pa3lsvt
10-26-2006, 07:06 PM
I have to say this is the least form-letter like response I have seen. It's a shame that she isn't really my rep, even though house.gov thinks so (I'm in a border precinct so I'm actually in PA-6). The thoughts expressed by Rep. Schwartz are well thought out, coherent, legitimate (maybe not the "let's think about the children" part, but definitely makes a good point about state's rights) and seem open minded to the idea of 'poker as a game of skill'.
(FWIW, I sent essentially the same letter off to my true representative - voted for HR4411- and his opponent. Have yet to receive replies. Should be interesting as it's a very close swing race here.)
My letter:
Dear Rep. Schwartz,
I am writing to understand your reasons behind voting in support of H.R. 4411, The Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, in July of this year. As you know, this bill was attached to the Port Security bill that was signed by President Bush on Oct. 13, 2006. Regardless of my opinion of the manner in which the UIGEA was attached to this bill and ultimately passed, the House was the only chamber of Congress to have a clean vote on the UIGEA and you voted in support of it.
Poker is a game of skill that is enjoyed by millions of Americans. I am a voter that enjoys playing poker and have been pursuing my new hobby for the past 18 months. I enjoy the mathematical challenge of the game, as well as the situational analysis that is required in each step of the game. Poker is a game of skill where the players compete against each other (and not the "house"). In poker, the house takes a small fee to compensate them for running the game and the vast majority of money contributed to the game is returned to the winning players. Poker players must study and practice in order to become more proficient at the skills required to play poker in order to be a winning player in the long run.
This clearly differentiates poker from lotteries, which are specifically exempted from the UIGEA. Lotteries pay a small minority of players from the overall prize pool, and those players are chosen based purely on luck (no amount of study or practice can make a player increase their chances of winning). In addition, the "house" in a lottery retains a very large portion of the prize pool for themselves.
Horse racing, also exempted form the UIGEA, is more closely related to poker. In horse betting, a player can use their skill in interpreting a horse's past performance to determine the horse with the best chances of winning a current race. Also horse racing is pari-mutual, where the prizes are based upon the overall amount of wagering and the house simply takes a percentage of the prize pool in compensation. This percentage is much smaller than the amount of the prize pool retained in lotteries.
Essentially, the UIGEA seeks to prevent all online wagering, but exempts a game of pure luck with poor prize pool return rates (lotteries) and a form of wagering with a skill based component that returns a significant amount of the prize pool to the winning players (horse betting). I fail to understand why online poker is determined to be an unwanted form of online gaming when compared to the two forms which are expressly allowed.
The arguments in favor of the UIGEA, from what I have read on the issue, focus on two points: 1) Protecting problem gamblers from themselves, and 2) Discouraging money laundering (purportedly to fund terrorism). Both are disingenuous and logically flawed.
The first point, protecting problem gamblers from themselves, holds no water, especially with the recent legalization of slot machine gaming in Pennsylvania as well as the exemption of lotteries and horse wagering. A problem gambler will seek out gaming in whatever form is available - just like a drug addict will seek drugs from any source regardless of legality. This law does nothing to eliminate the availability of gambling avenues. A problem gambler can simply play online lotteries or bet horses (and soon drive to a local slots parlor), and they will do so after the UIGEA's enforcement mechanisms come into force. The US laws outlawing illicit drugs do nothing to stop demand and the UIGEA will be equally ineffective in this pursuit. The 18th Amendment already proved that demand is not affected by the legal status of a prohibited activity, simply that the supply mechanism will change; hence, the alcohol industry is heavily regulated. Why would poker be any different?
The second point, stopping the ability for terrorists to launder money, is simply laughable. The reputable online poker sites already take steps to ensure this isn't the case, without any regulation forcing them to do so. The amount of money that flows in and out of individual accounts isn't sufficient to support individuals that intend to launder large sums of money - there are already much better money laundering avenues available. I have read the anti-laundering argument a number of times, but I have yet to see any evidence that money laundering via online poker (or gambling sites) is actually occurring.
