good stuff wildbill thank you for the infoThey might as well be dead because they ignore what the WTO declared and the final product of each will essentially be a pork filled bill aimed at pleasing special interests. They might as well say: These bills are intended to create a monopoly which will benefit those who have paid us off.
Dante said:
Could pass one or the other, but I would put chances of passage and signing at 5-10% at best. Even then does anyone bother to read what these laws say? They are essentially saying the things you have been doing, keep doing them. There is no real law or effect in what is proposed and if this ever comes up for debate more loopholes are sure to be added.
Leach is still on the War Path, but haven't heard a lot lately.
Maybe a comment like the one below may start to change attitudes.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=588 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=588 colSpan=2>[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1]"Legalized gaming is going to be what saves us."
A. J. HOLLOWAY, mayor of Biloxi, Miss., on plans to rebuild casinos after Hurricane Katrina.[/size][/font]
[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1]:think2:
[/size][/font]</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=center width=588 colSpan=2>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Maybe a comment like the one below may start to change attitudes.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=588 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=588 colSpan=2>[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1]"Legalized gaming is going to be what saves us."
A. J. HOLLOWAY, mayor of Biloxi, Miss., on plans to rebuild casinos after Hurricane Katrina.[/size][/font]
[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=times new roman, times,sans serif][size=-1]:think2:
[/size][/font]</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=center width=588 colSpan=2>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
my opinion is that kyl and leech write these bills because it gets their names out there, it gets various groups(like brick and mortar casinos, right wing christian groups, etc)
to contribute money to their antigambling causes, and gets votes from the right wing christians and anti gambling groups.
the bills go before the house or senate and politicians like frist and delay go to the pro gambling lobbyists and anyone else that does/will profit from the on line gambling industry and takes large "political contributions" to have it killed for that year. year in, year out, its the gift that keeps giving to whatever party is in power.
to contribute money to their antigambling causes, and gets votes from the right wing christians and anti gambling groups.
the bills go before the house or senate and politicians like frist and delay go to the pro gambling lobbyists and anyone else that does/will profit from the on line gambling industry and takes large "political contributions" to have it killed for that year. year in, year out, its the gift that keeps giving to whatever party is in power.
I would normally be inclined with that, but having seen the process first hand and speaking with people lobbying against it, I know it is actually different. What happens is all the special interests show their hands when it comes to crunch time. They sit on the sidelines letting others make a move, but once it appears a vote is possible there is a race to get in and tell legislators what they think. Full bore lobbying goes on between all sorts of characters, both people with skin in the game and the anti-gamers. These people could never come to an agreement because the interests are so nutty. I mean horse racing people holding hands with the Baptists? Come on. But it does happen. Eventually someone stands in and says "do we have a bill or not?" and with no general agreement it has to go as is. As is means it doesn't have the proper support lined up because some interests are going to get screwed. Then someone in the leadership says "do we really need this?" and the answer obviously is no so off it goes another year.
Kyl and his cronies do indeed though try to act like protectors of society, so that part is 100% correct. But usually there isn't a lot of money changing hands over such petty issues. No congressman is going to sell off a vote to this crowd, because the palatable antis, the church groups, have little money to give and the ones with the money are gaming people and congresspeople don't want to be seen as in the pocket of gaming people, whether it is legal or not. Don't get me wrong they take lots of casino money, but its funded through organizations like PACs and the AGA, groups with no real stand on internet gaming. The horse people have money to get in the early process, but not enough to push it all the way through.
Its rotten, dirty smelly rotten business and it goes through this every single year.
Kyl and his cronies do indeed though try to act like protectors of society, so that part is 100% correct. But usually there isn't a lot of money changing hands over such petty issues. No congressman is going to sell off a vote to this crowd, because the palatable antis, the church groups, have little money to give and the ones with the money are gaming people and congresspeople don't want to be seen as in the pocket of gaming people, whether it is legal or not. Don't get me wrong they take lots of casino money, but its funded through organizations like PACs and the AGA, groups with no real stand on internet gaming. The horse people have money to get in the early process, but not enough to push it all the way through.
Its rotten, dirty smelly rotten business and it goes through this every single year.
