Senate GOP blocks push to restore gambling losses deduction
Cortez Masto attempted to restore the full deduction via unanimous consent on the floor, arguing that the provision, which many Senate Republicans were unaware of until the entire bill became law, would harm her state immensely. Las Vegas is known as the 'gambling capital of the world.'
'It will do irreparable harm to our nation's gaming industry if it takes effect — especially in Nevada,' she said on the floor, adding that it will 'disincentivize' gamblers, pointing to those competing at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas this week.
'It will move major events that drive our economy offshore and push wagering into illegal markets, and it could punish tourists who come to Vegas to win big,' she added.
Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) objected to her effort, but also sought to amend it before passing it once again.
Young noted that he is actually supportive of Cortez Masto's bill to restore the full deduction, but said that he wanted a carveout from the endowment tax for religious institutions. The provision was initially stricken from the 'big, beautiful bill' by the Senate parliamentarian.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) eventually objected to the amended proposal.
'The Republican bill is full of special carveouts for some groups, new taxes on others,' he said. 'The fact is when you rush a process like this this way and cram in all of these policies that you haven't really thought about, you risk some consequences for people back home, and that is what is going on here and this attempt by our colleague to pass this special tax carveout for just one institution.'
The University of Notre Dame is part of Indiana, which Young represents.
'It is a shame we cannot pass this common sense fix because Republicans want to weigh it down with unrelated measures that they voted to support,' Cortez Masto said, adding that she still hopes to get the revision across the finish line eventually.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Blue State Republicans Helped Win the House Majority. The Redistricting Wars May End Their Careers.
Trump's move may well work. Even if California's new map wipes out five Republicans and shores up some Democratic seats there, more than neutralizing GOP gains in Texas, the president can likely rely on additional red states such as Ohio, Missouri and Indiana to salute him and overhaul their congressional boundaries to squeeze out the few Democrats left in their delegations. And this is to say nothing of how many more majority-minority districts in red states could be wiped out should the Supreme Court effectively gut the Voting Rights Act before next year's elections. Such an endgame will surely wind up in a series of state and federal courts, transforming the early going of the midterms into as much a legal fight as a political one. It would make for a mess. And it wouldn't stop with 2026. New York, for example, is constrained by its voter-approved independent redistricting commission and can't undo the commission and redraw its House maps until the 2028 election. But why would Democrats in Albany not do so if Trump effectively muscles a House majority into existence next year via a series of red states upending their own maps? If New York Democrats do pursue such a redraw, it will likely doom the most politically vulnerable House Republicans still left there after the midterms. Which gets to the cold reality for GOP lawmakers in California and New York: The very Republicans who helped deliver their party's congressional majority by winning in the two mega-states in 2020 and 2022 could be collateral damage to Trump's gambit. That includes House veterans such as Reps. Darrell Issa and Ken Calvert, both of California, but also younger, promising Republican lawmakers such as Kiley, 40, and Rep. Mike Lawler (N.Y.), 38. 'This creates a situation where you're going to lose blue state members, which over the long haul are critical to keeping the majority,' Lawler told me. It's all, Lawler said, 'mutually assured destruction once people go full throttle.' The redistricting threat is especially cruel to Lawler, who was already eager to avoid yet another tough race in his Hudson Valley district by running for governor next year. But Trump made clear he preferred Rep. Elise Stefanik, a born-again MAGA disciple, as the standard-bearer even though running a Trump acolyte statewide may only ensure Stefanik ends next year where she started this year: hoping for a Trump cabinet appointment.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Redistricting, Ethics, and the Fight for Democratic Legitimacy
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In the United States, we've increasingly come to accept congressional district boundaries as fixed, even natural. But they are not. They are human decisions—shaped by ideology, partisanship, and, all too often, exclusion. These lines don't just organize votes; they determine whose voices matter and whose are diminished. When I was a teenager growing up in a small Texas town, I experienced how those lines play out in practice. My mother and I entered a building marked as a voting center, only to encounter cold reception and vague signage. The atmosphere conveyed what the maps didn't: we didn't belong. After being redirected—wrong party, wrong place—it took nearly 90 minutes and a detour to a small church across town before we could finally cast our votes. The lesson was clear: maps are choices, and behind those choices are values. Those values cut to the heart of government ethics: Are we fellow Americans with differing opinions, or adversaries to obstruct at all costs? The Founding Fathers envisioned a voting system based on fair representation, but it was Ida B. Wells who captured the essence of democratic reform: "The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them." This principle reflects a core tenet of democratic ethics: legitimate government requires not just the promise of fair representation, but the courage to expose and correct systems that deny it. The Voting Rights Act of 1965—designed to protect communities of color from voter suppression and ensure meaningful political participation—represented a crucial step toward realizing this promise. It established that electoral systems must not just appear neutral—they must produce fair outcomes. Today's redistricting process often violates these foundational principles. Political scientist Thomas E. Mann has observed that "partisan the responsiveness of democratic institutions." Rather than ensuring democratic representation, it frequently serves partisan advantage. Recent analysis from the Brennan Center suggests gerrymandering produced an estimated 16-seat shift toward Republicans in 2024. This represents a fundamental ethical failure: those in power choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their leaders. The current system creates perverse incentives in numerous ways. Winner-take-all districts maximize partisan gain. Legislative control over map-drawing, weak legal safeguards, and non-standard redistricting between censuses all enable strategic manipulation. Recent events in Texas and California illustrate how redistricting has become a national arms race, and government ethics have been the first casualty. Texas' ongoing mid-decade redistricting push—despite previous court rulings and a Justice Department declaring multiple of its redistricting proposals unconstitutional—represents an unprecedented escalation. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has threatened to take back authority from the state's independent commission, framing it as fighting fire with fire: if Texas abandons ethical norms to grab power, California will do the same to defend its interests. This "eye for an eye" logic is understandable—why should one party unilaterally disarm while the other weaponizes redistricting? Newsom's threat represents a rational response to asymmetric warfare, where ethical behavior becomes a strategic disadvantage. Yet this escalation reveals how quickly democratic norms can unravel when institutional safeguards fail to constrain bad actors. The pressure has intensified as the Trump administration publicly demanded that Texas lawmakers pursue this mid-decade strategy to gain five additional seats. KERRVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 11: President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott hold hands during a round table event at the Hill Country Youth Event Center to discuss last week's flash flooding on July... KERRVILLE, TEXAS - JULY 11: President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott hold hands during a round table event at the Hill Country Youth Event Center to discuss last week's flash flooding on July 11, 2025 in Kerrville, Texas. MoreThis escalation raises fundamental questions about government ethics. Should redistricting follow established processes for the sake of procedural fairness, or does partisan advantage justify breaking norms? How do we maintain public trust and democratic legitimacy when the rules change mid-game? And what happens when ethical guardrails are abandoned in the pursuit of political power? European democracies often avoid these ethical dilemmas through institutional design. Many feature multi-member districts with proportional representation that remove incentives to gerrymander, independent commissions that remove direct political control from map-drawing, and legal frameworks that prioritize representational fairness over partisan advantage. Some U.S. states have begun imitating these models. California and Michigan, for instance, have adopted independent redistricting commissions that remove direct legislative control, while states like Texas maintain legislative authority backed by partisan boards. Recent research demonstrates that redistricting reforms—particularly those reducing partisan influence—can significantly improve electoral competitiveness and reduce representational bias, supporting democratic legitimacy. As political theorist Iris Marion Young emphasizes, democratic inclusion is a fundamental ethical requirement in governance. When redistricting decisions exclude or dilute representation from certain populations, democratic legitimacy itself is compromised. That day in Texas, my mother and I just wanted to vote—to be seen, heard, and counted. That's what most Americans want. But if we are serious about democracy, we must be serious about how we draw the lines that shape it. The current redistricting crisis isn't just about Texas or California. It's about whether American democracy will be ethical, inclusive, and representative. The choices we make about redistricting reflect deeper choices about our democratic values: Do we believe in fair representation, or do we accept that power justifies manipulation of the system? Ethics in government isn't just about avoiding scandal—it's about creating institutions that serve all people, not just the powerful few. The lines we draw today will determine whether future generations inherit a democracy worthy of the name. Davina Hurt is the director of government ethics with Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. She previously served the City of Belmont, CA, in multiple leadership roles including mayor, vice mayor, city councilmember, and commissioner. She currently serves as a Commissioner on the California Water Commission, shaping water policy for a climate-resilient future. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
17 minutes ago
GOP Rep. Cory Mills accused of threatening to release sexually explicit videos of ex-girlfriend
Florida Republican Congressman Cory Mills is facing allegations from an ex-girlfriend that he threatened to release sexually explicit images and videos of her following the end of their relationship, according to a police report obtained by ABC News. Lindsey Langston, a Republican state committee member and 2024 Miss United States winner, filed a police report on July 14 alleging that Mills threatened to release the videos of her after their breakup earlier this year and that Mills threatened to harm any future partners, according to the report obtained from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office in Florida. In response, Mills said in a statement to ABC News, "These claims are false and misrepresent the nature of my interactions," and accused a former Florida primary opponent of "weaponizing the legal system to launch a political attack against the man who beat him." According to the police report, Langston stated the relationship lasted from November 2021 to February 2025 and ended after she saw media reports regarding Mills being allegedly involved in an unrelated alleged assault in Washington that reportedly involved another woman, an incident which Mills has denied and was never charged. The woman has retracted her allegations. "Lindsey confronted Cory about the woman, to which Cory told her he was not in a romantic relationship with her and the press fabricated the story. Lindsey then found a social media account for the other woman and saw posted photos of her with Cory," the police report reads. After Langston moved out of Mills' residence, "Cory has contacted Lindsey numerous times on numerous different accounts threatening to release nude images and videos of her, to include recorded videos of her and Cory engaging in sexual acts," according to the police report. The police report, which was first reported on by Drop Site News, also states that Langston provided police with text messages and Instagram messages between her and Mills, "which consisted of Cory threatening to harm any men Lindsey intended to date in the future." Langston also told police Mills misled her by claiming he was separated from his wife, though he remains married. After Columbia County's initial involvement with the police report, the matter was referred to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, according to the sheriff's office. "Anthony Sabatini is weaponizing the legal system to launch a political attack against the man who beat him in the primary, using his corporate legal office to push a narrative built on lies and flawed legal arguments - all to score political headlines. We have not been made aware of any report or allegations from law enforcement or the alleged complainant." Mills said in his statement. "These claims are false and misrepresent the nature of my interactions. I have always conducted myself with integrity, both personally and in service to Florida's 7th District. Out of respect for the legal process, I won't comment further at this time. My team and I will fully cooperate to ensure the truth is made clear. I remain focused on serving my constituents and advancing America First policies." Sabatini, an attorney who serves as a County Commissioner for District 1, briefly represented Langston but no longer does. Previously, he lost a Republican primary for the seat Mills now represents. He also served as a member of the Florida House of Representatives from 2018-2022. Earlier this year, Mills, who represents Florida's 7th congressional district, voted in favor of the "Take It Down Act," a bipartisan law championed by first lady Melania Trump that the president signed into law in May. The "Take it Down Act" was a bipartisan bill aimed at cracking down on the nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit videos and photos, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence.
