Great Neteller Poker Story At USA Today

[oldbookguy]

Finally, someone did a story of our plight, USA Today wrote a nice one.

Read in full here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-14-neteller_N.htm

At the end of the story in comments section I posted the following:

Is it any wonder why, why the GOP lost control of congress last November?
250,000 American’s had some 94 million dollars seized as ‘evidence’ when the transaction records would have sufficed.
This followed of course the passage of the UIGEA at 11:45 at night that rallied MILLIONS of American Poker Players in opposition to the Frist / Kyl shenanigans used to pass the bill and intrude into the private homes and lives of citizens at the behest and urging of the far right Christian conservatives.
Is it any wonder why, no. Actions such as this will only lead to the continued downfall of what once was the ‘Grand Old Party’.

obg

[Jerry D]

In the article they say that Internet gambling is illegal. Not good.

[Uglyowl]

Thanks for the "heads-up". Work friendly link to article:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-14-neteller_N.htm

[yahboohoo]

The Gestapo aren't coming people. You can all relax.

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE:
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike a handful of other Neteller customers interviewed, Smith and Kundinger did not object to use of their names in this article. They say they aren't concerned about criminal charges. Nor should they be, says a former federal prosecutor.

"As a general matter, the federal government's interest is in going after the bookmaker instead of the gambler," says Joseph DeMarco, an Internet and privacy attorney who used to be assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan.

[/ QUOTE ]

[oldbookguy]

Thanks, edited mine as well, posted wrong link, I prefer a direct one as well.

obg

[oldbookguy]

Very true and actually I was never worried about that.

More important though, we need posters to quickly join USA Today and comment.

It is not everyday we have the chance to post comments in a major online newspaper not specifically dedicated to poker / gaming.

Please, I hope several of us will take this opportunity and make the most of it.

obg

[Uglyowl]

Fulton rights in response to OBG: "Everything that goes wrong is the GOP's fault? Come up with a better excuse you moron.

Once again our opponents are quick with the well thought out counter-arguments. Step up and contribute everyone.

My addition to the article:

<font color="blue">Fulton claims that it is absurd that it is the GOP’s fault, but in this case it is. I was a staunch Republican for my entire life before they decided to infringe on my right to play poker from my very own living room. The architects of this law were Bill Frist, Jon Kyl, Leach, and Goodlatte all Republicans, as they cater to the religious right. Further if you look at the pro-gaming laws being introduced now, the cosponsors are 80%-90% Democrat. The only members of Congress who had the brains to stand up against the UIGEA were Democrats and Ron Paul.

I really got into online poker when I was diagnosed with cancer and was unable to make the long trip to the casino due to fatigue and a weakened immune system. Online poker allowed me to continue to play the game I loved and was a great escape during a very scary time in my life.

Today, I have been in remission for over three years and continue to enjoy online poker still today since it is more allows more time at home with son and play for an hour after he goes to bed, cheaper (no gas money needed), and eliminates the four hours of driving to and from a casino.

Poker has been unfairly treated as horse racing, lotteries, solatair for money, fantasy sports (some entry fees in the thousands of dollars) get a free pass. </font>

[oldbookguy]

Nice, I posted a follow-up as well as follows:

FultonPub, while I do not engage in name calling, please read a bit more carefully.
I do not blame the GOP for this mess per say, I point out that a majority of Poker Players place passage of the UIGEA squarely on the shoulders of the GOP, it was (and there is no question) they who took the House bill from the Senate Union Calendar with no committee hearing and morphed it into the Sage Ports Act with no Senate debate or hearing, therefore…..
Was this the only issue that cost the GOP, no.
Was this the one that, so to say, was the straw that broke the camels back? If it was not; it sure caused big sag with the estimated millions of Players outraged by it.

We need to control this depate, I notice top2pear commented as well!

More please!!!!

Engineer, where are you?

obg

[CountingMyOuts]

I also threw in my two cents:

"The author needs to do his homework, internet gambling is not illegal from the bettor's standpoint. There is no case law that currently stands to make it illegal. The Wire Act was not written with the intention of covering internet gaming and is completely out of date. It's simply posturing and scare tactics by the DOJ and FBI to claim the Wire Act makes internet gaming illegal.

Also anyone who does not see that the UIGEA was a GOP issue is delusional. This was clearly a case of pandering to the "religious right", a key component of the the GOP's base. Because of this, the U.S. will eventually be hurt in all of our various trade agreements (WTO, etc.). Do we expect the WTO to help us against copyright infringements by China now that we are direct violation of our WTO agreements?"

[oldbookguy]

nice post!

I like the part of the 'only ones who ever took my money'.

obg

[oldbookguy]

Fultons comments have been removed. Should have never called me a moron....

