Very pleasing response from my Congressman

[IdiotVig]

...including reference to a separate bill that warrants further study. He's got my vote.

Dear Sir:

Thank you for contacting me with your views on Internet gambling and the relevant legislation in the House of Representatives. I appreciate your concerns on this issue.

As you know, HR 4411, introduced by Representative James Leach (IA-02), was referred to both the House Financial Services committee and the House Judiciary committee. Both committees reported this bill to the full House, and it is now due to come to the House floor for a vote.

HR 4411 makes it a crime for persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering to knowingly accept credit, electronic fund transfers, checks, or similar instruments, or the proceeds of any other financial transaction from unlawful Internet gambling. I understand your views on this issue, and you will be happy to know that I voted against HR 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Act, which passed the House in the 108th Congress. This bill was very similar to HR 4411, in that it contained a provision almost identical to the HR 4411.

I believe Congress should study the issue more before we pass a bill, as it may prove ineffective if we enact regulations without understanding the dynamics of this type of interstate commerce. For this reason, I am a co-sponsor of HR 5474, a bill that would create a commission to study the proper response of the United States to the growth of Internet gambling.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. Please feel free to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.


Sincerely,

Michael E. Capuano
Member of Congress

[mrhat187]

I would reply saying, you have my vote for office forever.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]
I would reply saying, you have my vote for office forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd reply saying don't you think you shouldn't "pass a bill" at all since people should certainly have the freedom to gamble however they darn well please.

Then I'd quote

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Congress should study the issue more before we pass a bill, as it may prove ineffective if we enact regulations without understanding the dynamics of this type of interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here I'd say "don't you see this as yet another abuse of the 'interstate commerce clause' that you folks seem to use to get your mitts involved in everything that is actually reserved by the constitution for the states, since it's not a power specifically granted by the people to the federal government?"

And I'd probably end by thanking him for only being moderately out to lunch instead of a complete fool like the rest of the bunch.

I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that. Lemme guess, you're libertarian?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that. Lemme guess, you're libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

in this day and age, how can you not be?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that. Lemme guess, you're libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

His reaction to "we're going to study this issue further before coming to a more reasoned decision" was "WHAT? YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUE? GRR!"

That's not so much "libertarianism" as "stupidity".

[Ignignokt]

HR 5474 is the bill introduced by the Nevada congressmen (no doubt MGM Mirage and Harrahs have been saying "we want us some of that action") that seeks to study internet gambling further, probably in hopes of ultimately regulating and taxing it.

IIRC it has a lot of supporters, and may be the magic bullet needed to kill the nastier bills.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that. Lemme guess, you're libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

His reaction to "we're going to study this issue further before coming to a more reasoned decision" was "WHAT? YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUE? GRR!"

That's not so much "libertarianism" as "stupidity".

[/ QUOTE ]

No my reply is more along the lines of why is the FIRST response of elected representatives to virtually anything new being "there oughtta be a law!".

Which is stupid.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I'd make a good lobbyist.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that. Lemme guess, you're libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

His reaction to "we're going to study this issue further before coming to a more reasoned decision" was "WHAT? YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUE? GRR!"

That's not so much "libertarianism" as "stupidity".

[/ QUOTE ]

No my reply is more along the lines of why is the FIRST response of elected representatives to virtually anything new being "there oughtta be a law!".

Which is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are hundreds of representatives. When something the least bit controversial shows up, it stands to reason that at least a few of them are going to take issue with it and create a stir. Meanwhile the rest of them aren't going to say anything because if it doesn't need regulation, why waste Congress's time with it? Then, when the minority creates a stir, someone says "Well as a compromise we'll look at evidence and public opinion before coming to a decision" and you're responding with "GOVERNMENT IS EVIL! GRRRRRRRRRR!"

[OpenWheel]

No. I didn't say government is evil. Didn't even imply that. I implied that most elected legislators today are doing an absolutely pathetic job of fullfilling the function of government, which are protection of our rights, and defense.

Obviously I wouldn't actually send a letter worded that way. If my tonuge in cheek response offends you, then so be it.

I believe his response should be stongly in support of the freedom to gamble without the federal government sticking their nose in it. And so I'd expect to hear from my congressman that was his approach. Or hear that they believed in a certain form of strong regulation, whatever the beliefs were.

But instead the response here is the traditional wimpy legislator-speak "we're studying the issue". So nothing at all is really said.

Ok, thanks for that strong stance congressperson! Glad to know what your principles are.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
But instead the response here is the traditional wimpy legislator-speak "we're studying the issue". So nothing at all is really said.

Ok, thanks for that strong stance congressperson! Glad to know what your principles are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this type of response is pretty good. "I think Congress should study the issue more" means (in politics-speak): "I don't think we should do anything with this at all. That said, I'm fine with "studying" it. This will take time and hopefully people will be on to something else before they decide they actually want legislation".

All in all, I'd be quite happy with this response. It is clear to me this particular Congressman has no interest in banning online gambling.