Master letter thread [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:52 AM

April 9, 2007

Thank you for your continued correspondence about legislation related to Internet gambling that passed in the 109th Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know, H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act signed into law as part of a larger bill package on October 13, 2006. The internet gambling provisions will prevent the use of credit cards and fund transfers for unlawful internet gambling and block financial transactions associated with illegal gambling.

While many Americans have the misimpression that internet gambling is legal because of the easy access to online casinos based offshore, it is not. The new provisions do not change the law, but rather provide new enforcement tools to help law enforcement and financial services companies crack down on this already illegal activity, This legislation received endorsements from the religious community, family groups, financial services groups and all the major professional sports organizations.

American dollars account for half of the $12 billion bet worldwide on the internet. FBI and Justice Department experts have warned that internet gambling websites are vulnerable to being used for money, laundering, drug trafficking and terrorist financing, As a member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, my colleagues and I have taken a particular interest in this issue. I have serious concerns about terrorist financing and the possibility of terrorists laundering money through unregulated, offshore online casinos.

House Financial services Chairman Barney Frank [MA-04] has expressed an interest in reprieving this issue. As a member of the Committee, I will take your support for a repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into consideration should the issue come up again.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on internet gambling. Also, you can sign up for the _____ District’s E-Mail Newsletter by visiting my website at http://__________.house.gov/emailsignup.aspx.

Sincerely,

Rep. Geoff Davis

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:53 AM

My reply:

April 13, 2007
The Honorable Geoff Davis
United States House of Representatives
**** **** House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Davis:

I thank you for your April 9th letter where you responded to my request that you work to restore the right of Americans to play Internet poker and other casino games in the privacy of their own homes by cosponsoring Barney Frank’s upcoming Internet gambling legislation. I’d like to share with you my humble opinion on the matter.

By way of introduction, I’m an engineer with one of the area’s larger employers. After a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion, and I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side to playing in a smoky casino in [the neighboring state]. I happen to be skilled enough at the game to win significantly more than I lose, but that’s not really the point. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

As a conservative Republican, I share some of your concerns about online gambling. However, it’s not obvious that federal laws restricting our freedoms and liberties will solve these issues. After all, online gambling will continue internationally. In fact, the WTO has recently ruled the U.S. violated international trade law by prosecuting online gambling cases. As such, I urge you to support legalization with regulation. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

You mentioned the endorsements H.R. 4411 received from the religious community, family groups, financial services groups and all major professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our district (or even the majority of Republicans in our district). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that so many so-called religious folks are willing to give away our freedoms, especially in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I don’t believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations relate only to sports betting. A regulated online gaming environment can address that concern.

Online gaming will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:53 AM

My letter to the subcommittee Republicans (my letter to the full committee is virtually identical):

April 8, 2007

House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
Minority (Republicans)
Rayburn House Office Building B-301C
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representatives:

I'm writing to ask you to restore the right of Americans to play Internet poker and other casino games in the privacy of their own homes. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) is big government nanny-statism at its worst. I believe the outrage of my fellow poker players contributed strongly to the Democratic win in the last election. It's not just me; many Republican core supporters do not support the big government nanny state. That's why the Contract with America was so enthusiastically received by the Republican rank-and-file. In the interests of freedom and bipartisanship, I ask the committee to support Chairman Barney Frank’s upcoming Internet gambling legislation.

The impact of UIGEA includes the following:

· This law forces American banks to function as the moral police of America. It shifts the costs and other burdens of enforcement to them as well.

· As a result of this law, Americans are now less free than even Russians and Eastern Europeans.

· The Department of Justice has elected to act outside the scope of existing federal law. The recent heavy-handed DOJ arrests of the founders of Neteller and the seizure of pending EFT transfers from Neteller to American citizen are outrages. It seems the DOJ has a vendetta against U.S. online gamblers who broke no federal laws by playing. In other words, although they are part of the executive branch, they’ve elected to create their own laws – laws that have not been introduced through your subcommittee or approved by Congress.

· The House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions should desire a regulated market. That way, the U.S. can set and enforce age limits while establishing procedures for money-laundering monitoring.

