AND, AS KELSO PREDICTED, IT HAS COME TO PASS...
Every Democrat and Liberal and God-knows-what? was a a-flutter about the DeLay and Abramoff indictments. Kelso smelled a rat from the beginning. To more than one person Kelso said something on the order of "God, I loathe Tom DeLay but the sonofabitch is great for one thing: talking up all the religious shit to keep the dummies in place, all the while bottling up in committee the worst anti-gambling legislation that the real psychopathic zealots, Kyl and McCain have dreamt up."
And, so, we get this from INTERACTIVE GAMING NEWS:
I-gaming Prohibition Becoming a Priority for Republican Leaders
by Bradley Vallerius
Following revelations that Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay may have manipulated voting and other factors surrounding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act in 2000, Republican lawmakers could be hoping to rectify the past and distance themselves from political scandal by putting an online gambling prohibition bill to vote once again in 2006.
The legitimacy of events surrounding voting on the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 first came under suspicion in October 2005 when the Washington Post reported that an aide of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) helped defeat the bill after receiving favors from Jack Abramoff. DeLay, who until recently was House Majority Leader, is now under indictment for criminal conspiracy while Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser, has already plead guilty to several political crimes and still faces more charges.
The alleged corruption surrounding the online gambling bill in 2000 is only one of many potential ethics and financial scandals facing the Republican Party today. With the Party facing such a severe threat to its integrity, its members appear eager to put the scrutiny surrounding DeLay and Abramoff behind them by whatever means possible.
Now that DeLay has stepped down as House Majority Leader, three House Republicans have stepped forward to try to claim the vacancy. The Majority Leader is one of the most powerful positions in the House and is responsible for planning the daily, weekly and annual agendas of the House as well as scheduling legislation for floor consideration and consulting with members to gauge party sentiment.
One of the contenders, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has on several occasions mentioned his five-point plan for reforms he would pursue if voted into the position, and among those five priorities is obtaining another vote on legislation to prohibit online gambling. Last week Shedegg wrote in an op-ed piece in Congressional newspaper The Hill that "In 2000, a ban on Internet gambling received 245 votes on the suspension calendar, but, according to news accounts, we were kept from passing it because of Jack Abramoff’s machinations and manipulation. Passing it now would be good public policy and a clear signal that the era of Abramoff's influence is over."
At the moment Shadegg, who has confirmed support from only about ten House Rebublicans, seems to be the long-shot candidate for the House Majority Leader election that will take place on February 2. The best odds are on Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo), who has secured 91 votes, followed by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) with 47 votes. A candidate needs 117 votes to win the election.
Even though Shadegg has only an extremely thin chance of winning, the I-gaming industry is not completely safe from prohibition becoming a serious part of the Republican agenda in 2006. There is always the possibility that Shadegg could withdraw from the race and throw his support behind one of the other candidates in exchange for their vowing to concentrate some effort on his five-point platform. Also, the other two candidates are also pledging to make reforms a crucial part of their agendas. (Incidentally Blunt and Boehner have lately come under scrutiny for tainted ethical records, as has Shadegg too, although to a somewhat lesser degree than the two.)
Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), who has authored prohibitory I-gaming legislation during the last five Congressional sessions, says the bill he introduced in November 2005 has been gaining momentum as the Abramoff scandal has gained more attention.
"We expect this to move sometime this year," stated a Leach spokesperson to news publication American Banker last week. Leach's bill has already attracted 23 co-sponsors, including Rep. Spencer Bacchus (R-Ala), who chairs the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over financial institutions and has been a vigorous supporter of I-gaming prohibition in the past.
Flashback
Some of the events surrounding the fate of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 came to light in October and afterward following the initial report by the Washington Post and subsequent others in other publications. It has been revealed that Tony Rudy, who was a staffer for DeLay in 2000, received favors from Abramoff and encouraged house members to vote against the bill. It has also come to light that Abramoff's law firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rovelas Meeds lobbied on behalf of eLottery to fight the bill. Federal records show that Connecticut-based eLottery Inc., a company that wants to facilitate the sale of state lottery tickets over the Internet, spent $1.15 million to fight the prohibition that year, $720,000 of which went to Abramoff's firm. The firm did not represent any other clients in lobbying against the legislation.
