John Conyers (D-Mi) on Online Gambling

[PokrLikeItsProse]

This post (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/23/93949/1875) dates back to May, but it gives insight into what an actual politician thinks about when considering online gambling legislation.

If you want to increase the non-poker players who care about the issue, I think that one could make some gains among that segment of the populace who oppose what they consider overly intrusive government surveillance of phone and banking records by linking the issues.

[spatne]

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif John Conyers. Always have, always will. At least one congressman opposed to internet gambling can see what trash this legislation is. In my dreams, he and Barney Frank stage a coup in the lower house. Jack Murtha is the muscle. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sweetjazz]

FWIW, Murtha voted for this bill.

[guitarizt]

"What should we do about internet gambling?

I think internet gambling is here to stay. Let me lay my cards on the table: I do not personally like gambling but the only rational approach I can imagine is to regulate it, not prohibit it. We should license internet gambling businesses and, in exchange for that license those businesses should agree to abide by a code of conduct that would include disallowing minors from gambling, capping aggregate daily bets at a certain amount and other measures to identify problem gamblers, and consumer protection and capitalization requirements.

To be sure, the fly by night, offshore, and illegal businesses will remain. But I think their customer base will dry up. Gamblers want to go where they know they will get paid and where the game is fair. That will be the licensed internet gambling business."

Finally someone that makes sense when they talk.

[popesc]

That's it. I'm moving to Michigan to vote for this guy.

[Ron Burgundy]

Would it be a good idea when I write to my senators to tell them to talk to Conyers about this issue? I'm in IL, so my senators are both democrats.

[chicagoY]

Yeah, and that guy of all people too. These are desperate days for libertarians indeed.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
"What should we do about internet gambling?

I think internet gambling is here to stay. Let me lay my cards on the table: I do not personally like gambling but the only rational approach I can imagine is to regulate it, not prohibit it. We should license internet gambling businesses and, in exchange for that license those businesses should agree to abide by a code of conduct that would include disallowing minors from gambling, capping aggregate daily bets at a certain amount and other measures to identify problem gamblers, and consumer protection and capitalization requirements.

To be sure, the fly by night, offshore, and illegal businesses will remain. But I think their customer base will dry up. Gamblers want to go where they know they will get paid and where the game is fair. That will be the licensed internet gambling business."

Finally someone that makes sense when they talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

i want to write to this guy and praise him for his efforts, anyone have a contact?

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
capping aggregate daily bets at a certain amount and other measures to identify problem gamblers,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see what aggregate daily bets he considers evidence of a problem gambler. It's likely that any normal person's definition would cut off many 2+2ers before noon. You could easily wager thousands of dollars a day to make a few hundred bucks. That's a grinder, not a problem gambler, but try explaining that to a non-believer.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
capping aggregate daily bets at a certain amount and other measures to identify problem gamblers,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see what aggregate daily bets he considers evidence of a problem gambler. It's likely that any normal person's definition would cut off many 2+2ers before noon. You could easily wager thousands of dollars a day to make a few hundred bucks. That's a grinder, not a problem gambler, but try explaining that to a non-believer.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably doesn't have some set figure. It seems like his statement is just a general concept. If he understood exactly how most online poker rooms (and casinos) worked (I doubt all but one or two legislators do), he might very likely be cool with the various measures the sites have in place such as daily/weekly deposit limits, transfer limits, and the like.