· The U.S. should comply with the recent WTO ruling that concluded that our restrictions on Internet gambling constitute an unfair restraint of trade.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TE

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:54 AM

My letter to Kyl:

April 25, 2007

Senator Jon Kyl
United States Senate
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Kyl:

I’ve been following your efforts to restrict the ability of Americans to choose play Internet poker and other casino games in the privacy of their own homes. I’d like to share with you my humble opinion on the matter.

By way of introduction, I’m an engineer with one of the nation’s larger companies. After a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion, and I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side to playing in a smoky casino. I happen to be skilled enough at the game to win significantly more than I lose, but that’s not really the point. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

As a fellow Republican, I share some of the concerns you’ve mentioned about online gambling. However, it’s not obvious that federal laws restricting our freedoms and liberties will solve these issues. After all, online gambling will continue internationally. In fact, the WTO has recently ruled the U.S. violated international trade law by prosecuting online gambling cases. As such, I urge you to support legalization with regulation, rather than prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

On the topic of freedom, it seems the Republican Party has chosen to be the party of social conservatism only. The party now supports big, powerful government as long as it promotes the party’s social agenda. As such, it appears limited-government Goldwater/Reagan Republicans like myself are no longer welcome in the party. However, without us, it’s hard to see how the Republican Party can win in the West (or anywhere but the South). Do you like being in the minority, as you are today? What about when a libertarian-conservative Democrat runs against you on a platform of a smaller federal government? Ironic (at least at one time), but very foreseeable now. As an aside, when that does happen, the way things stand now he’ll likely receive a lot of donations from poker players around the nation. Also, many younger voters will wake up and turn out like they did against Rep. Leach.

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UGIEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Arizona Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that so many so-called religious folks are willing to give away our freedoms, especially in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I don’t believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations relate only to sports betting. A regulated online gaming environment can address that concern.

Online gaming will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:55 AM

My letter to the Daily Show:

To: thedailyshow@comedycentral.com
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: Rep. Barney Frank would be a great guest!

Dear Sir/Madam,

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) would be an outstanding guest on The Daily Show under any circumstance, but he'd be awesome now that he's introduced a new bill (HR 2406) to allow online gambling. It would be entertaining television to listen to Jon and Rep. Frank discuss the self-righteousness of the people who wish to ban online gambling.

Thanks for your consideration.

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:56 AM

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House Financial Committee, is an anti-Internet gambling zealot on the order of Kyl or Goodlatte. Here's a quote"

[ QUOTE ]
"There have been studies by Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, McGill University in Canada, American Psychiatric Association -- all of these say the younger someone starts gambling, the more likelihood that they become a compulsive gambler. Addicted to gambling, just like addicted to drugs. So there is a correlation between drug dealers and gambling sites." - October 2006, CNN

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't even hope to change this guy's mind, I do wish him to know that we're no longer his punching bags. He can no longer restrict our freedoms and speak against us with no downside.

Maybe his past few months in the minority have helped clarify things in his mind. Anyway, here's my letter to him:

May 3, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’ve been following your efforts to restrict the ability of Americans to choose play Internet poker and other casino games in the privacy of their own homes. I’d like to share with you my humble opinion on the matter.

By way of introduction, I’m an engineer with one of the nation’s larger companies. After a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion, and I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side to playing in a smoky casino. I happen to be skilled enough at the game to win significantly more than I lose, but that’s not really the point. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

As a fellow Republican, I share some of the concerns you’ve mentioned about online gambling. However, it’s not obvious that federal laws restricting our freedoms and liberties will solve these issues. After all, online gambling will continue internationally. In fact, the WTO has recently ruled the U.S. violated international trade law by prosecuting online gambling cases. As such, I urge you to support the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (HR 2046).

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

On the topic of freedom, it seems the Republican Party has chosen to be the party of social conservatism only. The party now supports big government as long as it promotes the party’s social agenda. As such, it appears limited-government Goldwater/Reagan Republicans like myself are no longer welcome in the party. However, without us, it’s hard to see how the Republican Party can be a majority party again. Do you like being in the minority, as you are today? What happens when a libertarian-conservative Democrat runs against you on a platform of a smaller federal government? Ironic (at least at one time), but very foreseeable now. As an aside, when that does happen, the way things stand now he’ll likely receive a lot of donations from poker players around the nation. Also, many younger voters will wake up and turn out like they did against Rep. Leach.