Earlier this month Abramoff pleaded guilty to several counts of an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. One part of his confession stated, "Beginning at least in 1999 through 2001, Abramoff and others sought Staffer A's agreement to perform a series of official acts, including in assisting in stopping legislation regarding Internet gambling… With the intent to influence those official acts, Abramoff provided things of value, including, but not limited to, from June 2000 through February 2001, ten equal payments totaling $50,000 through a non-profit entity to the wife of Staffer A. The total amount paid to the wife of Staffer A was obtained from clients that would and did benefit from Staffer A's official action regarding the legislation on Internet gambling…"
Leach recollects that by July 2000 the prohibition bill "had passed the Senate by unanimous consent and was poised to clear the House until opponents launched a vigorous campaign to defeat it."
When it reached the House, however, the bill was placed on the suspension calendar, which is typically reserved for non-controversial matters because it limits debate and requires that a bill receive approval from two-thirds of the 435-member House. Although the bill easily achieved a majority of votes with 245 in support and 159 in opposition, the bill inevitably failed because it fell short of the necessary two-thirds.
There is now some speculation that DeLay's office might have intentionally put the bill on the suspension calendar in order to defeat it.
One fact that should not be overlooked however is that other lobbying groups played a significant role in blocking the 2000 bill. Concerned groups such as the National Indian Gaming Association, various state lotteries, Internet service providers and the Interactive Gaming Council all concentrated lobbying efforts on defeating the bill.
At any rate, atoning for the scandals involving Abramoff and DeLay is now a primary concern for many Republicans and a re-vote on I-gaming prohibition, may be one area in which they believe they could accomplish their goal.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) is believed to be ready to introduce an identical prohibitory bill in the Senate soon. Doing so would eliminate the hurdle of merging two competing versions of the bill at a later date.
The author of this article, Bradley Vallerius, is without a doubt the most knowledgeable gambling journalist in the United States if not the world.
So, here we are having to pray for the permanent annointment of Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), and we still might get some hideous legislation making online poker a capital crime and online sports betting a capital crime preceded by torture. And what Democrat is going to oppose this: Hillary Clinton? Ha! Joe Biden? Ha! The fucking Congressional Black Caucus might even sign on for this one.
So, dear reader, you are probably thinking "I don't care; what does this have to do with me -- I hate sports and don't know how to gamble?" Fine, but do you know what the Adminstration and Department Of Justice's main priority is at this moment? One guess, and Kelso will provide a hint -- it's not The War On Tirrir. It's PORNOGRAPHY AND THE LEGAL SEX INDUSTRY. Now, Kelso doesn't own any porn, dildoes, hand-cuffs, etc., and pretty much uses that crap on an occasional basis if the mood strikes. He could take it or leave it and trust his vocalized fantasies to carry the day. But do you read Kelso saying he "doesn't care" that the War On Sex brought about the NSA wiretapping not to mention the impeachment of Clinton? Because sex is not his livelihood? Hell, no! Kelso knows that your right to own as many dildoes as you like is essential to his ability to securely wager a large sum on the Seahawk and the points.
Wonder if Samuel Alito is up for re-visiting Griswold V Connecticut?
Again, O for the Golden Age Of Socialism Of Ronald Reagan!
Kelso's Nuts love you.
4 comments:
Well Kelso I have to say I have mixed feelings about gambling but don't really feel its anybody's business who gambles on the internet, watches porn, eats Mcnuggets, wears plaid, drinks alcohol,etc.
The trouble comes when people drink alcohol and kill people with cars. Thats the difference. But these legislators that like to sit around with their corrupt talking heads, MORALIZING... that gets on my nerves!
What I DO NOT like are the casinos that pop up in rural communities that cause chaos but yet they don't step up to the plate and run their casino responsibly.
But bd business is not about the morality of gambling, its about business and municipal planning.
They underpay workers, they don't offset the costs of their operations. These places do not need to spring up all around states like NY just to help the state government negotiate land deals. If people want them and people vote for them and desire these in their communities, fine. But it doesn't always work like that.
I know MANY anti-gambling people that speak of the ills, the costs, the debts, the heartbreaks..but you know what? I think adultery COULD cause debt and misery and chaos but I repect the rights of people to surf in chat rooms for sex. See I don't blame the chat rooms, I say people make their choices. Same for gambling- sadly, it can be addictive and people lose ALOT. But some people don't miss the money and think its fun. Who am I to say?