Larry Flint tried this with some success against congressional Republicans during the Clinton years and I think it could be successful here. Larry had many congressional Republicans who were bashing Clinton investigated to uncover the dirt in their closets. He helped bring down Bob Livingston in 1999, a speaker of the house elect. Sportsbooks could set up a slush fund to start investigating Kyl and Leach and anyone else. Republicans like to bet too. Remember Bill Bennett, a self-appointed virtues maven; he got outed as a big time gambler. Look hard enough and you could find some bettors or high stakes poker players among the bills backers.
How a Lobbyist Stacked the DeckAbramoff Used DeLay Aide, Attacks On Allies to Defeat Anti-Gambling BillBy Susan Schmidt and James V. GrimaldiWashington Post Staff WritersSunday, October 16, 2005; Page A01Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his team were beginning to panic.An anti-gambling bill had cleared the Senate and appeared on its way to passage by an overwhelming margin in the House of Representatives. If that happened, Abramoff's client, a company that wanted to sell state lottery tickets online, would be out of business. Following the eLottery Money* Funding Attacks on Republicans: A client of Jack Abramoff sent $150,000 to a firm associated with Ralph Reed as part of tis effort to kill an anti-gambling bill. The money was used to attack GOP House members who backed the bill. This graphic shows an e-mail exchange confirming the check's arrival.* Abramoff's Paper Trail: Jack Abramoff directed eLottery money to charities and political friends. This graphic shows e-mails between Abramoff and his assistant discussing some of those transactions.* The Check to the Charity: This document shows the $25,000 check issued by eLottery to Toward Tradition, which is run by a longtime Abramoff friend.* Kill Bill Money: With the help of a key House staffer, Jack Abramoff used $2 million from client eLottery to launch a campaign to kill legislation that would ban gambling on the Internet.* eLottery's Fall: The company won an expensive campaign to defeat an Internet gambling bill but loses in the end. Abramoff Lobbying QuestionedDemocrat on Panel Probing Abramoff to Return Tribal Donations Plea Deal Near With 2nd Abramoff Associate Dorgan Tangled in Abramoff Web Flaunt What You've Got Lawmakers Under Scrutiny in Probe of Lobbyist More StoriesPolitics Trivia Former Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) died at age 90 on Thursday. Proxmire used to give an award each month acknowledging examples of government waste. What was the name of that award?Big Spender AwardPork Barrel PrizeGolden Fleece AwardWilliam's Waste Award Who's Blogging?Read what bloggers are saying about this article.Roger AilesLaquidasThe Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog Full List of Blogs (148 links) »Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web But on July 17, 2000, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act went down to defeat, to the astonishment of supporters who included many anti-gambling groups and Christian conservatives.A senior aide to then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) helped scuttle the bill in the House. The aide, Tony C. Rudy, 39, e-mailed Abramoff internal congressional communications and advice, according to documents and the lobbyist's former associates.Rudy received favors from Abramoff. He went on two luxury trips with the lobbyist that summer, including one partly paid for by Abramoff's client, eLottery Inc. Abramoff also arranged for eLottery to pay $25,000 to a Jewish foundation that hired Rudy's wife as a consultant, according to documents and interviews. Months later, Rudy himself was hired as a lobbyist by Abramoff.The vote that day in July was just one part of an extraordinary yearlong effort by Abramoff on behalf of eLottery, a small gambling services company based in Connecticut. Details of that campaign, reconstructed from dozens of interviews as well as from e-mails and financial records obtained by The Washington Post, provide the most complete account yet of how one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists leveraged his client's money to influence Congress.The work Abramoff did for eLottery is one focus of a wide-ranging federal corruption investigation into his dealings with members of Congress and government agencies. Abramoff is under indictment in another case in connection with an allegedly fraudulent Florida business deal.Abramoff had deep roots in the conservative movement and rose to prominence by helping Republicans tap traditionally Democratic K Street lobbyists for campaign dollars. But in the eLottery fight, he employed a win-at-any-cost strategy that went so far as to launch direct-mail attacks on vulnerable House conservatives.Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.At one point, eLottery's backers even circulated a forged letter of support from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R).Rudy declined to comment for this report. A spokesman for Reed -- now a candidate for lieutenant governor of Georgia -- said that he and his associates are unaware that any money they received came from gambling activities. Sheldon said that he could not remember receiving eLottery money and that he was unaware that Abramoff was involved in the campaign to defeat the bill. Norquist's group would say only that it had opposed the gambling ban on libertarian grounds.Abramoff's lawyer declined requests for a comment.