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that so many so-called religious folks are willing to give away our freedoms, especially in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I don’t believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations relate only to sports betting. A regulated online gambling environment, like the one created by HR 2046, addresses that concern.

Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:58 AM

Here's my note to my congressman. As it's like my 8th note this year, it's short and to the point:

The Honorable My Rep
United States House of Representatives
1108 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxx:

I'm writing to request that you vote for HR 2140, Rep. Shelley Berkley's Internet gaming study bill. While the opponents of online gaming have made a list of potential issues purported to be caused by online gaming, there’s never been a study that either verifies the validity of these claims or examines potential mitigations. It seems this should be done prior to even considering a federal prohibition of Internet gambling, especially as this activity is legal in much of the rest of the world.

If Americans are to be less free than Europeans, perhaps we should at least have some substantiation to justify a federal power grab of this magnitude.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:58 AM

Here are my letters to Attorney General Gonzales and Secretary Paulson. This was an item from two weeks ago. I think you should consider doing this if you haven't yet, as our opponents have been. Thanks.

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

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

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:59 AM

Here the "sports coalition's" letter:
http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gambling/Sports_Coalition_Letter.pdf

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

March 22, 2007

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

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

Dear General Gonzales and Secretary Paulson:

On behalf of our respective professional and amateur sports organizations, we are writing to urge you to issue strong regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Our sports organizations each have strict policies against sports betting, because wagering on sports can corrupt athletic contests or create the appearance of corruption. Internet gambling also runs directly contrary to federal and state statutes against sports gambling, particularly the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. Though Internet gambling on sports has never been legal, easy access to offshore Internet gambling websites has created the opposite impression among the general public, particularly before this law was passed. Congress has also found, as have others who have examined this issue, that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering, and that it has contributed to both underage and compulsive gambling.

We are gratified by recent reports from sports gambling insiders indicating that the new law has already caused wagering on the Super Bowl and “March Madness” to decline by over a third, even though there are no implementing regulations in effect yet. However, some of the same industry insiders believe that sports gambling will return to its previous levels by next year. Effective regulations are essential to ensuring that sports gambling does not rebound, but continues to decline as Congress intended.

Internet gambling businesses seek to – and until the passage of the UIGEA were easily able to – evade U.S. prosecutors by operating offshore. Thus, the most effective way to curtail Internet sports gambling is to interrupt the flow of funds between U.S.-based gamblers and offshore website operators. In the new law, Congress gave the Treasury Department, together with the Federal Reserve and the Department of Justice, responsibility for writing regulations to guide different types of payment systems in identifying and blocking these financial transactions.

Some payment systems, such as credit cards, can use “coding” to block online gambling funds. But other types of payment systems, such as checking and Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfers, need a list of prohibited recipients or bank accounts in order to effectively block fund transfers. To prevent undue burden on financial institutions, such a list needs to be compiled and maintained by the government. The House Financial Services Committee Report clearly states that Congress intended law enforcement to provide financial institutions with the identities of illegal online gambling businesses or their financial accounts. The Committee Report also gave the agencies regulatory flexibility to develop alternative policies and procedures for “non-coded” transactions, consistent with the law’s goals.

We are asking you to commit the regulatory and law enforcement resources necessary to effectively implement the law. If proposed and final regulations are not strong, the illegal Internet gambling industry will once again see the U.S. market as a prime target for sports gambling operations.

Sincerely,

Rick Buchanan
Executive VP and General Counsel
National Basketball Association

Elsa Kircher Cole
General Counsel
National Collegiate Athletic Association

William Daly
Deputy Commissioner
National Hockey League

Tom Ostertag
Senior VP and General Counsel
Major League Baseball

Jeffrey Pash
Executive VP and General Counsel
National Football League

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 01:59 AM

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

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Could you explain what #2 would do? I highly doubt internet gambling regulations are what AG is spending much time on right now. Do they even care what people say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl is taking the time to badger Gonzales about these requirements via letters to Bush and by actually asking during Gonzales' last Senate hearings. It's easy to write to our friends. Our opponents should hear from us as well, I think. Anyway, something to discuss. I sent mine earlier. Here they are:

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

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

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:01 AM

My WTO letter.

