Tweet
Web-Gambling Opponents
Restore Old Fight
With Abramoff Out of the Picture, Defeated
Bills Gain Renewed Attention on Capitol Hill
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
March 7, 2006; Page A6
WASHINGTON -- Foes of Internet gambling are experiencing a renaissance on Capitol Hill. One reason: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now facing prison time instead of working against them.
House members are rushing to co-sponsor a version of the Internet ban that failed after an Abramoff-led lobbying blitz in 2000. Another version of the ban will be the subject of a House Financial Services Committee meeting this week. In the Senate, a senior Republican plans to offer companion legislation as an amendment to a lobbying overhaul measure spawned by the Abramoff scandal.
"This would demonstrate that not only are we changing the mechanisms [of lobbying], here is one tangible result," says Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Jack Abramoff is not going to have his way now."
CAST YOUR VOTE
Question of the Day: Should Congress ban Internet gambling?And that isn't the only issue lawmakers are using to show things are different following Mr. Abramoff's January guilty plea to conspiring to bribe members of Congress and other charges. Legislation extending U.S. labor and immigration law to the Northern Mariana Islands, which Mr. Abramoff had worked to block, is being dusted off for reintroduction. Another bill he had opposed -- raising taxes on some U.S. companies with headquarters in overseas tax havens -- is up for an amendment and could gain steam following the lobbyist's fall.
With a Justice Department influence-peddling investigation still under way, lawmakers want to "show some separation between them and him," says Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), a chief sponsor of the 2000 Internet-gambling ban. In a few weeks, Mr. Goodlatte has racked up more than 100 co-sponsors, including onetime Abramoff ally Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas.
Mike Connolly, a DeLay spokesman, said his boss opposed the 2000 bill because it had too many exemptions, and the current version will be more effective. Still, Mr. Abramoff's former adversaries see this measure and others more likely to advance than when they squared off with a lobbyist who arranged luxurious trips for lawmakers and their staffs, launched campaign-style advertisements against opponents and boasted relationships with the likes of White House political adviser Karl Rove.
Rep. George Miller, (D., Calif.) worked for years to make companies operating in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, comply with the same labor and immigration laws as other U.S. companies. But his efforts have been stymied in the House, where several members -- including Mr. DeLay in 1997 -- took trips to the islands' resorts paid for by Mr. Abramoff and his clients. Daniel Weiss, a Miller spokesman, says the legislation is "already being redrafted."
That doesn't mean that legislation Mr. Abramoff once worked against will sail through. On the Northern Marianas issue, the Senate champion was then Sen. Frank Murkowski, who is now Alaska's Republican governor. It is unclear who may take up the issue in that chamber today.
In the first post-Abramoff legislative rematch, Internet-gambling companies opposing a ban are readying for a fight. The Interactive Gaming Council, for now, still retains Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mr. Abramoff's old firm. Sportingbet.com has retained Washington lobbying heavyweight Patton Boggs LLP. A grass-roots organization, called the Poker Players Alliance, also is working against the ban.
The industry's pockets are much deeper than in 2000, when there were 1,800 Internet gambling Web sites. By 2003, the industry's gambling revenue was estimated at $5.7 billion and it is projected to reach nearly $17 billion by 2009, according to a study by Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC, a Maine firm that analyzes the gambling industry.
Mr. Goodlatte's bill amends the Wire Act, which makes gambling over telephone lines illegal, to include Internet gambling. It includes some exemptions for horse racing and state lotteries but also broadens the definition of gambling to go beyond sports events. Mr. Kyl and Rep. Jim Leach, (R., Iowa), are sponsoring bills that would ban credit-card and other Internet financial transactions for betting. Mr. Leach's measure is scheduled to be acted upon by the House Financial Services Committee this week.
Opponents say neither measure will work, primarily because the industry is largely based outside the U.S. "Our belief is a regulatory and licensing structure would go a lot further toward protection of the consumer," says Keith Furlong, a spokesman for the Interactive Gaming Council. By recognizing and licensing the upstart industry, government officials could tax its revenue, he added.
Critics say Internet gambling must be stopped because minors and addicted gamblers can find ways to the sites and regulators can't duplicate the kind of face-to-face monitoring of gamblers' habits that casinos and other traditional gambling outlets can.
Mr. Furlong says that lawmakers' anger at Mr. Abramoff and the tactics he employed to kill the bill in 2000 could provide momentum for the other side.
The Abramoff lobbying effort included hiring former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed to stir up conservative opposition to the bill on grounds that exemptions for horse racing and a few other forms of gambling would lead to an increase in gambling, not a decrease. His team also ran advertisements threatening to attack Republican incumbents who supported it.
Mr. Goodlatte obtained letters from former Moral Majority head Jerry Falwell and others to demonstrate its support among religious conservatives. But Mr. Abramoff's last-minute tactics caused confusion. Ultimately, a strategic decision by Mr. Goodlatte to allow the bill to come to the floor on a special calendar for noncontroversial items was his undoing. Items on that special calendar require a two-thirds vote for passage. Mr. Goodlatte's bill received 249 favorable votes, enough to pass with a simple majority but too few to get over the two-thirds bar.
Rep. Rich Boucher, a Virginia Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill, said he was stunned last year when, as the Abramoff records emerged, he learned the real reasons the Internet gambling-ban bill was defeated. He pledged to work harder to get it passed now, writing a letter to fellow Democrats and attending a news conference with his fellow Virginian, Mr. Goodlatte.
"It made me very angry," said Mr. Boucher in a recent interview. "I felt used and the whole system was abused."
