Governor of New Hampshire states position on Frank's bill

[Jeffiner99]

For those of you who don't know, I sent out 50 emails to each Governor asking if they would "opt in or opt out" of the Barney Frank regulation bill. For the most part I got a lot of brush offs and being told to ask the Feds for their position on the bill. I suppose they don't want to respond to hypothetical bills. But I did get this response from the Governor of New Hampshire that surprised me a bit. I thought the state was more open minded than this. He seems to be asking for a tall order. But here it is:


Dear XXXXXX,
Thank you for contacting the Office of Governor John H. Lynch regarding the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.

I am writing to thank you for reaching out to our office with your inquiry and to inform you that unfortunately, Governor Lynch has not yet had an opportunity to review this piece of legislation. Governor Lynch would want to see compelling evidence that the legalization of
gambling would not harm New Hampshire's quality of life before he would consider allowing any form of gambling to take place in our great state.

Thank you again for contacting the Governor's Office. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Lillie Green
Deputy Director of Citizen Services
Office of Governor Lynch
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
603.271.2121

[Ron Burgundy]

What are you surprised about? Seems like a pretty standard response for an anti-gambling politician to make.

[YoureToast]

Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this bill passes that will bring a lot of attention to the issue. We might as well know where we stand ahead of time.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
Governor Lynch would want to see compelling evidence that the legalization of
gambling would not harm New Hampshire's quality of life before he would consider allowing any form of gambling to take place in our great state.

[/ QUOTE ]

My obvious question is....are there any forms of gambling in New Hampshire right now? Any lotto games? Horse Racing? Tribal Gaming Casinos? I find it HIGHLY unlikely that there's currently NO gambling in the state. If there is gambling in the state already, this response seems like typical politician BS.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Governor Lynch would want to see compelling evidence that the legalization of
gambling would not harm New Hampshire's quality of life before he would consider allowing any form of gambling to take place in our great state.

[/ QUOTE ]

My obvious question is....are there any forms of gambling in New Hampshire right now? Any lotto games? Horse Racing? Tribal Gaming Casinos? I find it HIGHLY unlikely that there's currently NO gambling in the state. If there is gambling in the state already, this response seems like typical politician BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH has a lottery and is part of the powerball states. They have a couple horse tracks (Seabrook) with some having poker. I don't think any casinos though.

Actually for live poker (tournaments at least), Seabrook is pretty nice.

http://www.seabrookpoker.com/

You would think the "live free or die" state would be ok with it. Fireworks are legal, car insurance is optional, low cigarette and alchohol tax, no state income tax, etc..

Note: Their strip clubs suck though! (Pasties, bottoms, no touch), so maybe it is not all freedom there.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should let the anti-gambling zealots bring focus to the issue? You can be damn sure that if this passes, the religious wackos will jump into action and demand all the governors opt out.

Hoping politicians just won't notice a new law is a pretty big gamble.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should let the anti-gambling zealots bring focus to the issue? You can be damn sure that if this passes, the religious wackos will jump into action and demand all the governors opt out.

Hoping politicians just won't notice a new law is a pretty big gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

We keep trying this, hoping no one will notice. It hasn't been very effective. We'll need time to build support for our position, so it makes sense to start sooner than later, IMHO.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should let the anti-gambling zealots bring focus to the issue? You can be damn sure that if this passes, the religious wackos will jump into action and demand all the governors opt out.

Hoping politicians just won't notice a new law is a pretty big gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

We keep trying this, hoping no one will notice. It hasn't been very effective. We'll need time to build support for our position, so it makes sense to start sooner than later, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It can be best to be proactive. At least then we are stating our position and not just defending it. If this governor knows he has a lot of constituents in favor of gaming online perhaps he will not be so persuaded by the time the "other" guys get to him.

I also received a letter from the Utah governor. No surprise there, no gambling now or ever. If I can ever get into my email account I will post for you, but it the email account is acting a little quirky these days.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I also received a letter from the Utah governor. No surprise there, no gambling now or ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

No surprise. They should make that their state motto. Maybe put it on their license plate.

I imagine you read Bill Richardson's endorsement of repealing UIGEA that was posted here. So, one state in, one out, and one uncommitted.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. It can be best to be proactive. At least then we are stating our position and not just defending it. If this governor knows he has a lot of constituents in favor of gaming online perhaps he will not be so persuaded by the time the "other" guys get to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our opponents know what's going on. Here's what Focus on the Family thinks about us:

http://www.family.org/socialissues/Gambling/ and http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1238 .