I am extremely disappointed that a strategy of prohibition has won out over a strategy of taxation and regulation. The US Government is missing out on the opportunity to add millions (if not billions) of dollars of tax revenue available from the regulation and oversight of the online gaming industry. This revenue can be applied towards the same beneficial programs that are currently funded from legalized gambling (education, senior citizens, problem gambling treatment programs), or simply to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. Other countries, such as the UK and Italy, already regulate online poker and are reaping the revenue benefit from this strategy. Some of the largest online poker companies are traded on the London Stock Exchange and are clearly willing to submit to regulation.
The upcoming election is my first as a voter in your district. I am undecided on how to cast my vote in this election, but clearly this issue is a major consideration for me. I would like to understand your reasoning behind supporting the UIGEA as well as your views on the proposed bill that aims to study the regulation and taxation of online poker. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter.
Her response:
Dear pa3lsvt,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with regard to Internet gambling legislation. As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In particular, it is important you know that I am committed to making sure the federal government is fiscally responsible, accountable and responsive to my constituents.
In recent years, Congress has debated whether the federal government should update and expand federal gambling laws to encompass Internet gambling. I believe that states should continue to decide how to treat gambling within their boundaries - a long-standing state authority. In this respect, the federal government should only impose safeguards, as needed, to ensure that gambling activity stays within a state's borders. It is for this reason that I supported the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act when it passed the House of Representatives on July 11, 2006. In addition, I supported this legislation because children are especially susceptible to the dangers associated with Internet gambling. While traditional gambling facilities such as casinos and slot parlors can prevent minors from gambling, it is much more difficult to do so when gambling is accessible via the Internet.
Specifically, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, which was signed into law as part of the Safe Ports Act on October 13, 2006, bars banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets and prohibits gambling businesses from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It also respects state prerogatives to decide what types of gambling should be allowed or forbidden within state borders by exempting intrastate transactions where the bet or wager is made exclusively within a state and does not violate state or federal law.
As you know, the legislation did not include language to exempt online poker playing, despite assertions that poker is a game of skill not a game of chance. I believe this argument does have some merit, and Congress should further study and debate whether online poker should be treated differently than other Internet gambling activities covered by the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. I plan to further review this issue, and welcome your continued input.
Sincerely,
Allyson Y. Schwartz
Member of Congress
(FWIW, I sent essentially the same letter off to my true representative - voted for HR4411- and his opponent. Have yet to receive replies. Should be interesting as it's a very close swing race here.)
My letter:
Dear Rep. Schwartz,
I am writing to understand your reasons behind voting in support of H.R. 4411, The Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, in July of this year. As you know, this bill was attached to the Port Security bill that was signed by President Bush on Oct. 13, 2006. Regardless of my opinion of the manner in which the UIGEA was attached to this bill and ultimately passed, the House was the only chamber of Congress to have a clean vote on the UIGEA and you voted in support of it.
Poker is a game of skill that is enjoyed by millions of Americans. I am a voter that enjoys playing poker and have been pursuing my new hobby for the past 18 months. I enjoy the mathematical challenge of the game, as well as the situational analysis that is required in each step of the game. Poker is a game of skill where the players compete against each other (and not the "house"). In poker, the house takes a small fee to compensate them for running the game and the vast majority of money contributed to the game is returned to the winning players. Poker players must study and practice in order to become more proficient at the skills required to play poker in order to be a winning player in the long run.
This clearly differentiates poker from lotteries, which are specifically exempted from the UIGEA. Lotteries pay a small minority of players from the overall prize pool, and those players are chosen based purely on luck (no amount of study or practice can make a player increase their chances of winning). In addition, the "house" in a lottery retains a very large portion of the prize pool for themselves.
Horse racing, also exempted form the UIGEA, is more closely related to poker. In horse betting, a player can use their skill in interpreting a horse's past performance to determine the horse with the best chances of winning a current race. Also horse racing is pari-mutual, where the prizes are based upon the overall amount of wagering and the house simply takes a percentage of the prize pool in compensation. This percentage is much smaller than the amount of the prize pool retained in lotteries.