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

The Honorable xxxx yyyy
United States House of Representatives
0000 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx:

As a Republican constituent and voter in your district, I am writing to express my objection to the United States’ withdrawal from the gaming sector (Article 21) of the GATS agreement. This unprecedented withdrawal, made in response to our loss to Antigua in a dispute heard by the WTO over Internet gambling access, will have far-reaching ramifications for the U.S. While the federal government seems to feel there is some driving national interest in legislating the moral beliefs of a few on all Americans by preventing us from playing poker online, the fact is that we need the WTO now more than ever. We have many trade disputes worldwide. We need access to markets and other trade controls. We need the WTO to deal effectively with China. Should we sacrifice this to satisfy the very few social conservatives who, despite the lack of even a single negative reference to gambling in the Bible, feel they have to tell OTHERS not to play poker in their OWN homes on their OWN computers?

I think not. Please ask President Bush to rescind this withdrawal from GATS. We made the commitment, so we should stick to it. The word of the U.S. should be our bond.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:02 AM

Post deleted by TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:02 AM

The Honorable xxxx xxxxx
United States House of Representatives
xxxx Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx,

The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned any pretense of limited government. After all, it’s been more than a decade since President Clinton announced that the era of big government is over. Too bad Bush has resurrected it from the dead. Under Bush, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, it regulates us more, and it reaches more deeply into our daily lives than it did pre-1994. This is driven by a new brand of conservatism; one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules Barry Goldwater while embracing Roosevelt (and I don’t mean TR). These guys have more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.

Under the guise of promoting conservatism, the "new" Republican Party is hard at work giving the federal government unprecedented power to legislate behavior. Look at the recent online poker "ban", where banks and ISPs are required to monitor American citizens at their homes for activities deemed inappropriate by the all-powerful federal government. It’s really the business of the federal government to concern themselves with people playing cards in their own homes? Look at most of Bush's initiatives. And now we have amnesty for illegal aliens. Of course Republicans are in open revolt.

Perhaps the social conservatives and liberals who believe big government is wonderful should form a new pro-government party. They can jointly spend like drunken sailors on programs like No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business folks can then take back the Republican Party. We’ll give rights back to Americans while enforcing our immigration laws (we're doing the reverse now). We’ll be pro-life, as our commitment is to respect the value of all individuals, and we’ll continue to keep government out of the lives of individuals. The funny thing is that this approach will result in improved morality and values. You see, our morals don’t come from Washington.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

I urge you to vote for freedom. Congress does not have to legislate everything congressmen personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom. Perhaps, some day, we'll have a government that leaves some decisions up to the individual.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:03 AM

Dear Congressman xxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

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

Dear Senator xxxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, when it is introduced into the Senate. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:04 AM

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:06 AM

Rep. Ron Paul's reply:

From: Paul, Rep.
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 4:57 PM

Dear [me]:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your kind and supportive words and with a copy of your letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus. It is reassuring and encouraging to hear from those, such as yourself, who understand the issues and the positive impact of a pro-freedom philosophy.

Such active citizen participation, as the founders well understood, is absolutely vital to our form of government and to the preservation of the liberty they entrusted to us.

As I serve in the 110th Congress, rest assured that I shall continue to take very seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution of limited federal powers and work to make ours the freest, and hence most prosperous and tranquil society in the history of mankind.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to communicate your thoughts. I always appreciate hearing from those to whom power is vested by our Constitution, "the People of the United States."

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:06 AM

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

Dear Secretary Paulson:

I understand that some who wish to prohibit law-abiding Americans from choosing to play online poker in the privacy of their own homes have been lobbying your department for UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) regulations that would, in essence, create an Internet gaming prohibition. This concerns me greatly as a freedom-loving American and as a recreational poker player, as Congress did not ban any gaming with UIGEA. It seems anti-poker interest groups would have you disregard this fact and would use your department as a back door means of creating the prohibition they were unable to win legislatively.

As you know, UIGEA does not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists like Senator Kyl and Congressman Bachus are fond of saying this. However, what they neglect to mention is that Internet poker is not illegal under federal law (including the Wire Act of 1961, which covers only sports betting). As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. Given this, I believe the UIGEA regulations should either exempt or simply neglect to mention Internet poker – if not nationwide, certainly for play in states where Internet poker is not explicitly illegal. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet poker, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it.

As for other Internet gaming, Goldman Sachs held large positions in BetOnSports, SportingBet, and other offshore Internet gaming sites while you were CEO. Certainly they would have not held these positions during your tenure as CEO had you felt they either violated U.S. laws or were immoral. I believe you were correct to have authorized these positions and I commend you for it; Americans should have the freedom to make their own decisions with regards to online gaming.

