An Analysis of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

Penguinfan · #1 10-03-06, 02:49 PM

Wishful thinking. The far right Christain moral zealots kicked our ass on this one, plain and simple.

Chad Hill who works for Jim Dobson and Focus on The Family admits they have been trying for 7 years to get some form of legislation against internet gambling on the books and it's believed he had a hand in helping write the Kyle bill that got the ball rolling most recently.

"We've been pushing for seven years now," Hills said, "to get anything through Congress that would restrict or prohibit Internet gambling from reaching into living rooms and homes across the nation."

It was a vote heard 'round the world, he added.

"Internet gambling operations around the globe are stunned," Hills said. "Shareholders are pulling their money and online gambling stocks are plummeting all the way from Antigua to Costa Rica to the United Kingdom. Two of the UK's largest online-gambling entities are canceling all U.S. operations. For the time being, Internet gambling in the U.S. is dead."

While they have come up short of all he is implying, make no mistake about who the problem is. If you think Frist isn't playing to this crowd to secure votes in the 08 election you simply aren't paying attention.

Kurn · #2 10-03-06, 03:19 PM

While I agree with you on Frist's (and Goodlatte's and Kyl's) motivation, that narrow view doesn't explain away the moderates and liberals who are on board with this. it certainly doesn't explain why 60% of House Democrats voted for it.

There's a lot of different forces at play here. The Christian Right is one, for sure, the Nanny-State Left is another, the "I'm struggling for re-election and this looks good" group is a 3rd, and those who see the dollar signs if they can somehow manipulate the process to bring this $12B industry onshore are a 4th

Penguinfan · #3 10-03-06, 03:24 PM

Since this was attached to the Port Security bill anyone voting against it would have appeared soft on terrorism, not something you can afford a month before elections.

Talking Poker · #4 10-03-06, 03:31 PM

He's talking about the House vote - not the Senate.

johnp158 · #5 10-03-06, 03:42 PM

Not to mention the Senate bill passed by voice vote. So you can't really say who did or didn't support it.

Kurn · #6 10-03-06, 03:35 PM

I was unclear, sorry. My reference was to the Goodlatte Bill in the House (HR 4411), which was a standalone bill that passed on July 11, 2006.

It was, in fact, far more restrictive than the rider that was attached to the port bill and had absolutely zero to do with terrorism. democrats supported THAT bill 115-76.

Penguinfan · #7 10-03-06, 03:55 PM

I really can't speak for that. Currently with Frist getting involved when he did I have no doubt of his intention.

My only guess about HR4411 is that they knew it would die on the Senate floor for what I think was the second year in a row.

The voice vote that passed this through the Senate was a joke.

Kurn · #8 10-03-06, 04:03 PM

You're such an idealogue that you're in total denial that support of the ban is bipartisan (stronger on the GOP side, I don't deny that).

When the Senate Dems rehjected adding the rider to the military spending bill, the democratic leadership made a point of telling Frist that they thought the bill was a good idea and would support it in the future, but rejected adding the rider to that bill because it had nothing to do with military spending.

Penguinfan · #9 10-03-06, 04:10 PM

If I knew what "Idealogue" meant I would probably be pissed about now.

You say they rejected adding the rider to the defense spending bill because it had nothing to do with that, but it couldn't possibly have much to do with port security either.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a republican, or at least I was till the past four years. I don't doubt that there is support on the Dems side, I'm just saying that Frist saw an opportunity and took it while the far Right was looking for anyone they could find to champion this cause.

drewjax · #10 10-03-06, 05:23 PM

Simply not paying attention huh. OK

I think my point was that is exactly what Frist is trying to do. He is out front as the champion of this cause, trying to get votes from the conservative (voting) majority. However, as has already been stated, if they plan on spending $2 mil. over 5 years to enforce this, they aren't going to enforce much. Then when he is president (in his mind), they come up with "This isnt working", and legalize/regulate/tax all of this.

Simple. Opinion.

Penguinfan · #11 10-03-06, 05:47 PM

That honestly wasn't directed at you specifically, more to the masses, sorry if it came across that way.

I do think you are reaching with that thought process though, if Frist knows he needs those votes to get elected, he couldn't turn his back on them and expect to get re-elected four years later.

drewjax · #12 10-03-06, 06:05 PM

Good point, but..
1. If these conservatives who help to put him in office or whatever think they may get a cut of taxes on $12 billion a year......
2. I also look at the timing of it all. It is passed now. There is a 9 month compliance period or whatever, taking us to next summer/fall. Then a 5 year period where they are going to 'enforce' this, taking us close to the end of the next (his first term?) presidential term.
Just wouldnt be at all surprised if sometime after that you see the law changed again and you see goverment regulation and taxing. Which is what we should be doing in the first place. We could use that money for crazy things like food, housing, healthcare etc.

Just my opinion