|
There are so many things wrong with this, it's not funny. I will have more to say about it another time, but I want to keep posting it so we never forget exactly who we're fighting... |
First, this is not one of those political discussions where
I take sides. Lefty that I am, I realize
that neither wing of our current Congress is particularly friendly to poker or
gambling, but specific individuals are.
Concurrently, neither side is totally for RAWA or against it, as there are
specific individuals with reasons pro or con.
The fact is that, like it or not, RAWA is a political
action, and, as such, will go through the political process. My purpose here is to bring certain issues to
light, and, for fun, to discuss some of those issues while comparing HR 707
(Restore America’s Wire Act) to HR 4411 and HR 4777 of 2006 - the Internet
Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act and the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (which, as you know, were “blended”
together (taking out, ironically, any reference to the original Wire Act) - into
the Safe Port Act and came out as
UIGEA. And if you
didn’t know, the whole horrid story can be found
here.
First – RAWA currently has 14 cosponsors, including three
Democrats. IGPEA of 2006 also had three
Dems, but a total of 35 cosponsors, and IGPA had a total of 146
cosponsors. RAWA, in terms of
cosponsorships, is a piker.
Next, RAWA had a scheduled hearing, but “because of a
snowstorm” was cancelled. IGPEA held no
hearings, but was “reported by committee” to the House for consideration, as
was IGPA. It was in the House that HR
4411 (IGPEA) became House Resolution 907 for the purpose of…well, hell, read
it:
That upon the
adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4411) to prevent the use
of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund transfers for unlawful
Internet gambling, and for other purposes. In lieu of the amendments
recommended by the Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute depicted in
the Rules Committee Print dated July 5, 2006, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services and
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2)
the further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Berkley of Nevada or
her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and
shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
So it came to pass by vote, 313 to 97. And there it died. The Senate never took it up, and for all
intents and purposes, gambling on the Internet was AOK. Until the Safe Port Act, and Black Friday,
and so on.
Want some more parallels?
James Leach of Iowa was HR 4411’s author. He’s no longer in the House, but the author
of HR 4777 (Leach’s bill but WITH the part about the Wire Act) is Bob Goodlatte…who
just so happens to be the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the very committee who planned to hear
RAWA.
What seems likely to
me that, hearing or not (or fair hearing or not), there is a good chance that
RAWA will be “reported by committee” to the House for consideration just
like in 2006. From there? The question is once again if the Senate will
take up the ball and run with it.
Lindsey Graham says he will, and he has the “backing” (read: money) of
King-maker Sheldon Adelson. But two
issues trouble me here: one, while
passing the House seems likely because of the Republican majority (despite
those who recognize that the bill violates “states rights” sovereignty), the
Senate is less so (even with Harry “Turncoat” Reid leading the Dems). Two, Graham got Adelson’s blessing (and cash)
for a potential Presidential run in 2016, but recent polls from his own home
state of South Carolina show the majority DON’T want him. How willing will Graham be to go to bat for
Shelly when his own political future (outside of staying a Senator) is dim?
No, it is far more likely that if RAWA is to be the law of
the land, it will happen the same way that UIGEA came to be. That is, by sneaking it onto some “must-pass”
legislation and calling for another “Midnight Drop” (last-minute rulemaking
that binds the hands of an incoming administration).
Of course, this
time, we’ll be watching like a hawk.
Oh, yeah, one more thing – in the “Safe Port” act there is
the following at the very end:
Sec 803 (b) - Internet gambling in or through foreign
jurisdictions
REPORT
REQUIRED
The
Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an annual report to the Congress on any
deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating
to Internet gambling.
Anybody seen that report?
Just askin’ is all.