any sage advice or insight for those of us hoping that Barnie throws a Hail Mary for us inside that dome? Are you or Mr. K hearing anything from staffers on this? Thx. [/ QUOTE ] Hate to rain on the parade as I want it to be true as bad as anyone, but first the law would have to be repealed by both sides of congress, which is not easy. If it gets that far Bush would have to decide not to veto it, which ain’t going to happen. This law is with us for at least two years and even longer unless the next president orders the DOJ to back off.
|
|
#73
02-26-2007, 05:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rumors about effort to repeal UIGEA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] http://www.actblue.com/page/poker http://www.actblue.com/page/poker [/ QUOTE ]If anyone ever wants me to do something with that page, please send me a PM. [/ QUOTE ] Berkley and Frank are each listed twice... can you consolidate them? [/ QUOTE ]I don't think so. The first listing is from the previous election cycle. You can no longer donate to that election cycle (there is no space for you to do so). The second listing is for the current election cycle. The reason I don't remove the first election cycle is because I want it to remain visible how much we have raised for those two people in the past.
|
|
#74
02-26-2007, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Send an email.
[ QUOTE ]
You're talking about Cleromancy - this in it's religious context was not gambling. In context, casting lots was invoked as a legitimate means of determining God's wishes. This wasn't holy land lotto. [/ QUOTE ] James Cameron say you are all FOS.
|
|
#75
02-26-2007, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Send an email.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You're talking about Cleromancy - this in it's religious context was not gambling. In context, casting lots was invoked as a legitimate means of determining God's wishes. This wasn't holy land lotto. [/ QUOTE ] James Cameron say you are all FOS. [/ QUOTE ] can we keep this on the subject at hand and not have this crap
|
|
#76
02-26-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Send an email.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Berge, Any sage advice or insight for those of us hoping that Barnie throws a Hail Mary for us inside that dome? Are you or Mr. K hearing anything from staffers on this? Thx. [/ QUOTE ] Hate to rain on the parade as I want it to be true as bad as anyone, but first the law would have to be repealed by both sides of congress, which is not easy. If it gets that far Bush would have to decide not to veto it, which ain’t going to happen. This law is with us for at least two years and even longer unless the next president orders the DOJ to back off. [/ QUOTE ] Bush has vetoed a total of like one bill and he has a lot less power than he did a few years ago. He's going to be saving his power trips for issues worth using them on, not internet gambling. He's got to deal with a legacy he somehow thinks he can create, the war in Iraq, Iran and perhaps if the market dips like some of the big guys are saying, he'll have to somehow make moves to "thwart" that. Basically imo it is not nearly worth it for him to take a hard stand on this, 3-4 years ago when he was at the top of his power I would completely agree with you, I'm kind of surprised this issue wasn't used as a way to appease the right a lot earlier on.
|
|
#77
02-26-2007, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rumors about effort to repeal UIGEA
Hey Legislation forum folks.
I'm not going to read this entire thread (too long), but I thought I'd try to inject some reality into the discussion. If my points are redundant with things that have already been posted, I apologize. While Rep. Frank or others likely have no love for UIGEA and may make a move to do something about it, my strong advice would be not to get your hopes up about it. Not even close. We all saw last year two very important things at work in Congress: 1.) the power of holds in the Senate, and 2.) the importance of leadership taking an interest in an issue to get it passed, when that issue is not a big pressing national item. Both of those factors weigh heavily against any repeal of UIGEA. Equally so, action by one chamber on an issue like this seldom creates enough momentum for a change to be enacted into law. The best example of this is the sweeping telecom bill passed by the House in 2006, which had the backing of some HUGE and extremely well financed lobbies. That bill, with all of its money and supporters and victory in the House, died dead as a doornail in the Senate. You know why? 1.) There was little in the way of perceived need for the bill to pass, 2.) Holds, 3.) Holds, 4.) Holds, 5 through about 12: Holds, 13.) other priorities took up all of the available floor time. But what about efforts other than repeal? While there may be openings to modify UIGEA or prohibit expenditure of federal funds to enforce UIGEA, I seriously doubt that such openings can realistically be exploited in the current policy/political environment. Democrats have a thin hold on power in the Senate, and in the House they are particularly reluctant to do anything that might make them look like the disgraced Republican bunch they just beat (e.g. DeLay, Ney, Cunningham, Foley, Abramoff, Libby, et al). That means playing with laws governing internet gambling are probably off limits. Additionally, I do not get the sense that a powerful enough domestic lobby has formed to grease any legislation modifiying UIGEA. Some amount of time and a considerable amount of money (campaign contributions) will be necessary to build the foundation for any such modifications. To date, I am not aware of the big B&M casino players or other groups putting in the resources to create a sense of urgency and acceptability. Grassroots action, via PPA and 2+2 helps, but it is the icing on the cake rather than the cake itself, if that makes any sense. You guys and gals are wise to follow news reports like this. Additionally, I think pursuing Rep. Frank's office is a good long-term strategy. Likewise the folks on the House and Senate Financial Services/Treasury Appropriations Subcommittees, since they could help derail funding for enforcement. But in the short term anyone who is selling you on a rumor that so and so is going to shoot the magic bullet and kill UIGEA: well two things are probably true about them: 1.) they have a profit motive in saying so, and 2.) if they mean what they say, they fail to understand Congress. Sorry to be the bearer of dim news, and keep up the good fight.
|
|
#79
02-27-2007, 03:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Send an email.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Berge, Any sage advice or insight for those of us hoping that Barnie throws a Hail Mary for us inside that dome? Are you or Mr. K hearing anything from staffers on this? Thx. [/ QUOTE ] Hate to rain on the parade as I want it to be true as bad as anyone, but first the law would have to be repealed by both sides of congress, which is not easy. If it gets that far Bush would have to decide not to veto it, which ain’t going to happen. This law is with us for at least two years and even longer unless the next president orders the DOJ to back off. [/ QUOTE ] Bush has vetoed a total of like one bill and he has a lot less power than he did a few years ago. He's going to be saving his power trips for issues worth using them on, not internet gambling. He's got to deal with a legacy he somehow thinks he can create, the war in Iraq, Iran and perhaps if the market dips like some of the big guys are saying, he'll have to somehow make moves to "thwart" that. Basically imo it is not nearly worth it for him to take a hard stand on this, 3-4 years ago when he was at the top of his power I would completely agree with you, I'm kind of surprised this issue wasn't used as a way to appease the right a lot earlier on. [/ QUOTE ] well I disagree, but really don't think we will find out who is right on that because I don't think it will ever get that far. So, i doubt we will ever know. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