Gambling Interests Funded DeLay TripLater in 2000, Lawmaker's Vote Helped Defeat Regulatory MeasureBy James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey SmithWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, March 12, 2005; Page A01 An Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to a Washington public policy group that covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), his wife, two aides and two lobbyists in mid-2000, two months before DeLay helped kill legislation opposed by the tribe and the company. The sponsor of the week-long trip listed in DeLay's financial disclosures was the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy Research, but a person involved in arranging DeLay's travel said that lobbyist Jack Abramoff suggested the trip and then arranged for checks to be sent by two of his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and eLottery Inc. The dates on the checks coincided with the day DeLay left on the trip, May 25, 2000, according to grants documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The Choctaw and eLottery each sent a check for $25,000, according to the documents. They now say that they were unaware the money was being used to finance DeLay's travels. But Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center, said that, when the trip was arranged, Abramoff promised he would secure financial backing. She said that even without Abramoff's efforts, the National Center would have borne the cost of the trip, which was intended to allow the group to network with conservative British politicians and included an outing to the famous St. Andrews golf course in Scotland. "We paid for the trip," Ridenour said. "This trip was going to be paid for by the National Center, regardless of whether we got the donations from the Choctaw or eLottery." House ethics rules allow lawmakers and their staffs to have travel expenses paid only for officially connected travel and only by organizations directly connected to the trips. The rules also require that lawmakers accurately report the people or organizations that pay for the trips. They prohibit payments by registered lobbyists for lawmakers' travel. DeLay's spokesman, Dan Allen, said: "The trip was sponsored, organized and paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, as our travel disclosures accurately reflect and what the National Center has publicly said." Abramoff's attorney, Abbe David Lowell, declined to comment. Abramoff, the National Center and the flow of money between them are now being investigated by a federal task force and by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; DeLay was admonished three times last year for infringements of House ethics rules. To prove an ethics violation, investigators would have to show that DeLay and his staff knew the gambling interests were funding the trip, said Jan W. Baran, a Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP ethics lawyer who often represents Republicans. "If somebody is doing some backdoor financing, how would the member know?" Abramoff, a member of the National Center's board, joined the DeLays on the May 25 to June 3, 2000, trip, which DeLay's congressional office has said included a stop in London and a visit with Margaret Thatcher, along with the golf outing at St. Andrews, where colleagues say Abramoff has a membership. DeLay, an avid golfer, listed the purpose of the trip on a report filed with the House clerk as "educational." He was majority whip at the time and brought his wife, Christine, and two top staff members -- Tony Rudy from the whip's office and chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, as well as her husband, David Hirschmann, according to filings with the House clerk that indicated the total cost of transportation, lodging and meals was $70,265. Internet Gambling Bill Killed Two months later, in July 2000, DeLay and 43 other Republicans joined 114 Democrats in killing the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which would have made it a federal crime to place certain bets over the Internet and was opposed by eLottery and the Choctaws. The bill was supported by 165 Republicans and 79 Democrats but fell about 25 votes short of passage; because of a parliamentary maneuver, it required a two-thirds majority vote. DeLay spokesman Allen said that DeLay voted against the bill because it had exemptions for jai alai and horse and dog racing. Rudy later that year went to work for Abramoff as a lobbyist. The Choctaw Indians run a highly profitable casino near Philadelphia, Miss., that bankrolls their community activities and has subsidized an extensive lobbying effort in Washington. The tribe donated a total of $65,000 to Ridenour's group in 2000 and $1.07 million in 2002. cont. on next page