Also, as you are undoubtedly aware, UIGEA has erected a trade barrier around the United States that purports to protect our land-based casinos, horse racing interests, and state lotteries from international competition. In fact, the WTO just ruled against the United States, again, regarding our closed gaming markets. Now your department is being asked by some to increase the height of this trade barrier even further. In fact, the controls some in Congress are suggesting, including having banks snoop through Americans’ financial transactions and having Internet service providers snoop through Americans’ Internet usage history, are more fitting for China or Iran than for America. As you are a well regarded and principled free trade advocate, I strongly urge you to support free trade in this matter by disregarding those who would have you exceed the specific UIGEA requirements.

Unfortunately, while these anti-gaming interest groups list various reasons to justify an online poker prohibition, these groups oppose effective regulations to address those concerns. On June 8, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing, entitled Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System? (available on the committee website, at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml) ). The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the feasibility of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. The hearing conclusively showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, operator integrity, homeland security concerns, integrity of sporting, tax collection, and other issues. However, rather than working toward regulation that addresses their stated concerns, the opponents of Internet gambling prefer you to restrict the freedoms of Americans well beyond what was passed by Congress with UIGEA. It seems they simply dislike gambling and wish to impose their personal opinions on others. I trust you will not allow your department to further this unworkable system, especially when effective regulation is being eschewed.

While your department is clearly compelled to enforce the Act, I ask that you enforce only that which is specifically mandated by the bill. Again, UIGEA is not an online gaming prohibition, regardless of what the anti-gaming interest groups say.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:07 AM

June 29, 2007

The Honorable Susan Schwab
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

Cc: President George Bush, Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Jim Bunning, Senator Harry Reid, and Rep. Geoff Davis

Dear Ambassador Schwab:

I am writing concerning “United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (WT/DS285)”, the WTO challenge to U.S. Internet gambling laws by Antigua and Barbuda. As you know, the WTO’s Appellate Body found that the U.S. is not in compliance with our WTO obligations with respect to allowing access to our remote gambling services market. Unfortunately, rather than trying negotiate in good faith with our fellow WTO members within the framework of our agreements, we instead decided to ignore our trading partners’ concerns by withdrawing from the gambling services sector of GATS. This has resulted in Antigua’s demand for $3.4 billion per year in compensation, to come from American intellectual property and copyrights. Additionally, the EU, Macau, India, Canada, Costa Rica and others are lining up for damages as well. It seems our action has significant potential to harm us in many areas while gaining us nothing (aside from the continuation of an unpopular prohibition).

It is very unfortunate that a quibble over a card game has led to this. Our credibility is now at stake, as our refusal to respect the rulings of the WTO has potential to harm our other trade initiatives, particularly with regards to issues of trade fairness with China and the EU. Also, if we choose to continue to disregard our obligations under the WTO, American companies will be stuck with the bill, both from Antigua as well as the repercussions from the trade concessions being sought by the EU and others. Additionally, the U.S. is a world leader in providing of gaming services, so we do need the WTO in this regard as well.

I urge you to reconsider this unprecedented move of withdrawing from the gaming sector of GATS. Instead, let’s keep our international commitments. Keeping our commitments is good for America. I ask that we renounce our withdrawal from the gaming sector of GATS and that we initiate negotiations with Antigua and Barbuda. After all, we made a commitment, and our word should be our bond.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:08 AM

My WTO letter to my conservative Republican congressman in a horse-friendly district:

June 22, 2007

The Honorable Geoff Davis
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman Davis:

I am writing to express my concern regarding Antigua and Barbuda’s request to the WTO for $3.44 billion per year in commercial sanctions from U.S. businesses for our failure to comply with the World Trade Organization ruling that our Internet gambling restrictions violate our agreements per the gaming sector of the GATS agreement. It seems this filing has significant potential to harm (my state), particularly our equine industry, while gaining us nothing. As such, I ask you to help America honor our international commitments by supporting HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.