Restore Old Fight
With Abramoff Out of the Picture, Defeated
Bills Gain Renewed Attention on Capitol Hill
By JEANNE CUMMINGS
March 7, 2006; Page A6
WASHINGTON -- Foes of Internet gambling are experiencing a renaissance on Capitol Hill. One reason: Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is now facing prison time instead of working against them.
House members are rushing to co-sponsor a version of the Internet ban that failed after an Abramoff-led lobbying blitz in 2000. Another version of the ban will be the subject of a House Financial Services Committee meeting this week. In the Senate, a senior Republican plans to offer companion legislation as an amendment to a lobbying overhaul measure spawned by the Abramoff scandal.
"This would demonstrate that not only are we changing the mechanisms [of lobbying], here is one tangible result," says Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. "Jack Abramoff is not going to have his way now."
CAST YOUR VOTE
Question of the Day: Should Congress ban Internet gambling?And that isn't the only issue lawmakers are using to show things are different following Mr. Abramoff's January guilty plea to conspiring to bribe members of Congress and other charges. Legislation extending U.S. labor and immigration law to the Northern Mariana Islands, which Mr. Abramoff had worked to block, is being dusted off for reintroduction. Another bill he had opposed -- raising taxes on some U.S. companies with headquarters in overseas tax havens -- is up for an amendment and could gain steam following the lobbyist's fall.
With a Justice Department influence-peddling investigation still under way, lawmakers want to "show some separation between them and him," says Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), a chief sponsor of the 2000 Internet-gambling ban. In a few weeks, Mr. Goodlatte has racked up more than 100 co-sponsors, including onetime Abramoff ally Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas.
Mike Connolly, a DeLay spokesman, said his boss opposed the 2000 bill because it had too many exemptions, and the current version will be more effective. Still, Mr. Abramoff's former adversaries see this measure and others more likely to advance than when they squared off with a lobbyist who arranged luxurious trips for lawmakers and their staffs, launched campaign-style advertisements against opponents and boasted relationships with the likes of White House political adviser Karl Rove.
Rep. George Miller, (D., Calif.) worked for years to make companies operating in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, comply with the same labor and immigration laws as other U.S. companies. But his efforts have been stymied in the House, where several members -- including Mr. DeLay in 1997 -- took trips to the islands' resorts paid for by Mr. Abramoff and his clients. Daniel Weiss, a Miller spokesman, says the legislation is "already being redrafted."
That doesn't mean that legislation Mr. Abramoff once worked against will sail through. On the Northern Marianas issue, the Senate champion was then Sen. Frank Murkowski, who is now Alaska's Republican governor. It is unclear who may take up the issue in that chamber today.
In the first post-Abramoff legislative rematch, Internet-gambling companies opposing a ban are readying for a fight. The Interactive Gaming Council, for now, still retains Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mr. Abramoff's old firm. Sportingbet.com has retained Washington lobbying heavyweight Patton Boggs LLP. A grass-roots organization, called the Poker Players Alliance, also is working against the ban.
The industry's pockets are much deeper than in 2000, when there were 1,800 Internet gambling Web sites. By 2003, the industry's gambling revenue was estimated at $5.7 billion and it is projected to reach nearly $17 billion by 2009, according to a study by Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC, a Maine firm that analyzes the gambling industry.
Mr. Goodlatte's bill amends the Wire Act, which makes gambling over telephone lines illegal, to include Internet gambling. It includes some exemptions for horse racing and state lotteries but also broadens the definition of gambling to go beyond sports events. Mr. Kyl and Rep. Jim Leach, (R., Iowa), are sponsoring bills that would ban credit-card and other Internet financial transactions for betting. Mr. Leach's measure is scheduled to be acted upon by the House Financial Services Committee this week.
Opponents say neither measure will work, primarily because the industry is largely based outside the U.S. "Our belief is a regulatory and licensing structure would go a lot further toward protection of the consumer," says Keith Furlong, a spokesman for the Interactive Gaming Council. By recognizing and licensing the upstart industry, government officials could tax its revenue, he added.
Critics say Internet gambling must be stopped because minors and addicted gamblers can find ways to the sites and regulators can't duplicate the kind of face-to-face monitoring of gamblers' habits that casinos and other traditional gambling outlets can.
Mr. Furlong says that lawmakers' anger at Mr. Abramoff and the tactics he employed to kill the bill in 2000 could provide momentum for the other side.
The Abramoff lobbying effort included hiring former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed to stir up conservative opposition to the bill on grounds that exemptions for horse racing and a few other forms of gambling would lead to an increase in gambling, not a decrease. His team also ran advertisements threatening to attack Republican incumbents who supported it.
Mr. Goodlatte obtained letters from former Moral Majority head Jerry Falwell and others to demonstrate its support among religious conservatives. But Mr. Abramoff's last-minute tactics caused confusion. Ultimately, a strategic decision by Mr. Goodlatte to allow the bill to come to the floor on a special calendar for noncontroversial items was his undoing. Items on that special calendar require a two-thirds vote for passage. Mr. Goodlatte's bill received 249 favorable votes, enough to pass with a simple majority but too few to get over the two-thirds bar.
Rep. Rich Boucher, a Virginia Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill, said he was stunned last year when, as the Abramoff records emerged, he learned the real reasons the Internet gambling-ban bill was defeated. He pledged to work harder to get it passed now, writing a letter to fellow Democrats and attending a news conference with his fellow Virginian, Mr. Goodlatte.
"It made me very angry," said Mr. Boucher in a recent interview. "I felt used and the whole system was abused."
Comment