Pressure to water down regulations........High Five!

[Izzy Vega]

http://www.eog.com/news/full-article.aspx?id=24202

[Izzy Vega]

http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news4555.asp
Related Article.

[MiltonFriedman]

What is there to be happy about ??

A Senator seeking the Republican nomination is motivated enough to visit the Secry of the Treasury on this issue, and you think that is good ???

I did like the following comment, which shows how little the UIGE proponents care about the burden on banks and the public from the UIGE Act:

Chad Hills, gambling analyst for Focus on the Family Action, claims that writing regulations shouldn’t be too burdensome. “We estimate that about five federal employees working on this could keep and maintain a list of Internet gambling operations,” he told Family News in Focus, the organisation's journal.

If enforcement means "keeping a list", then hopefully that will be the scope of the regulations .... I think that would be something which would fail to stop millions of Americans exercising from their right to a "pursuit of happiness".

[Izzy Vega]

1.The U.S. Treasury Department is dragging its feet in writing regulations to accompany a law designed to stop the use of credit cards to pay for Internet gambling.

2."The gambling forces seem to have some friends in those departments that might have been helping write some of those regulations," he said. “It’s almost setting up a fourth branch of government – a bureaucracy branch – that decides what laws they want to enforce and what laws they want to basically rewrite.”

3.Jon Kyl tried to force a commitment from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act (UIGEA) in hearings about the "Firing of US Attorneys” scandal.

4.Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council claimed without specifying the detail that "intense pressure" had been brought to bear via the Treasury Department to water down the restrictions.

5."The gambling forces seem to have some friends in those departments that might have been helping write some of those regulations

It's better than a poke in the eye!

[TheEngineer]

It seems we should be contacting everyone Kyl and Brownback contact. I already wrote and posted my letters (reposted here). Please join me in writing to Gonzales, Paulson, and Bush. Thanks.

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov .

White House email: comments@whitehouse.gov and, for Cheney, vice_president@whitehouse.gov

-----------------------------------------------------------

My letter to Bush:


May 18, 2007

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask for your leadership in ensuring that the Executive branch departments responsible for drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 use due care, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow. Also, the Poker Players Alliance was formed to advocate for the right to play poker online. The PPA, chaired by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, now has 500,000 members!

However, the UIGEA is law, and the Executive branch is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – ensure that the regulations address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your departments as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as the UIGEA regulations are drafted. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

----------------------------------

May 15, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzalez
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear General Gonzales:

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask you use care when drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.

However, the UIGEA is law, and your department is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying your department for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in your last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked you for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your department as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as you draft the UIGEA regulations. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

----------------------------------

May 15, 2007

The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask you use care when drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.

However, the UIGEA is law, and your department is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying your department for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your department as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as you draft the UIGEA regulations. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
What is there to be happy about ??

A Senator seeking the Republican nomination is motivated enough to visit the Secry of the Treasury on this issue, and you think that is good ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how the meeting most likely went down....

Sen. Brownback: "Hi SecTreas, I'm here on behalf of the only sizeable constituancy to back my presidential campaign. They...ah, I mean I...don't like you dragging your feet on UIGEA"

SecTreas: "Thanks for letting me know your concerns"

Sen Brownback: "Can you please make sure that there is a formal record of this meeting so I can keep my constituants happy, and so I can issue a press release".

SecTreas: "Absolutely"

Sen. Brownback: "Ok, well it looks like we have 28 more mins to kill....whatcha got in your desk drawer? Scotch or Vodka?"

SecTreas: "Grey Goose"

Sen. Brownback: "Great! So how the hell is your golf game....."


**welcome to washington**

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
A Senator seeking the Republican nomination is motivated enough to visit the Secry of the Treasury on this issue, and you think that is good ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Sam Brownback is one of the 100 most powerful senators on the Hill.

[tangled]

we can see now the propaganda that the anti-gambling forces are going to use if the regs are soft. Instead of admiting that their law is stupid and impractical, they are going to blame gaming interests for sabotaging the process with dirty little backroom arm twisting:

"The gambling forces seem to have some friends in those departments that might have been helping write some of those regulations," he accused. “It’s almost setting up a fourth branch of government – a bureaucracy branch – that decides what laws they want to enforce and what laws they want to basically rewrite.”

In one way this may be good. They would not be trying to push these talking points(probably)unless they had a reason to fear that the regs were going to be soft.

We need to be ready to counter this propagnda with the truth.

[Ron Burgundy]

I'm sure there wasn't any sort of backroom arm twisting going on the night the UIGEA got passed. Good Christians like Jon Kyl and Bill Frist wouldn't do that.

