Christopher Shays replies to HR2046

[gulon]

I wrote my local congressman in support of HR2046 but received this reply. Unfortunately, Shays (R-CT) was one of the original sponsors of the UIGEA. I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading. I also find it interesting that Shays finds it his responsibility to protect ME from MYSELF and that he has based his career on this. I believe what this comes down to is personal responsbility - and he does not believe the average American has the mental fortitude to exercise this restraint on their own so he is going to do it for you by legislating your morality for you.

I have retyped the letter by hand, so there may be some typeos:

"Thank you for contacting my office expressiong support for HR2046, the internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office.

I am not a cosponsor of HR 2046 and would be inclined to oppose this bill should it come to the House floor for my consideration. This legislation would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online. Specifically, the bill establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals.

In the last Congress, I was a cosponsor of HR 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and voted for this bill when it passed the House by a vote of 317 to 93 on July 11, 2006. The President signed this bill, which would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets, into law on October 13, 2006.

The legislation also included provisions to prohibit gambling business from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form. During my 14 years in the state legislature I voted against every gambling bill we considered. Gambling financially cripples those who can least afford it -- the poor -- through the cruel and misleading lure of "winning it big".

I am concerned about the spread of gambling, especially among our children. We need to pause and rethink whether we truly want to legalize so many forms of gambling in so many areas of the country.

In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now I can actually respect that position, even though I disagree with it. What I can't stand is the hypocrisy engaged in by most politicians in favoring some forms of gambling over others to benefit certain vested gambling interests, including monopolisic state lotteries.

And the fact is that we benefit from such "all or nothing" positions held by anti-gambling people, because it makes it more likely that the end result will be "all".

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, try again.

[TheEngineer]

Thanks for sharing Rep. Shay's note. It's time for him to go. We should help him with his retirement as much as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but he is correct in that HR 4411 passed the House 317 to 93 as a stand-alone bill. And, as he stated, it was even tougher than UIGEA. The addition to the Safe Ports Act was done to get the bill through the Senate before the session ended.

I mention it because it is important for us to remember that we did lose by a wide margin. We need to know where we stand and how to overcome it. Considering the magnitude of the loss last year, I think we've done an outstanding job of getting to where we are right now so quickly. It's somewhat unprecedented, actually.

[BluffTHIS!]

UglyOwl,

If you're going to use the quick reply posting option, I think it is better to preface a quote with something like "the OP said" to make it clear whom you are quoting. Although that quote obviously didn't come from my short post, it isn't always clear in regards to longer posts.

[questions]

Even if it were true about amending the Wire Act, laws should be specific, not just laws that say basically "oh, if we think it's illegal, we will let you know." No you won't. You are OUR public servants. If something needs to be prohibited, there will be a compelling reason why, and that should have to be the extent of your prohibition. His statement just illustrates to me how the government and its administrators have gotten TOO powerful and big. We need a smaller government that will mind its own fricking business.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shays was referring to HR 4411, which did modify the Wire Act. This provision was watered down in UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c1098AAenk:e1886:

H.R.4411
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

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



TITLE I--MODERNIZATION OF THE WIRE ACT OF 1961

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1081 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by designating the five undesignated paragraphs that begin with `The term' as paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively;

(2) by amending paragraph (5), as so designated, to read as follows:

`(5) The term `communication facility' means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system, or other like connection (whether fixed or mobile) between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(6) The term `bets or wagers'--......


[/ QUOTE ]

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]

During my 14 years in the state legislature I voted against every gambling bill we considered.


[/ QUOTE ]

At least he is consistent.

That's a lot more than you can say about most 'of them'.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for sharing Rep. Shay's note. It's time for him to go. We should help him with his retirement as much as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but he is correct in that HR 4411 passed the House 317 to 93 as a stand-alone bill. And, as he stated, it was even tougher than UIGEA. The addition to the Safe Ports Act was done to get the bill through the Senate before the session ended.

I mention it because it is important for us to remember that we did lose by a wide margin. We need to know where we stand and how to overcome it. Considering the magnitude of the loss last year, I think we've done an outstanding job of getting to where we are right now so quickly. It's somewhat unprecedented, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's remember something, though: gambling/wagering is not an evil person like Hitler or Stalin that sort of reaches out and grabs people into the haunted house - it is a measureable, definable activity. People consent to engage in it for a lot of reasons, but one of which is obviously in order to improve financial well-being. Most people lose at it, but it still has value. One could argue, for example, that even though those who paid to see "Gigli" were victimized in the process, there is still value in taking a risk that by forking over their money, some individuals may enjoy seeing the film. And it helps create jobs for those in the industry.

