Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
To me, this is a good lesson on how Congress perceives us. Do these sound like fans of the status quo to anyone here?
+1
I don't understand any of the negative comments ITT. We had a good bill to start with and none of the amendments that passed really changed it that much:
There were three bad amendments that passed today that I can recall:
1. No credit card. This is an inconvenience.
2. Sites have to locate physically within the U.S. An inconvenience to the sites.
3. No licenses for sites that offered illegal gambling. This is kind of a big deal, but there is no guarantee that FT and Stars will be named on such a list. They'll have the opportunity (twice, if I am understanding the interplay of the amendments correctly) to make the case that they did not violate U.S. law.
Today actually went pretty well.
TE's larger point is also very valid. Recall that UIGEA had passd the house as a stand alone bill by a vote of something like 300-and something to 90 or so.
Today, we are going to have a legal poker/gaming bill voted out of committee with at least some bipartisan support.
The PPA has made a lot of progress in swaying opinion in the house, and deserves a lot of credit for moving the house from overwhelming opposition to this point where we have bipartisan support in the committee.
I hesitate to say this because gaming has been a special case for much of American history, but:
One of the reasons these committees exist is because they encourage congresscritters to develop certain areas of expertise. This creates a culture in Congress whereby most congresscritters defer to the committee's expertise (or at least their party's leadership on the committee) on most bills.
When a bill passes out of committee with broad bipartisan support, this is a clear signal to the remainder of the house that the bill is a Good Thing that needs doing. These bills usually sail through Congress.
Two caveats as this applies to HB2267:
1. It is not clear whether we have "some," bipartisan support or "broad," bipartisan support. Which it turns out to be will have a big effect on how this bill is received when it gets to the floor. If only the hardcore ideologues in the republican party oppose it, then we can expect a lot of congresscritters to defer to the committee's expertise. If we only pick up a few republicans, then this will go to the floor as a partisan issue with only niche republican support (republicans who think it ill benefit their districts or their contributors).
2. Gaming has always been a different sort of issue, as it has long been perceived as a moral issue. So there may be widespread ideological opposition on the house floor even if the committee vote indicates there is some bipartisan support for the bill.
So, the final roll call vote today will be an important indicator of what sort of reception HB2267 will receive in the full house. Lots of republican cross over will be a good thing, only some cross over republicans will indicate that we are being perceived as a largely partisan issue.
imo