[spatne]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Sam Brownback is one of the 100 most powerful senators on the Hill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I LOLed

[kidpokeher]

My letter to Bush:


May 18, 2007

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Die in a grease fire. Take Frist and Kyl with you.

Sincerely,

kidpokeher

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
My letter to Bush:


May 18, 2007

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Die in a grease fire. Take Frist and Kyl with you.

Sincerely,

kidpokeher

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Jimmy Carter would co-sign that with you.

http://www.earthisland.org/the-edge/JimmyCarter2.jpg

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
What is there to be happy about ??

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm happy about this quote from Brownback:

[ QUOTE ]
"The gambling forces seem to have some friends in those departments that might have been helping write some of those regulations,"

[/ QUOTE ]

[CutCreator]

have any of you looked at the focus on the family website? i hope these people do not have much power because they are crazy conservative.

if you look at their movie reviews they make a point to not only count every curse word, cigarette smoked, etc, but they also count when someone says "oh my god" or is disrespectful to their parents. lol.

for kicks i look up reviews for the most violent movies out, its funny, they tell people not to watch them because they are "spiritually damaging" but the reviewers get a free pass. I mean, do they need to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre to know that it wont agree with their beliefs?

[Jerry D]

They also want to BAN any R rated movies for ADULTS. These right wing religious Republicans are extremely dangerous to freedom and liberty. If they have their way you won't be able to see an R-Rated movie in America, read a book like Harry Potter, visit a site like playboy.com and of course play internet poker.

[OpenWheel]

[ QUOTE ]
They also want to BAN any R rated movies for ADULTS. These right wing religious Republicans are extremely dangerous to freedom and liberty. If they have their way you won't be able to see an R-Rated movie in America, read a book like Harry Potter, visit a site like playboy.com and of course play internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of washington is dangerous to freedom and liberty. If the liberal Democrats have their way I won't have freedom with my health care, my gun rights, pretty much anything without government interference. I may be allowed to sneeze without a license, but that's about it. I'd rather have the government out of my health care then read Harry Potter.

I'm liberal, libertarian. Someting. Not fascist like the Democrats and Republicans. Both washington parties are far right wing and enemies of freedom. To hear one of them called left wing is hilarious.

[ProsperousOne]

[ QUOTE ]
All of washington is dangerous to freedom and liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[questions]

The problem with the federal government is that it has become so huge and dominating, that it seeks to control spheres of human activity it previously did not control, many times for the benefit of special interests, like, for example, the banking sector or xtian fundies. When focused, Washington can be useful for purposes of securing freedom and liberty from those who would take it from us. In this particular case, Washington is seeking to curb domestic liberties, which really is anti-American as most of us understand it, but runs in tangent with how the government has been operating over the course of the last few years.

[Quanah Parker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there wasn't any sort of backroom arm twisting going on the night the UIGEA got passed. Good Christians like Jon Kyl and Bill Frist wouldn't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor would any of our beloved B&M casino corporations.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Chad Hills, gambling analyst for Focus on the Family Action, claims that writing regulations shouldn’t be too burdensome. “We estimate that about five federal employees working on this could keep and maintain a list of Internet gambling operations,” he told Family News in Focus, the organisation's journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

5? Shouldn't even need 1 full time for this...

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Chad Hills, gambling analyst for Focus on the Family Action, claims that writing regulations shouldn’t be too burdensome. “We estimate that about five federal employees working on this could keep and maintain a list of Internet gambling operations,” he told Family News in Focus, the organisation's journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

5? Shouldn't even need 1 full time for this...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Every month I get a check from Full TIlt, and every month it's from a different company name. And 1 person could keep track of every internet gambling related operation?

[HRFats]

Not to bust your balls but did you really send three letters with a typo?

[ QUOTE ]
As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written

[/ QUOTE ]

"to" should be "do".

[rando]

[ QUOTE ]


"to" should be "do."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to bust your balls, but I corrected your grammar error. Punctuation goes inside the quotations.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


"to" should be "do."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to bust your balls, but I corrected your punctuation error. Punctuation goes inside the quotations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


"to" should be "do."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to bust your balls, but I corrected your grammar error. Punctuation goes inside the quotations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the British style... and The Chicago Manual of Style remarks that “The British style is strongly advocated by some American language experts.”

Besides, "A writer who fixes too much attention on the correctness of his punctuation, or a reader who does the same, is missing the point: the job of text is to communicate, not satisfy pedantic rule makers."

In this case, its clear that the "." should be outside the "'s, because he is suggesting a replacement of "to" with "do", not "do.", LDO.

[prodonkey]

I kept telling my english teachers that.. they always hated my elipsis and comma splices lol.