PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on International Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 3, 1999
Deceptive Games of Chance Mailings Elimination Act of 1999 - Amends Federal postal law concerning nonmailable matter with respect to otherwise legally acceptable matter constituting a solicitation or offer in connection with the promotion of a game of chance that contains words or symbols suggesting the recipient will, or is likely to, receive anything of value. Requires such matter to conform with specified regulations issued by the Postmaster General before it may be carried or delivered by mail. Subjects matter violating such regulations to current cease and desist and other postal law sanctions involving false representations and lotteries. Requires any otherwise legally acceptable matter not in conformance with such regulations to be disposed of as the Postal Service directs. Authorizes the use of administrative subpoenas by the Postmaster General in any investigation involving nonmailable matter.
People & committees
Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on International Security.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1147-1148)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.336 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.336 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.336 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.336 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.