I wanted to post a series of interesting discussions that I had with a member of my Congressman’s (John Lewis of GA) Office because I think it might be able to add perspective to the approach for lobbying the Senate.<SPAN> </SPAN>I appreciate the willingness of the Congressman’s staff to spend three separate conversations with me.<SPAN> </SPAN>I can be fairly difficult at times and this gentleman, while audibly frustrated on occasion, was very accommodating as I attempted to learn more about my Congressman’s stance.<SPAN> </SPAN>The point of this post is not to berate the clerical error in the Congressman’s Office (because those happen) and not to berate my Congressman (because there are 316 others) for his vote, but to learn from this and present alternate strategies on being successful in the Senate.

Let’s refer to the staff member as Bob for the sake of anonymity and fairness.

The first conversation I had with Bob was the day of the House Vote on H.R. 4411.<SPAN> </SPAN>I had left a message in reference to the Bill with another member of the staff and Bob promptly returned my call an hour or so later.<SPAN> </SPAN>He informed me that the Congressman was against the passage of 4411 and I left under the impression that he would be voting against the passage of the bill.<SPAN> </SPAN>Upon learning that the vote took place in the House, I went to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml and learned that he voted in favor of 4411.<SPAN> </SPAN>Disappointed by the vote as well as the communication disparity, I called Bob back.<SPAN> </SPAN>Bob seemed surprised to learn of the result of the vote as well and apologized.<SPAN> </SPAN>I asked him to get back to me on two topics:

<SPAN>1)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Why did the Senator elect to vote in favor of the Bill?

<SPAN>2)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>How did Bob fall under the impression that Congressman Lewis was against passage only later to learn that he was in favor of passage?<SPAN> </SPAN>Was it the result of an overly persuasive argument made on the floor?<SPAN> </SPAN>Again, berating Bob here is unproductive.

He promised to investigate further and return with an answer.<SPAN> </SPAN>A week later, I followed up with Bob in search of my answer and the Congressman had been consumed with Voting Rights Legislation (of which he has a very vested interest) and Bob promised to return by week’s end with a response.

Yesterday I received a call from Bob and he communicated the following information to me:

<SPAN>1)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>The Congressman voted this way because he is concerned about access by children.<SPAN> </SPAN>Additionally, Bob cited the robbery and recent suicide that have been attached to online gambling.

<SPAN>2)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>He volunteered that Congressman Lewis recognized First Amendment issues in regard to the Bill and that should the Bill resurface in a different format, will need to be reexamined.

<SPAN>3)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>There was not a lot of communication from constituents regarding this vote.

<SPAN>4)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>The Congressman spoke with members on the floor and his vote was not necessarily concrete until it was cast.<SPAN> </SPAN>The reason that Bob communicated his intent incorrectly was due to what he explained was a misinterpretation on his part of the Congressman’s intent and the best way to understand the Congressman’s feelings on the Bill is by his vote.

As a takeaway from the conversation, I matched what I personally believe to what was stated and have also listed several things that I believe will be key in defeating this Bill should it reach the Senate:

<SPAN>1)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>The ability of children to access online gambling is a valid point, however if Congress enforced the same verification procedures that are in place for Horse Racing, this argument is no longer valid.<SPAN> </SPAN>Congress has the power to regulate as opposed to ban.<SPAN> </SPAN>I know of many children who buy lottery tickets on behalf of their children, however I'm quite certain that state lotteries are going to stay legal...

<SPAN>2)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Attaching the robbery and recent suicide to online gambling is a cop out.<SPAN> </SPAN>Every year people rob stores and commit suicide.<SPAN> </SPAN>Online gambling has been around in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region> for quite some time.<SPAN> </SPAN>Pointing to two events over a 5-10 year period as justification for outlawing an activity that millions enjoy is statistically irrelevant.<SPAN> </SPAN>Individuals who commit crimes need to be held accountable for their actions.<SPAN> </SPAN>This gentleman is being prosecuted for this crime because he commited it. Online gambling did not commit the crime and accordingly, we should not be expected to share in his sentence. What he did was the parallel of driving under the influence. He allowed his irresponsibility to spill over into other people's lives.

<SPAN>3)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>I’m not fully convinced that if the vote would have occurred without debate that it would have passed.<SPAN> </SPAN>I believe that there were too many Members of Congress making too many emotional pleas with too many cameras present to effectively rebut with logic and vote the way that made sense in the middle of an election.<SPAN> </SPAN>As every member of the House is up for election this year, voting for this is an easy way to stay off of television as a supporter of terrorism.<SPAN> </SPAN>I do not agree that voting against the Bill means that you are a terrorist, but simply that it would have been presented that way on television... that dissenters are Abramoff Terrorists...