I object to the notion that the industry can only succeed by victimizing people. If you are familiar with the concept of rake, then you know that the house gains at a standardized rate, more or less without regard to what's going on between the players or who wins. It's just a fee.

Casinos, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[ QUOTE ]
I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, but obviously I strongly disagree.

What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms. Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.

It's possible he's being consistent with his voting history, but I still find the underlying notion patronizing and, thus, offensive from an official who is supposed to be doing OUR bidding while helping to preserve the free-est America possible.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a few guys like this will be Leached out next go-around. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thank you for contacting my office expressiong support for HR2046, the internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office.

I am not a cosponsor of HR 2046 and would be inclined to oppose this bill should it come to the House floor for my consideration. This legislation would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online. Specifically, the bill establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[/ QUOTE ]

SO VOTE FOR IT.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds every bit as paternalistic as the arguments of the anti-gambling zealots. Who are you to tell me what I need to be reminded of? A large portion of society, including the majority of people who support regulation of online poker would take issue with your characterization of economic regulation.

[ QUOTE ]
Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sound to be like Shays is opposed to gambling because it is part of the dogma of a particular religious tradition. He believes that gambling interests tend to target the most vulnerable among society to take advantage of (and I agree!), and that this is not something the state should facilitate.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a few guys like this will be Leached out next go-around. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Time to start a list of anti-gambling Congressmen that are located in districts with large universities? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds every bit as paternalistic as the arguments of the anti-gambling zealots. Who are you to tell me what I need to be reminded of? A large portion of society, including the majority of people who support regulation of online poker would take issue with your characterization of economic regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If people are going to lectured about morality, then they need to be reminded (or pardon me, maybe educated for the first time) that when government restricts ecnomic freedom, it harms the economy. That's the greater harm. See Adam Smith's "On Wealth of Nations". Or was it Thomas Jefferson?

And whose side are you on, anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sound to be like Shays is opposed to gambling because it is part of the dogma of a particular religious tradition. He believes that gambling interests tend to target the most vulnerable among society to take advantage of (and I agree!), and that this is not something the state should facilitate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being paid to promote anti-gambling views here? Sure sounds like you totally buy into those arguments. No offense, but few here are interested.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you being paid to promote anti-gambling views here? Sure sounds like you totally buy into those arguments. No offense, but few here are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. One sided discussion only please.

[JPFisher55]

But Shays is known as a liberal Republican; not a social conservative one.

[gulon]

It's funny because Shays is known as a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I mostly agree with his politics, not to open a political can of worms here... What I don't agree with is his idea that legislating morality to protect the ignorant is +EV.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to do a Lexis search on "professional gambler", what you would find pre-internet is a definition that looks something like this:

Professional Gambler - Someone who fraudulently and illegally manipulates a game of chance so that they have an unfair advantage

Basically a professiona gambler in the past is a con man.

Many laws have been passed to protect to the public from these con-men. I believe Congressman Shays, and many other older generation legislators still believe in this definition.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it were true about amending the Wire Act, laws should be specific, not just laws that say basically "oh, if we think it's illegal, we will let you know." No you won't. You are OUR public servants. If something needs to be prohibited, there will be a compelling reason why, and that should have to be the extent of your prohibition. His statement just illustrates to me how the government and its administrators have gotten TOO powerful and big. We need a smaller government that will mind its own fricking business.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is a stupid and hypocritical thing for him to say, when he gambles everyday of his life. Life is a gamble, getting in a car is a gamble, crossing the street is a gamble, tithing at your church is a gamble, etc. This is why I really despise that my Christian brothers and sisters have taken up this cause.

[CPOSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
But Shays is known as a liberal Republican; not a social conservative one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and therein lies the challenge of getting UIGEA overturned or legislation legalizing on-line poker passed. The idea that banning Internet gambling only appeals to the religious right is quite simply wrong. I live in Maryland where the democrats overwhelmingly control the legislature. They have repeatedly defeated slots on the basis of keeping me from harming myself by losing money.

This is the challenge. On the one side you have those who think that gambling is a sin and on the other are those who want to protect me from myself. These two groups combined form an overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress.