Essentially, the UIGEA seeks to prevent all online wagering, but exempts a game of pure luck with poor prize pool return rates (lotteries) and a form of wagering with a skill based component that returns a significant amount of the prize pool to the winning players (horse betting). I fail to understand why online poker is determined to be an unwanted form of online gaming when compared to the two forms which are expressly allowed.
The arguments in favor of the UIGEA, from what I have read on the issue, focus on two points: 1) Protecting problem gamblers from themselves, and 2) Discouraging money laundering (purportedly to fund terrorism). Both are disingenuous and logically flawed.
The first point, protecting problem gamblers from themselves, holds no water, especially with the recent legalization of slot machine gaming in Pennsylvania as well as the exemption of lotteries and horse wagering. A problem gambler will seek out gaming in whatever form is available - just like a drug addict will seek drugs from any source regardless of legality. This law does nothing to eliminate the availability of gambling avenues. A problem gambler can simply play online lotteries or bet horses (and soon drive to a local slots parlor), and they will do so after the UIGEA's enforcement mechanisms come into force. The US laws outlawing illicit drugs do nothing to stop demand and the UIGEA will be equally ineffective in this pursuit. The 18th Amendment already proved that demand is not affected by the legal status of a prohibited activity, simply that the supply mechanism will change; hence, the alcohol industry is heavily regulated. Why would poker be any different?
The second point, stopping the ability for terrorists to launder money, is simply laughable. The reputable online poker sites already take steps to ensure this isn't the case, without any regulation forcing them to do so. The amount of money that flows in and out of individual accounts isn't sufficient to support individuals that intend to launder large sums of money - there are already much better money laundering avenues available. I have read the anti-laundering argument a number of times, but I have yet to see any evidence that money laundering via online poker (or gambling sites) is actually occurring.
I am extremely disappointed that a strategy of prohibition has won out over a strategy of taxation and regulation. The US Government is missing out on the opportunity to add millions (if not billions) of dollars of tax revenue available from the regulation and oversight of the online gaming industry. This revenue can be applied towards the same beneficial programs that are currently funded from legalized gambling (education, senior citizens, problem gambling treatment programs), or simply to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. Other countries, such as the UK and Italy, already regulate online poker and are reaping the revenue benefit from this strategy. Some of the largest online poker companies are traded on the London Stock Exchange and are clearly willing to submit to regulation.
The upcoming election is my first as a voter in your district. I am undecided on how to cast my vote in this election, but clearly this issue is a major consideration for me. I would like to understand your reasoning behind supporting the UIGEA as well as your views on the proposed bill that aims to study the regulation and taxation of online poker. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter.
Her response:
Dear pa3lsvt,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with regard to Internet gambling legislation. As I work to meet the needs and priorities of our community and the nation, please know how much I appreciate having the benefit of your views. In particular, it is important you know that I am committed to making sure the federal government is fiscally responsible, accountable and responsive to my constituents.
In recent years, Congress has debated whether the federal government should update and expand federal gambling laws to encompass Internet gambling. I believe that states should continue to decide how to treat gambling within their boundaries - a long-standing state authority. In this respect, the federal government should only impose safeguards, as needed, to ensure that gambling activity stays within a state's borders. It is for this reason that I supported the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act when it passed the House of Representatives on July 11, 2006. In addition, I supported this legislation because children are especially susceptible to the dangers associated with Internet gambling. While traditional gambling facilities such as casinos and slot parlors can prevent minors from gambling, it is much more difficult to do so when gambling is accessible via the Internet.
Specifically, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, which was signed into law as part of the Safe Ports Act on October 13, 2006, bars banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets and prohibits gambling businesses from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It also respects state prerogatives to decide what types of gambling should be allowed or forbidden within state borders by exempting intrastate transactions where the bet or wager is made exclusively within a state and does not violate state or federal law.
As you know, the legislation did not include language to exempt online poker playing, despite assertions that poker is a game of skill not a game of chance. I believe this argument does have some merit, and Congress should further study and debate whether online poker should be treated differently than other Internet gambling activities covered by the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. I plan to further review this issue, and welcome your continued input.
Sincerely,
Allyson Y. Schwartz
Member of Congress