<SPAN>4)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>The issue we ran into is that the Congressman Goodlatte and his team framed the issue and we had to rebut it.<SPAN> </SPAN>We had limited strength on the floor.<SPAN> </SPAN>When this debate hits the Senate, we need to effectively frame the issue by citing Washington State’s Newspaper Censorship; banks tracking your transactions; the government telling you how to live; reduction of individual liberty; Censorship of the Internet; etc.<SPAN> </SPAN>We need five Senators like Barney Frank and five Senators like Shelley Berkley who expose the hypocrisy of the proposed legislation.<SPAN> </SPAN>Additionally, we need to begin running advertisements that frames this legislation as “PRO-ABRAMOFF”.<SPAN> </SPAN>Run an ad in Goodlatte’s hometown about his support of Jack Abramoff’s lottery goals.<SPAN> </SPAN>Make the Abramoff argument OUR argument, and not theirs.<SPAN> </SPAN>Be adamant about this and do not back down!<SPAN> </SPAN>Jack Abramoff would want this legislation to pass.

<SPAN>5)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>Congressman Lewis voted for the Berkley Amendment.<SPAN> </SPAN>At least he is consistent in his voting and I commend him for that. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll361.xml

<SPAN>6)<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN>I truly believe that a Congressman had nothing to gain by voting against this Bill other than a retention of their own integrity.<SPAN> </SPAN>For this I commend Barney Frank and Shelley Berkley.<SPAN> </SPAN>I believe that a Congressman had much to lose by voting against this Bill by opening the door for negative campaigning.<SPAN> </SPAN>The reverse does not hold true.<SPAN> </SPAN>After listening to the debate, there was nothing to lose (politically speaking) if a Congressman voted in favor of this Bill. <SPAN> </SPAN>Voting for this Bill was simply the path of least resistance. <SPAN> </SPAN>We need to take that path away and we need to make it politically safe for the Senate to vote their conscience.<SPAN> </SPAN>We need to provide them with the political rebuttal.<SPAN> </SPAN>This did not occur in the House vote.

My disappointment is obvious and expressing it is simply unproductive.<SPAN> </SPAN>The best thing we can do is learn from the passage of the Bill in the House and actively fight it in the Senate.<SPAN> </SPAN>Call your Congressman Day was a great start, but we need to find a way to expand this so that every American knows what passage of this Bill means to them and encourage them to communicate their discomfort to their elected officials.<SPAN> </SPAN>The other side did a fantastic job of making it painful to vote against this Bill by tying ramifications and tangible labels to those who would.<SPAN> </SPAN>We need to be ready to frame the issue in the Senate so that Senators do not vote the politically safe route, but cast their vote in the manner that they know is in accordance with individual liberty.

Again, thank you to the Office of Congressman Lewis for the time spent in explanation of the Congressman's vote.

That's a very smart post. If this bill were an actual "ban," I think there'd be a lot more resistance against it as well. As much as anything, it's an issue of semantics, and at least in the House, the sponsors played their cards right. We'll be discussing ways for members of the community to show their Senators why it's a bad thing to vote for this bill.

Awesome post Screamin.

I had a very similiar experience with Rep. Tom Price (GA-6th). The lack of a cohesive pro online gambling voice is a huge problem. Too many reasons for these guys to just go with the flow.

One suggestion- contact Sen Harry Reid (NV-D). He is probably the best hope for this thing to stall or get redirected. A well articulated argument like you make above is our best weapon.

Regards,

TJ

Yes, Kyl's seat is up for reelection, but while it is a contested race in the sense that there is a fairly well-known opponent, it is a foregone conclusion in Arizona that Kyl will win reelection quite easily (by 8-12% imo).

I will stick with individual liberties, thank you. As I have previously stated, staffers of my Republican reps have responded well to my argument that this bill is anti-Reagan, that it works directly against his belief (and most people who vote Republican) in the "maximum individual liberty consistent with law and order." The last thing I wish to be a part of is Dems gaining control of anything. I fail to see this working to motivate Democrats either, they are well aware that defeating Kyl in AZ is next to impossible and would require something much bigger than this bill to do it over.

Thanks, guys. I think that tying this to one party or the other is statistically a bad move. Polarizing Senators (particularly Republicans who have a majority) is a mistake. This needs to be tied to something we can all get behind. Goodlatte did this in the House. We didn't. We lost.

Supporters of this Bill are being laughed at by Jack Abramoff because they are doing his bidding. He's laughing hysterically. This is the pivot point. Turn the supporters of this Bill into evil men who are knitwits for effectively promoting the ideals they verbally abhor. Expose them for being Abramoff's Monkeys. Make voting for this Bill painful come election time. Remember that poker players are not the target audience. Education of the general public is the goal. We should have learned from this that we are perceived (although I disagree) to be too small of a demographic. This was our own fault and can be corrected.