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is driven by and subsists on greed. For this reason, the activity is morally bankrupt from its very foundation. Gambling is also an activity which exploits the vulnerable — the young, the old, and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Further, gambling entices the financially disadvantaged classes with the unrealistic hope of escape from poverty through instant riches, thus ultimately worsening the plight of our poorest citizens. Also, gambling undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that sanctions idleness rather than industriousness, slothfulness instead of initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Focus on the Family has asked their members to write to Bush and Paulson of the Treasury for tough UIGEA regs. http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm

Here's a James Dobson (Focus on the Family leader) quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, we have been lifelong teetotalers with regard to alcohol. I know many people enjoy wine with their meals -- and that is entirely their business. But we will never have a problem with alcohol if we take an absolutist position in reference to it. I am not so arrogant as to recommend that others do as we have done, but there would be fewer victims of addiction if they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he's more holy than Jesus, at least in his mind, as Jesus did make wine (and he gave it others, tempting them, per Dobson). If Dobson is more righteous in his own mind than Jesus Christ, they're not coming around for us, no matter how quiet we are.

Here he is on porn:

[ QUOTE ]
As a member of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, I listened to testimony by those who thought they could jazz up their sex lives by viewing obscene materials. They discovered that the stuff they were watching quickly seemed tame and even boring. That led them to seek racier, ever more violent depictions. And then they journeyed down the road toward harder and more violent materials. For some, not all, it became an obsession that filled their world with perversion and sickness. They lusted after sex with animals, molestation of children, urinating and defecation, sadomasochism, mutilation of genitals, and incest. And how did it happen? The door was quietly opened to obscenity, and a monster came charging out.

My point is this: The restrictions and commandments of Scripture were designed to protect us from evil. Though it is difficult to believe when we are young, it is true that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). If we keep our lives clean and do not permit ourselves to toy with evil, the addictions that have ravaged humanity can never touch us. It's a very old-fashioned idea. I still believe in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the fringe? No. Focus on the Family is the leading bastion of social conservatism. They don't reason, and they don't listen to us. They only wish to ban that which they think is sinful (even if it's not in the Bible). The solution isn't to hide and stay quiet. It's to speak loudly and often. They do.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this bill passes that will bring a lot of attention to the issue. We might as well know where we stand ahead of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but isn't it overkill to send 50 emails to each Governor?

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this bill passes that will bring a lot of attention to the issue. We might as well know where we stand ahead of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but isn't it overkill to send 50 emails to each Governor?

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they usually just brush you off the first 49 times.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also received a letter from the Utah governor. No surprise there, no gambling now or ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

No surprise. They should make that their state motto. Maybe put it on their license plate.

I imagine you read Bill Richardson's endorsement of repealing UIGEA that was posted here. So, one state in, one out, and one uncommitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they are consistent. I respect them for that.

It is most sickening when representatives from progambling states like Arizona and Iowa helped lead the charge.

[Jeff W]

What happened to "Live Free or Die"?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a James Dobson (Focus on the Family leader) quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, we have been lifelong teetotalers with regard to alcohol. I know many people enjoy wine with their meals -- and that is entirely their business. But we will never have a problem with alcohol if we take an absolutist position in reference to it. I am not so arrogant as to recommend that others do as we have done, but there would be fewer victims of addiction if they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As a member of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, I listened to testimony by those who thought they could jazz up their sex lives by viewing obscene materials. They discovered that the stuff they were watching quickly seemed tame and even boring. That led them to seek racier, ever more violent depictions. And then they journeyed down the road toward harder and more violent materials. For some, not all, it became an obsession that filled their world with perversion and sickness. They lusted after sex with animals, molestation of children, urinating and defecation, sadomasochism, mutilation of genitals, and incest. And how did it happen? The door was quietly opened to obscenity, and a monster came charging out.

My point is this: The restrictions and commandments of Scripture were designed to protect us from evil. Though it is difficult to believe when we are young, it is true that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). If we keep our lives clean and do not permit ourselves to toy with evil, the addictions that have ravaged humanity can never touch us. It's a very old-fashioned idea. I still believe in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, James Dobson.

Why not take the worst case scenario of everything and use that to support your ridiculous position? It's very effective.

Here are some other ideas:

I had a friend whose house burned down from a loose wire. We shouldn't use electricity.

American people are fat. Ban all fast food.

Teenagers overcharge on credit cards. Take away everyone's credit.

Geez...the sun causes sunburn and skin cancer. Let's extinguish the sun.

People have died in car accidents! No more driving.

