Markup of HR 2267 Tuesday

Vote appears too close to call

by , Jul 26, 2010 | 8:04 am

Watch the markup hearing here

The attempt to regulate and license Internet gambling tries to move another step forward on Tuesday with the markup of HR 2267 in the House Financial Services Subcommittee. The markup is scheduled to start at 10am ET, with HR 2267 currently listed third on the list of seven bills.

The last time a bill regarding Internet gambling made it to a markup vote in the Committee (2008), it “lost” by a vote of 32-32. Doing a little bit of research by using the PPA Congressional Ratings website, the 2008 markup vote, and previous hearings, there are currently 34 Yeas, 21 Nays, and 16 Undecided on the bill.

Democratic Yeas – Frank, Kanjorski, Gutierrez, Velazquez, Watt, Ackerman, Sherman, Moore (KS), Capuono, Hinojosa, Clay, McCarthy, Lynch, Green, Cleaver, Bean, Moore (WI), Hodes, Ellison, Klein, Wilson, Perlmutter, Donnelly, Foster, Carson, Childers, Minnick, Adler, Dreihaus, Himes, Maffei

Republican Yeas – King, Paul, Lance, Campbell, Lee

Democratic Nays – Meeks, Baca, Miller, Scott

Republican Nays – Bachus, Castle, Royce, Lucas, Manzullo, Jones, Miller, Capito, Hensarling, Garrett, Barrett, Neugebauer, Price, McHenry, Putnam, Bachmann, Marchant

Those listed as undecided include those who voted against the bill in 2008, but have either signed on as a co-sponsor to HR 2267 or sent a letter in support of Internet poker.

Democratic Undecided – Waters, Maloney, Speier, Kilroy, Kosmas, Grayson, Peters

Republican Undecided – Biggert, Gerlach, Campbell, McCotter, McCarthy, Posey, Jenkins, Paulsen

To add your voice of support of online poker, check out and call, write or Tweet your local member of Congress.

15 Comments to “Markup of HR 2267 Tuesday ”

  1. DanM

    fyi, made an edit … moved Campbell and Lee to yays, as reliable sources in DC tell me they have cut deals to bring them over to the yay side. however, without knowing names, supposedly there’re some dems on the yay side who plan to bail and jump ship to the nay side.

  2. Kevin Mathers

    I considered Campbell as a yay, but if his amendment to get a loss limit gets voted down, he may turn into a nay.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s others who jump to the nay side. It seemed to have caught Frank by surprise when it happened in 2008.

  3. DanM

    p.s. booo hensarling!!! i thought you were an independent minded fiscal conservative! oh how things would be different had you not beaten me in ’02 by 57 points.

  4. DanM

    that’s why i wanted to note it in the comments. though i don’t understand the deets, that amendment is key. and based on situations we went through in texas, this is an example of why you need a little cushion.

    what year was the loss by tie? ’08 … with hr 5767? that was the year hensarling and two others made a last-minute switch FTL, despite previous statements of support.

  5. Kevin Mathers

    Correct on both counts, as noted here:

  6. Brian G.

    Why even bring up Republicans or Conservatives? The Dems have enough of a majority that they can change the law by themselves.

  7. Kevin Mathers

    Because they don’t, there’s enough Democrats against Internet gambling to kill any attempts at passing a law.


    Realistically is this the last attempt at getting a Law passed for on line Poker?

  9. Brian G.

    But Kevin, all I hear from this site and every other is that those dastardly Republicans from the Religious Right want to make online poker players criminals.

    I’ll make a deal. Once this site stops running headlines like this:

    ҉ۢTea Party Conservatives Support Efforts to Quash UIGEA
    RE: Markup of HR 2267 Tuesday(2)”

    I’ll stop reminding everyone here that your pals the Democrats aren’t your pals, like all politicians, regardless of party.

  10. DanM

    let me pipe in here brian. kevin has never stated a political stance as far as i know. and though i did indeed support obama in november, i can show you countless examples of my calling out poker players for putting too much hope in the pres.

    you are biased … so much so that you can’t see anyone who even considers anything other than your conservative viewpoint as anything but a flaming liberal. stop and think about that for a second … have you ever considered a different viewpoint, and maybe realized anything you believed in was wrong?

    criticize my hedlines all you want start your own one-sided bitch blog … it was specifically to point out that groups you would not expect to support online poker endeavors were indeed supporting them. that IS news.

    ron paul, explaining how a law asking for more regulation isn’t bigger government is a big deal. statistically, conservatives oppose poker-desired measures, especially tea partyers who CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives and social libertarians. so having a leader of the philosophy clarify … i’m gonna play that up.

    try checking your own bias one of these days and you might be capable of getting credit for an intelligent political thought, as opposed to being seen as the type to blindly scream “drill baby drill”.

  11. DanM

    >>all I hear from this site and every other is that those dastardly Republicans from the Religious Right<<

    if that's ALL you hear, is it at least theoretically possible that the problem could be with you, that you hear what you wanna hear? i'm not saying those dastardly-republican sentiments you express don't exist, but they are not ALL that exist here. just makes me sad that you regularly insist on discrediting yourself.

    it's almost as if the whole world came around to your exact viewpoint on everything … what would you have to live for?

  12. Brian G.

    And by the way, to make myself clear, I know what the headline says but I don’t like the implication, almost if you were saying it like it was a shock. Tea Party conservatives are about freedom from government interfering with every aspect of your life. This should have have been a surprise to anyone they support repeal. The only surprise to me is that anyone here actually though there would be enough Democrats to support anything that loosens governmental regulation or restriction.

    Maybe I have been reading this site too long, because that’s was my first impression of that headline.

  13. Kevin Mathers

    Just to throw in my two cents, I am a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008. Over the years, I’ve moved from being a Rush Limbaugh-listening conservative to being in the middle politically. Isn’t it good to have Tea Party conservatives teaming up with hardcore liberals in supporting online poker?


    The no vote from Neugebauer is firm. He is Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock, the guy who yelled “baby killer” on the house floor. His obsession is Obama’s birth certificate. His latest announcement is that he is in the Tea Party. If ever anyone anywhere in this whole wide world at any time in history is as much a walking cartoon as this guy, I walk to know about it.


    People have always looked at me when it comes to my political views as crazy.I have never registered as a Democrat or Republican or for any other party out there.

    I do not think anyone really should. I vote for whom I like, not the party. Some say where is my faithfulness, I say I always buy American made Cars!

    I have never really understood staying with party lines and it makes politics in this Country a joke.

    This I scratch your back you scratch mine is and will be the downfall of American Politics someday.

    Bring back Clinton! He balanced the budget loved Law Enforcement(Women Too) Economy was good He may not have been the best but for the past 10 years our great country has been in a spiral downfall.

    Obama was a great debater and gave great lectures, but we are no better off since he took office.

    Off my soap box mow