One notable aspect of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was its exemption of horse racing, consistent with the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1977. This served to demonstrate to the WTO that the U.S. does not have a true moral objection to Internet gambling, as certainly one cannot argue that betting on horses is more moral than betting on cards. This played a large part in our loss at the WTO. I fear the opponents of allowing Americans to choose to play online poker may push to place the same prohibition on all interstate remote horse wagering. While this is more ideologically consistent, it would clearly harm our state’s equine industry.

Additionally, the WTO action could harm our agriculture and aerospace industries, as the European Union, Japan, China, and others have joined the action against us. The trade concessions they seek will certainly harm our industries while, again, gaining us nothing.

Many Americans wish to have the right to play poker online. Many more do not feel it is the federal government’s place to prohibit this. Some polls have shown 75% opposition to UIGEA. I do feel there will be a continued backlash in 2008 to this, especially as our party continues to fracture along ideological lines. For example, the Poker Players Alliance now has 572,274 members. I imagine these poker players will vote for freedom. I took a look at the 2006 election results for a quick analysis. Thirty-four congressmen who supported UIGEA won with less than 55% of the vote (including you). Of these, it appears roughly half are vehemently opposed to allowing Americans to decide for themselves if they can play poker after work (again, including you, at least to date). Of these, the fact that this region of the nation will be very competitive in the 2008 election leads me to conclude you would likely be in the top five of any gaming rights group’s list of legislators to actively oppose (somewhere after Chris Shays and Heather Wilson…perhaps ahead of Steve Chabot). I hope this does not happen. I support you on a number of issues, such as your strong support for the Second Amendment (another freedom issue about which many like me are passionate). I support your pro-life stance as well. However, I do share with you that many conservatives are willing to work for, and vote for, their freedoms, like we did in 1994.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to vote in favor of HR 2046. Let’s have a regulated, taxed, and legal Internet gaming industry (especially poker and other skill-based games). It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions while honoring our international commitments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

07-30-2007, 02:09 AM

I'll add more later...please post your letters. I think they're having some effect. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

kidpokeher

08-04-2007, 11:52 PM

Was about to start a thread of my own (as promised but was slow to get to.) Good thing I spotted this first. Here's mine to Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV)

- - - -

As one of your constituents, I am writing to ask you to strongly consider co-sponsoring Rep. Barney Frank's bill, HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.

As I understand it, 31 house members currently cosponsor this legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, passed in the dead of night without debate via a shameful attachment to a "must-pass" port security bill. This smacks of politics at its worst and, regardless of any opinion of gambling in general, should be repealed simply for the manner on which it was passed. Your help is needed.

The need to repeal the UIGEA goes far beyond the general libertarian philosophy of Nevada residents like myself who consider gambling, whether in a casino or online, to be a personal liberty. We understand, as you do, that gambling as entertainment is a personal choice and realize that the majority of the population should not be made to suffer for the few who may be unable to gamble in a responsible manner.

Repealing the UIGEA is necessary not simply because national polls consistently show 75% of Americans oppose federal efforts to ban online gambling. It is necessary because we must, as a nation, strongly oppose any efforts to circumvent the normal legislative process in order to satisfy a personal agenda. It's no secret Senator Bill Frist attached the UIGEA in the manner he did because he knew he would not be able to get the support he needed to pass the bill on its own supposed merits. Already, the FBI is overreaching their authority and using the UIGEA to make the unsubstantiated claim that all online gambling is illegal. See the following link: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm

I know you have been working with Rep. Shelly Berkley to pass a bill that would study whether Internet gambling can be regulated. I appreciate the bipartisan effort, however the bill doesn't go far enough. Quite frankly, history has shown us prohibition simply does not work. When will we learn? I see little difference between the attempt to ban online gaming and the failed attempt to ban alcohol. You may as well be asking to ban the Internet. The question to ask is not whether Internet gambling can be regulated, but rather how can we best satisfy consumer desires to gamble online, while still providing the same checks and controls we have done successfully for years in our brick-and-mortar counterparts. Rep. Barney Frank's bill addresses these issues and for this reason I ask for your support.

Thank you for your time and service.

kidpokeher

08-04-2007, 11:57 PM

I'd also like to include your letter to Focus on the Family as it contains great arguments against those who think playing poker is somehow immoral or un-Christian.

- - - -

Dear Amy and Focus on the Family,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my inquiry on your stand concerning Internet poker. I read it with much interest and felt compelled to reply. I honestly don’t feel your advocacy of a total ban on Internet poker is in the best interests of your organization, and I’d like to share my thoughts with you on this.