And ZOMG there have been scandals in politics. BLOW UP THE FUKCING GOVERNMENT!!!111

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
The Church is driven by and subsists on greed. For this reason, the activity is morally bankrupt from its very foundation. The Church is also an establisment which exploits the vulnerable — the young, the old, and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Further, The Church entices the financially disadvantaged classes with the unrealistic hope of escape from poverty through instant redemption, thus ultimately worsening the plight of our poorest citizens. Also, The Church undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that sanctions idleness rather than industriousness, slothfulness instead of initiative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Dobson's thoughts /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Skallagrim]

Ah-yuh, that governor of NH really opposes "gambling" dont he?

As a resident of NH, I can tell you NH loves gambling (it has the dubious distincition of being the first state lotto and recently became the first state to offer $50 scratch tickets), but it doesnt like "casinos" - that would destroy our "quality of life" ... actually the vote is usually pretty close even on that.

My guess is the staffer who wrote that letter to you had no clue what you are talking about, and gave you the Governor's standard line on "expanded gambling," which in ordinary english is, "unless it wont hurt me at the polls, I am against casino gambling in NH."

Internet poker, and in fact poker in general, is not even "gambling" under NH law (gambling is wagering on a future event "over which the player has no control OR INFLUENCE").

And no one has even talked about internet gambling in NH politics at all. So I guess it was a slow day in the Governor's office when your e-mail came in Jeffiner, either that or they have finally got the automated response thing working.

Skallagrim

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah-yuh, that governor of NH really opposes "gambling" dont he?

As a resident of NH, I can tell you NH loves gambling (it has the dubious distincition of being the first state lotto and recently became the first state to offer $50 scratch tickets), but it doesnt like "casinos" - that would destroy our "quality of life" ... actually the vote is usually pretty close even on that.

My guess is the staffer who wrote that letter to you had no clue what you are talking about, and gave you the Governor's standard line on "expanded gambling," which in ordinary english is, "unless it wont hurt me at the polls, I am against casino gambling in NH."

Internet poker, and in fact poker in general, is not even "gambling" under NH law (gambling is wagering on a future event "over which the player has no control OR INFLUENCE").

And no one has even talked about internet gambling in NH politics at all. So I guess it was a slow day in the Governor's office when your e-mail came in Jeffiner, either that or they have finally got the automated response thing working.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

It took them several weeks to respond and I not only told them about which bill I meant I quoted the section pertaining to governors from it. This was the second email I received. The first one said, we will look into this and get back to you.

The surprising part is that he is one of the very few who was willing to take a stance at all. Most of them told me to ask the feds since this is a federal bill and all. Make of it what you will.

I would suggest that you NH folks are not so free to live as you like and to send a few letters to your governor. Let him know you are a voting block. Make a few calls. You don't want to be behind the curve on this one if this bill ever does pass.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah-yuh, that governor of NH really opposes "gambling" dont he?

As a resident of NH, I can tell you NH loves gambling (it has the dubious distincition of being the first state lotto and recently became the first state to offer $50 scratch tickets), but it doesnt like "casinos" - that would destroy our "quality of life" ... actually the vote is usually pretty close even on that.

My guess is the staffer who wrote that letter to you had no clue what you are talking about, and gave you the Governor's standard line on "expanded gambling," which in ordinary english is, "unless it wont hurt me at the polls, I am against casino gambling in NH."

Internet poker, and in fact poker in general, is not even "gambling" under NH law (gambling is wagering on a future event "over which the player has no control OR INFLUENCE").

And no one has even talked about internet gambling in NH politics at all. So I guess it was a slow day in the Governor's office when your e-mail came in Jeffiner, either that or they have finally got the automated response thing working.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill gets a little scary when it turns out YOUR state may force you to move or quit playing online, huh Skall?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This bill gets a little scary when it turns out YOUR state may force you to move or quit playing online, huh Skall?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. States already have juristiction over gambling. This bill doesn't give states any new rights to ban gambling.

[JPFisher55]

Actually, Engineer it does. Right now states can ban all internet gaming, but not certain parts. Under HR 2046, they could opt out of some internet gaming. However, the details of HR 2046 do not matter. What matters is getting some legislative action, hearings etc., on our side.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now states can ban all internet gaming, but not certain parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? Why can't a state ban Internet sports betting, for example, without banning online lottery ticket sales or instate remote horse racing?

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is getting some legislative action, hearings etc., on our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Failing to advocate legislation that helps us because of speculation over worst-case outcomes is counterproductive, as we'll never advocate anything under that scenario.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now states can ban all internet gaming, but not certain parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? Why can't a state ban Internet sports betting, for example, without banning online lottery ticket sales or instate remote horse racing?

