RE: HR 2267 Passes 41-22[-1]

Semi-bipartisan support: Who Voted How

by , Jul 29, 2010 | 10:16 pm

Here is the breakdown of yesterday’s vote in the House Financial Services Committee. I’m curious about those who chose NOT to vote, and libertarian-wise … Ron Paul’s declaration of “present” — despite his stated support of HR 2267 a week earlier. Obviously had to be a reason … and Paul’s generally not afraid of his voters turning on him, and his seat seems hardly in peril.

(I posed the question to him or his people on twitter. Will look for but not expect a response, despite < 140 words finagled to sound more constituenty ... #semibluff)

Data via the PPA.

5 Comments to “RE: HR 2267 Passes 41-22[-1] ”

  1. Kevin Mathers

    Seems odd that Sherman didn’t vote when he had amendments added to HR 2267.

  2. piefarmer

    The Ron Paul vote fits, in my view. The bill is clearly superior to the status quo (UIGEA), but Paul likely cannot bring himself to enable the federal government to regulate and tax yet another portion of American life.


    Off the subject. Dan..I wrote an article about poker game robberies in Bluff Europe. I mentioned you and this site.

  4. DanM

    Hmm, maybe right about Paul. just not enough in the pot for him to get overly committed right now. Obv I support all these bills, but deep down fear regulated online gambling could be establishing the framework for an intrusive internet police force with over-reaching powers. i’d still take my chances, but am not the one leading a Ron Paul Revolution, trying to do things like dismantle the Fed.

    Thinking Sherman musta either had a legitimate time-conflict, or still has issues with amendments that either did or did not get included. He seems to be the most waffley of all.

    @Johnny, I’ll be in touch privately. I indeed took note, and have something clear to work it into. just running a little slow right now. thanks for the reminder …

  5. poker prop

    Ron Paul has a consistent track record voting against bills like this one. I can’t say I disagree, repealing UIGEA as banks should not be responsible for policing against petty crimes that shouldn’t even be a crime in the first place, that I can agree with.

    What this bill ultimately does though is make poker more of a crime. Basically there will be sites that are “legal” and sites that are “illegal” which makes no sense.

    There might be another way but off the top of my head the only way I’d support this bill is to first abolish UIGEA. Then if the US government wants to go about setting up a licensing body and warning to only play at licensed sites, ok fine. To make one site legal, the other site not.. come on now.. one of the most beautiful things about the internet is the fact it is global. The US did everything to make it difficult to play at sites licensed elsewhere rather than take advantage of it. Now they plan to shove it down peoples throat with force (play here only or you’re a criminal). No thanks! As long as there are good non US licensed options I’ll continue to play there. I’ll support decriminalizing online gambling, as well as a licensing body in US (which is an optional choice) but won’t support something that makes criminals out of the sites that have serviced us for so long who chose not to comply or the recreational player who decides he wants to play on a UK site instead.