continued;Gambling Interests Funded DeLay TripThe Choctaw money was intended to help the center create a program to build support for the idea that Indian casinos could drive prosperity for poor tribes, Ridenour said. "We were trying to tell the Choctaw story," she said. On its Web site, the center attributes the following statement to DeLay: "The National Center is The Center for conservative communications." Asked about the DeLay trip to Britain, tribal lawyer Bryant Rogers said: "The tribe did not authorize the use of any money for this purpose. . . . If it occurred, it occurred without the tribe's knowledge." ELottery is a Connecticut company that provides Internet services to state lotteries. One version of the gambling legislation contained a provision that would have severely restricted state lottery sales over the Internet. Edwin J. McGuinn, president of eLot Inc., the parent of eLottery, said the provision would have killed his company. "We wouldn't have been able to operate," he said. McGuinn said he was unaware that eLottery's $25,000 check was meant to pay for DeLay's trip. Of the donation to the National Center, he said: "It certainly was our impression that any and all moneys were being positioned to get the attention and focus of our cause." DeLay today describes himself as a longtime opponent of any expansion of gambling. But in a House floor speech six months after his trip to Britain, he praised the head of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians as a "champion of peace and prosperity" and placed in the Congressional Record an editorial praising chief Phillip Martin for enriching the tribe through the "construction of a casino." The editorial, from the magazine Indian Country Today, noted that Martin had also wisely positioned his tribe "to solidify friendships with Republican powerhouses." It said -- in an apparent reference to Abramoff -- that the tribe and its chief had hired "quality lobbyists as their new wealth allowed" and successfully persuaded Republican leaders that the tribal revenue from gambling and other ventures should not be taxed. Three and a half weeks after DeLay's Jan. 3, 2001, speech saluting Martin "for all he has done to further the cause of freedom," at least one of DeLay's aides went on a trip via private jet to the Super Bowl in Tampa arranged and financed by one of Abramoff's companies. Sources familiar with the trip said the guests were also taken out to an Abramoff-owned gambling ship that was anchored near Tampa. No one on DeLay's staff filed a report disclosing the trip, a task required by House rules for "the receipt of travel expenses from private sources" but not for government-funded or political travel. DeLay spokesman Allen said: "The staffer went down to participate in a National Republican Congressional Committee party, so it was considered political travel. The staffer never saw Abramoff during the trip." The Internet gambling legislation was the only issue Abramoff and his employer at the time, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP, mentioned in lobbying disclosure records when they reported earning $440,000 in fees from eLottery in 2000. The Internet gambling bill was one of several legislative issues listed in a separate lobbying disclosure for the firm's efforts on behalf of the Choctaw, which paid Preston Gates $880,000 in 2000. Expense Voucher Submitted The trip to Britain by the DeLays previously attracted notice because Abramoff submitted an expense voucher to Preston Gates seeking a reimbursement of $12,789.73 to cover expenses for meals, hotels and transportation incurred by the DeLays, the Hirschmanns and a former DeLay chief of staff -- lobbyist Ed Buckham -- who also went on the trip. House ethics rules prohibit registered lobbyists such as Abramoff from paying for a lawmaker's expenses. But the Preston Gates records state that Abramoff told his firm he paid $4,285.35 for the DeLays' stay at London's Four Seasons Hotel, plus $5,174.64 for the Hirschmanns' stay. He also reported spending $800 on transportation for the group between May 25 and May 29. The existence of the voucher and a portion of its contents were reported last month in the National Journal. The voucher's tally of expenses differs from the account given by DeLay in a signed report to the House clerk on June 30, 2000, in which he reported that total lodging for the couple over nine nights cost Ridenour's group $3,840. Susan Hirschmann's separate, signed report also gave a different figure from Abramoff; she stated that lodging expenses for her husband and her for this period amounted to $3,360. Both the DeLays and the Hirschmanns reported their meal expenses during the trip as $2,000 per person, or roughly $200 a day. Last week, DeLay told reporters that he had reported the trip "as we are supposed to do." He said that, to his knowledge, the National Center "paid for the trip." DeLay told Cox News Service earlier this month: "I went to London to meet with conservatives in England and Scotland and talk about the things we had been doing in the Republican, conservative House. They wanted to dialogue to see if they could adopt some the things that we had done." A person who went on the trip but spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the controversy said that DeLay talked with Thatcher about her efforts to help end the Cold War and with others about trade issues. An aide to Thatcher confirmed that the meeting occurred. Abramoff was a member of the board of the National Center from about 1997 until last October, when the center accepted his resignation. Stanley Brand, a former Democratic counsel to the House and an ethics specialist, said arrangements in which funds are passed through an intermediary to pay for a lawmaker's travels breach ethics rules if the lawmaker who benefited "knew or should have known" the origin of funds. Brand said the House ethics committee, if it opens an investigation, would have to decide whether the circumstances of the travel "should have put a reasonable person on notice that it was paid for by someone else." Researchers Alice Crites, Lucy Shackelford and Don Pohlman contributed to this report.