Why is it ok for states to run a lottery and use the money to fund things that should be funded with taxpayer money that goes to porkbarrel projects?
Lily:
We are so conflicted in this country on the issue of vice that it bends the mind. I could tell you some stories that would curl your hair. Here's one: the US Dept Of Injustice treats one marijuana plant as the equivalent of 1 Kilo of marijuana for the purposes of sentencing. Strange right? It gets weirder. They also consider a SPROUTED SEED to be a plant. My attorney asked me to guess how many people are serving 20+ years in federal prison for growing and selling marijuana. I guessed 1000. I wasn't even in the same county!
Do you know what the penalty for first time possession of heroin is in the UK? A "CAUTION". Do you know what the normal sentence is for dealing heroin? Less than 1 year.
Again, all of this harkens back to Plymouth. The Pilgrims came here not to escape persecution but because their brand of religion was antithetical to the more tolerant Anglican Church...and as bad as a monarchy is, the British monarchy was not having any of the craziness of the Pilgrims' particular brand of religion when it came to the more violent enforcement mechanisms they used -- the trials by ordeal, the stonings, etc. Even in the 16th Century, that was very much uncool with British law as it stood.
The Pilgrims had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the USA. It was a lucky accident of history that the 50 greatest legal minds of all time were in the same place at the same time when the merchant class of British immigrants were objecting to English tax policy.
But back to gambling. Like all vice, it has its negative side. Despite, the brilliance of the framers of the Constitution, the United States has never shaken off its intolerant Christian roots (High-Church Protestants excluded, of course). And that is why vice sets off something really bi-polar, schizophrenic, whatever, in the corridors of power and in the 25% of the electorate that supports the Republican Party (and heavily influences the Democratic Party).
Joe Lieberman was dead wrong. Freedom of Religion means EXACTLY "freedom from religion" if that's how an American chooses to live.
And, finally, there is plenty of scholarly research in support of the hypothesis that vice is as necessary to the human condition as nutrition. The stress of being born with the knowledge of one's own mortality is too much to bear and vice allows for a release of that pressure which otherwise would build up to unbridled anarchy, not in the Emma Goldman/Noam Chomsky sense but in the sense of the states of the former Yugoslavia.
Griswold v. Connecicut is a tough case. Justice Douglas made up some shit about "penumbras," but everyone -- even liberal law professors -- knows deep down that the right of privacy is an invention.
The problem when you start adding rights to the constitution is the slippery slope down to Lochner, the case that struck down maximum work hour laws in 1905 on the basis that the state was infringing upon the individual's "liberty" to make a contract.
Okay, we all feel that the state has more rights in the economic realm than the personal realm, but unfortunately that isn't in the constitution. If the people really were united in this view, we could add an amendment explicitly recognizing the right to privacy in the personal realm -- and maybe if Justice Douglas hadn't written Griswold, it would've happened in the late 60's or mid-'70's, when the mood was right.
Anyway, even then Roe would be a tough case, as it involves taking a life. Let's put it this way, if a 9 month fetus about to be delivered was torn out of the mother and thrown off a roof, almost everyone (even Kelso) would agree that was murder. When a tadpole is sucked out at 4 weeks, all us "right thinking" people think it is not murder. If you think about the dilemma long enough, it gets you to Blackmun's trimester approach -- the only balance that works. But the point is, even a new amendment codifying Griswold, Loving (miscegenation), the right to travel cases, and many others that are no longer debated, would still reach an impasse with abortion.
Had Kelso known that a throwaway barb would have brought forth such a well-reasoned, thought-provoking response, he'd have been mentioning cases all along hoping Flopper Harvey would provide these.
Given the actual guts of the post, though, please offer an insight on an appeals court opinion 3-0 affirming the lower court's finding in US v Cohen. Cohen lost and Supreme Court passed, btw. Believe Cohen argued sovreignty of Antigua (?), US argued Wire Act of 1964. Ruling put us in the very strange position that gambling is both legal and illegal in states in which it is accepted as legal (if that makes any sense at all!). Another case that was germane to the decision was US V Katz (not sure of year).
Related Seinfeldism: Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of Jews in the gambling world?
Post a Comment