Your organization thrives under freedom. The power you wish to give the federal government over our lives is the power the government will one day use against all Christians, including Focus. As I mentioned in my initial letter, you’ve essentially told the federal government that Americans cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, so I hope you won’t be surprised when preachers are prohibited from speaking against homosexuality and other issues (at risk of losing at least their tax exempt status). As you know, many feel discrimination is a moral issue as well. Many also feel the same way about gun possession, and I’m certainly not willing to initiate any process by which I end up surrendering my Second Amendment rights simply to keep people from choosing to play poker. Many of my fellow conservative Republicans feel this way, and we’ll vote for our freedoms. How will Focus fare under the Democratic majority you’re helping to create?

You mentioned that all laws are based on morality. I respectfully beg to differ. Theft may be immoral, but laws against it are based on property rights. Laws against murder are based on the right of the victim to life. Many pro-life people, me included, are pro-life not because of morality, but because we believe the unborn child has a right to life just as a “born” individual does. Even if you do believe freedom should be curtailed in the name of morality, you have not made the case that poker is immoral. Gambling is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. In fact, your tortured “proof” that poker is a sin really only proves that your organization simply doesn’t like poker. Perhaps it doesn’t “seem” Christian to some. Sorry, but most of us believe God gave us His marching orders in the Bible and that we shouldn’t be in the business of inventing new sins. Does Focus feel the work God actually asked of us is done, such that you all feel compelled to figure out what’s next? If not, how much time and money is Focus taking from God’s work to work on curtailing freedom in America, and how much is too much? After all, you know my fellow poker players will be fighting hard for our freedom. Your ill conceived fight for big government will consume a lot of cash and political capital. Is it worth it?

Your citing of the experiences of Atlantic City, NJ was telling. First of all, it seems disingenuous that you chose the example with the most manipulable statistics to cite as average. The use of per capita stats appears disingenuous, as Atlantic City has many more tourists now than it had pre-gambling. As such, the city’s average daily population (which includes these many money-spending tourists) of Atlantic City is now much higher than the city’s resident population (which is used for per capita statistics). Were you trying to imply that crime rate increases were caused by former law-abiding citizens who were drawn to crime by gambling addictions? I hope not, as the reality is that crime went up simply as a result of increased economic activity, growth, and increased tourism; in fact, many believe any economic stimulus would have caused a similar outcome. And, the reality is that Atlantic City is far better off today than it was the day before gambling was legalized. Finally, this whole argument is better suited for “bricks and mortar” casinos and related zoning issues. As Internet poker does not cause any of the issues you attempted to show with the example of Atlantic City, it seems odd to cite this case as justification for an Internet poker ban.

Also, not all Internet gambling has been banned. Many Republicans schemed behind the scenes to allow Internet wagering on horseracing to continue. Why no Alert Warnings about this? Is Chad Hills okay with horse betting? Or, could it be that you all oppose all gambling…just some more than others? I imagine it’s hard to oppose your friends in Congress. It does seem hypocritical, though. After all, Internet horse betting is no less susceptible to the issues you cited than Internet poker. You can be sure the proponents of Internet poker will ask you why you support Internet horseracing wagering (at least implicitly by not opposing it with the same vigor as you do poker). What will you say? Will you stand for your friends, or will you stand for your principles?

Finally, I think your organization fails to understand the realities of poker. Poker is a game of skill that we play because we enjoy the challenges of the game. I think you feel everyone who plays is some kind of addicted gambler. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. A recent Harvard study concluded that only 0.4% of gamblers develop addictions. Why deprive the other 99.6% of their liberties when you could be at the forefront of helping those who actually need it? After all, they’ll find a bet somewhere. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, funds treatment for compulsive gamblers while regulating the industry for fairness, age verification, and other issues. Wouldn’t your organization be better suited to providing this treatment and to airing public service announcements warning of your concerns, so that Americans could make their own choices? I think you would.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx

Pokerdemic

08-05-2007, 09:50 AM

Hi All,

Here is a draft of a letter I am sending out on Monday (hopefully). I've blanked out all of the location information. If you are interested in what I am doing and where I am doing it, I'll be happy to chat by PM. If you see any problems with the content or have any suggestions, let me know.