The legislative route is only going to be a winner if enough people can be convinced that a) the government can make a significant amount of money from on-line poker via increased tax receipts and licensing fees of some kind (and this is a tough one because the rake from poker is going to pale in comparison to the take from a lottery, for example)and b) the sites have a rock solid way to prevent minors from playing.

Steve

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecting a limited government, constrained by the specifically expressed powers given to that government by its Constitution, SHOULD be a realistic expectation.

Just because the majority of politicians feel differently, is not an excuse undermine the rule of law set forth by the framers.

[CPOSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecting a limited government, constrained by the specifically expressed powers given to that government by its Constitution, SHOULD be a realistic expectation.

Just because the majority of politicians feel differently, is not an excuse undermine the rule of law set forth by the framers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to understand what you are arguing.

The framers gave all powers not enumerated to the states which is why many states ban gambling in some or all forms within their borders while the federal gambling laws are few and far between (The Wire Act being an exception).
The framers also expressly gave Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Given the circumstance that the individual states have widely varying rules about gambling and that the internet undeniably results in members of those states all meeting in one "place" to gamble thus generating profits for a corporation thus making this act at least plausibly one of interstate commerce, I don't understand why you would think that this type of legislation wouldn't be exactly the type of thing that the framers thought Congress should weigh in on.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I agree that the framers agreed to a Constitution that provided for limited government I don't think this means they were as libertarian as I am. I think it means that they intended for the federal government to be limited to those things that impacted the nation as a whole (interstate commerce) while the state governments took care of "local" issues.

[JPFisher55]

The fourteenth amendment applies the Bill of Rights and inherent rights in the Constitution to the States. Thus, if online gaming and online poker are protected by some right in the Constitution, then States cannot necessarily ban or restrict it.
The courts have applied a balancing test of the individual right under the Constitution versus the State reason in limiting the right. Any limitation must be narrowly tailored to justify the State reason for its limitation.
How narrow and how much limitation depends on how strong the right being limited is under the Constitution.
I don't think any federal court has decided these matter for online gaming or online poker.

[Cactus Jack]

Doesn't CT have a lottery? His state is sure protecting those who can least afford to lose money, huh? Not to mention that rather large building in Ledyard.

Cat's out of the bag, brother. Better find another way to protect the youth.

[CPOSteve]

14th amendment, yes you're correct. Of course, this doesn't apply to

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

because we'd have a serious circular reasoning problem.

I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any federal court has ruled a state gambling law to be unconstitutional because it construed gambling as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, if it's constitutional for the state of Maryland to ban casino gambling then why would the fact that the gambling takes place on-line make a difference?

As an aside, someone mentioned in one of the lawsuit threads that the question of whether the Wire Act governs all forms of gambling or just sports betting has not been finally resolved. The unintended consequence of the recent civil suit in New Jersey is that it may give the government the opportunity to argue the issue before the Supreme Court. Given the current make-up of the court this may not be the best thing for us. I'd much rather have the fate of on-line poker rest in Congress, which is electable/can be lobbied/is known to change their minds, than with the courts where if you lose you may not get another bite at the apple.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[/ QUOTE ]

SO VOTE FOR IT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't get this at all. He says he wouldn't vote for the bill, yet he thinks internet gambling (why does he capitalize "Internet"?) should be regulated?

[PokeReader]

CT has a lottery and two indian casinos. Chris is a Christian Scientist, and I would think this is influencing his thinking here. I have heard from him that he has been moving away from his religion lately, but I am sure this is a factor.

I believe the comparision we need to make with poker is the stock market. Very similar system of winners and losers, just a significant difference with a graded increased in earnings over time, and that most people do not managed their own investments. However, in the short term, it can be a very similar model.

As to targeting Chris or other Congressional candidates, please check my post in the main legislation sticky where this letter was originally posted.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that it is a stupid and hypocritical thing for him to say, when he gambles everyday of his life. Life is a gamble, getting in a car is a gamble, crossing the street is a gamble, tithing at your church is a gamble, etc. This is why I really despise that my Christian brothers and sisters have taken up this cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, exactly, that's what I was trying to say.

As an American, you have only a 50% chance of succeeding at marriage. As a player holding aces, you have about a 90% chance of succeeding at winning the pot. Ironic that they'll attack the "sure thing" as inconsistent with their values and "defend" that which is high risk.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's ban all advertising and advertising firms -- they are very clear their goal is to exploit inherent human psycholgical tendencies. Same argument can be made for much of business. Certainly the stock market would be considered dishonest under this definition and should be banned.