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is getting some legislative action, hearings etc., on our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Failing to advocate legislation that helps us because of speculation over worst-case outcomes is counterproductive, as we'll never advocate anything under that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is like saying that we should never look both ways when crossing a street because we are afraid of the getting hit by a car. It is only speculation and the car may never come, so why bother speculating? Nor will putting your hands in front of your eyes eliminate the threat of the car. Just because you can't see him doesn't mean he isn't there.

[Skallagrim]

"This bill gets a little scary when it turns out YOUR state may force you to move or quit playing online, huh Skall? "

Does not scare me at all. Right now NH law does not stop online poker. If the Frank Bill were to pass, NH would have to certify that its legal, or pass new legislation. NH could pass that legislation now, if anyone in the state would vote for it.

The line you got in your response is EXACTLY the same line the governor uses when he is asked about CASINO gambling in NH. Which is about the only gambling issue that actually gets an anti-gambling majority.

The state of NH is one of the most libertarian in the US, certainly in the East. We dont even have a seatbelt law (though they keep trying).

No way that most NH voters are gonna think its a good idea to police what games people play on their home computers.
At least not untill the rest of Massachusetts moves here.

Quite franky, once some legislator in NH realizes that they can get new revenue without having to actually build a casino, NH will probably be the first state to do it.


Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right now states can ban all internet gaming, but not certain parts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? Why can't a state ban Internet sports betting, for example, without banning online lottery ticket sales or instate remote horse racing?

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is getting some legislative action, hearings etc., on our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Failing to advocate legislation that helps us because of speculation over worst-case outcomes is counterproductive, as we'll never advocate anything under that scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is like saying that we should never look both ways when crossing a street because we are afraid of the getting hit by a car. It is only speculation and the car may never come, so why bother speculating? Nor will putting your hands in front of your eyes eliminate the threat of the car. Just because you can't see him doesn't mean he isn't there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our opponents are driving at us at full speed, trying to run us over.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that? Why can't a state ban Internet sports betting, for example, without banning online lottery ticket sales or instate remote horse racing?

The Commerce Clause under a line of cases called the Dormant Commerce Clause cases. Not that it matters much to HR 2046.
We basically agree about this bill. Except that I think that WTO pressure or court litigation is more likely to help us than politics or legislation. But we can do something about the latter, but nothing about the former.

[TheEngineer]

Yes, we all agree we need to work within the political realm to achieve what we want.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Live Free and Die" replaced it in the 2000 Presidential Election.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Church is driven by and subsists on greed. For this reason, the activity is morally bankrupt from its very foundation. The Church is also an establisment which exploits the vulnerable — the young, the old, and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Further, The Church entices the financially disadvantaged classes with the unrealistic hope of escape from poverty through instant redemption, thus ultimately worsening the plight of our poorest citizens. Also, The Church undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that sanctions idleness rather than industriousness, slothfulness instead of initiative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Dobson's thoughts /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, that's so true it's frightening.

[1.21 Gigawatts]

NH is the first state in the union with lottery and still has one of the largest lottery programs in the country per capits. All poker run in the state are charity games.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Church is driven by and subsists on greed. For this reason, the activity is morally bankrupt from its very foundation. The Church is also an establisment which exploits the vulnerable — the young, the old, and those susceptible to addictive behaviors. Further, The Church entices the financially disadvantaged classes with the unrealistic hope of escape from poverty through instant redemption, thus ultimately worsening the plight of our poorest citizens. Also, The Church undermines the work ethic. It is based on the premise of something for nothing, a concept that sanctions idleness rather than industriousness, slothfulness instead of initiative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Dobson's thoughts /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, nice.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I agree with you! I would not draw attention to this bill at the state government level, in case it passes.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everybody needs to understand that its not an opt in or opt out statute. Its only an opt out statute, which is very very important. I would not write these letters to bring focus to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I agree with you! I would not draw attention to this bill at the state government level, in case it passes.

[/ QUOTE ]


shhhhhhhh, be wery wery quiet. I'm hunting wabbits!

[daedalus]

hi, I'm Mitch McConnell (Senator from Kentucky). You all need to shut the 'f' up about banning remote Horse Racing wagering. This action would take mucho dinero out of the big Horse Racing industry reps who fund my re-election campaign.

BTW....my lobbyists are better than yours, as they got my Horse Racing carveout in the Kyl bill after Frist and Kyl maneuvered around my 'stop' on the bill. ha ha ha. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_search/images/insight_2003_11_corrado_0002_e.gif