Dear Representative XXXXXX,

I am writing to ask you to co-sponsor the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). This bill will designate poker as a game of skill, and thus exempt it from recent anti-online gambling legislation. Before the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, online poker was rapidly expanding. While many poker players argue that online poker should be legal and taxed because it will provide additional revenue for the state, I believe it should be legal for an entirely different reason.

Online poker should be legal, ironically, because of its educational value. Learning how to play poker encourages analytical thinking, deductive reasoning, and numeracy, skills crucial to the success of America’s information economy. The research of James XXX, former professor of education at the University of XXXXXX, has repeatedly shown that video games contain enormous potential for educating the citizenry.

Apart from the skills learned while playing, each day thousands of people, many of whom are college students, congregate on the internet to write, read, and argue about poker strategy. I am a PhD student who studies the history of writing. And I consider many of these arguments to be so richly complex that I have begun an academic project, which has been submitted to a scholarly conference, to study the writing of the college students who participate in the discussions. I believe that by studying the ways in which students learn to adapt their writing to particular audiences, we can better refine the methods college instructors use to teach writing. In other words, the literacy acts encouraged by poker can be beneficial, and not detrimental, to these students’ academic success.

Writing is a crucial skill for success in college, and as an established body of research shows, writing is a crucial skill for the information economy. Studying poker strategy and theory encourages our citizenry to learn complex skills of argument and reasoning through written communication.

I would like to say that I do not necessarily support the gambling industry. Before I became a voting Democrat of XXXXX, I taught Adult Basic Education in XXXXX, XX, for a number of years. Based on what I saw in XXXXX, I do not consider casinos or gambling to be productive enterprises; however, as a Danish court has recently affirmed, poker is much more a game of skill than it is luck. Simply put, it is not gambling. Online poker should be legal and regulated. I can play poker legally in XXXXX casinos, but not in my own home: I think you will agree this is folly.

Historically, Americans and Congress alike have recognized new developments in technology enable new economic opportunities. But these new economic opportunities demand that citizens constantly re-skill and re-educate themselves. In the twenty-first century, our citizens must be life-long learners. I believe poker to be a wealthy source of educating our public in skills needed to keep America competitive in the global information economy. Please cosponsor Frank Barney’s bill to regulate online poker (H.R. 2046).

permafrost

08-05-2007, 03:14 PM

The name is Barney Frank, not Frank Barney.

The Act does not "designate poker as a game of skill". It creates a Fed licensing, regulation and taxation scheme for lawful internet poker businesses.

Your argument that it is a skill game that should be made legal/regulated confuses me. Since it is a skill game, why does it need to be made legal?

And you can play poker legally in your home (most places). Things change when you bring in and play at an unlawful business.

TheEngineer

08-05-2007, 03:39 PM

Hi,

Thanks for the PM.

First of all, I wish you remind everyone that our goal really isn't to try to write the perfect letter. It's to tell your senators and rep what you as a voter believe. I mention this because I don't want others to read the "fancy" letters in this thread and decide they have to wait until they have time to write the perfect letter, as time isn't a luxury we have. It's far better to simply write "I support IGREA because I should be able to spend my money how I want" than to wait a month or two to compose the perfect letter...one that will be read primarily to figure out what you want so it can be recorded in some politician's Access databases as a single checkmark.

I personally write longer letters because I distribute them around to many recipients and I post them on a few sites. I also reuse these on a few letters and on a few Internet posts. If I weren't doing these activities, I'd not write anything more than a paragraph or two, especially for my first letter on the issue.

That being said, it's a very good letter overall. The main thing I noticed is that you wrote about IGREA, but you make points against it in your letter, inclcuding the one against casinos and gambling. You also discuss poker as skill, which is not part of IGREA. I guess you intending to write this in favor of Wexler's skill game letter? If so, change the name of the legislation and it will generally be fine.

Where you discuss your personal feelings for casinos and gambling, I don't think it adds value to the letter as-is. Again, just my personal opinion. I think I'd either put something after that about my strong feelings about personal freedom and why I think people should be allowed to spend their own money as they choose, or I'd delete it.

I'd list James XXX's credentials as well (not a biography -- either accreditations after his name or "Dr." before).

"Internet" is capitalized.

Permafrost already mentioned Rep. Frank's name.

All-in-all, a very nice letter. Please remember to send it to your senators as well.