This leaves only our comments.

obg

[75s]

LOL, the religious right isn't buying as many politicians as the NFL.

[Legislurker]

Is it in the print edition as well? I usually buy it at the newstand but was on the go this morning.

[numbnuts007]

[ QUOTE ]
The resolution of the longstanding case — watched closely in the gaming industry — could have far-reaching implications for consumers and law-enforcement officials trying to muzzle online gambling, which is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's really bad. They need to retract that. It's just not true. I'm going to send them an email asking for retraction, I think we all should.

[Legislurker]

We could come up with a succinct form Letter to the Editor, asking them to put it in the corrections that online poker is NOT illegal federally and only in certain states. Then we can all email it in.

[oldbookguy]

One thing you can do is join the USA Today, make this point in a comment following the article.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The resolution of the longstanding case — watched closely in the gaming industry — could have far-reaching implications for consumers and law-enforcement officials trying to muzzle online gambling, which is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's really bad. They need to retract that. It's just not true. I'm going to send them an email asking for retraction, I think we all should.

[/ QUOTE ]

[kayaker]

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the story in comments section I posted the following:

Is it any wonder why, why the GOP lost control of congress last November?
250,000 American’s had some 94 million dollars seized as ‘evidence’ when the transaction records would have sufficed.
This followed of course the passage of the UIGEA at 11:45 at night that rallied MILLIONS of American Poker Players in opposition to the Frist / Kyl shenanigans used to pass the bill and intrude into the private homes and lives of citizens at the behest and urging of the far right Christian conservatives.
Is it any wonder why, no. Actions such as this will only lead to the continued downfall of what once was the ‘Grand Old Party’.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

While I have no doubt that some (if not many) online poker players voted Democratic during the 2006 elections at least in part because of the UIGEA, it's absurd to think this is the reason the Republicans lost both branches of Congress. I would think little things like the ongoing mess in Iraq, pending economy problems due to the huge tax breaks for the wealthy while the poor get shafted again and again, and a myriad of other reasons had much more to do with the general shift in allegiance.

[oldbookguy]

While your thought may be true, a poll in Iowa showed as follows after the defeat of Leahy:

75% care not at all.
15% voted against him because of the UIGEA and his involvement
10% for him because of it.

He lost by 3%.

UIGEA a net loss of votes to him 5%. Ergo, the UIGEA.

A look was going to be made in Virginia as well, however, that vote was so close requiring less that .05% of shift.

Yes, the UIGEA did influence the results.

obg

[Tuff_Fish]

I Will join in the conversation when I get home. I don't want to register from my work computer.

I am also a lifelong Republican who was forced to re examine why I was voting and for whom. I voted for several Democrats for the first time in a very long time.

Tuff

[Grasshopp3r]

Political victories are won on the margins. What should be safe votes for republicans has been shifted into either non-votes or democrats. Yes, it can impact an election.

[oldbookguy]

Thanks Tuff, as I just responded at another fourm, yes, there were many things the GOP did wrong it is just the UIGEA was the last in a long line.

More importantly, we have a chance to get our views seen by many non poker people as well.

obg

[Uglyowl]

For some it was the poker ban that made them re-examine their voting patterns... For many many more it was the "nanny state"/"moral highground" the Republicans are trying to stand on, which poker became a victim of. This has been cited in many polls as a weakness of the current Republican party.

[Legislurker]

Now, if we just had an organization to rally and document those votes. Imagine some kind poker play's union or alliance that told politicians they would be voted out if they invaded our homes and livelihoods.

[PBJaxx]

Thanks for the heads-up. Comment added.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
It's considering re-entering the U.S. market in non-gaming areas, Neteller spokesman Andrew Gilchrist says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any chance Neteller would come back to the US to service poker-only sites, similar to ePassporte?

[Legislurker]

Imagine if they had spent 10 million on lawyers in 04 or 05.

[oldbookguy]

Suggested Letter Beginning

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff would be quit proud of the 109th congress after passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

The Horse Racing Industry, The NBA, MLB, NFL and Indian Tribes donated millions of dollars in this effort. What did they all receive in return for this ‘support’ of illegal Internet Wagering?

The Horse Racing Industry was granted an exemption declaring that is not to be considered illegal.
The major sports, an exemption allowing them to run ‘Fantasy” Sports Betting, racking in millions of dollars in user and licensing fees.
The Indian Tribes, an exemption allowing them to decide for themselves if casinos on tribal Lands can offer Internet Wagering.

What did the average Joe who enjoys a game of cards get? He was the benefactor of the DoJ crackdown on Internet Wagering. An estimated 250,000 American Citizens had an estimated 94 MILLION dollars seized by the Federal Government.

Too bad we, the average Joe, did not have millions to donate to Congress for our personal exemption to play cards in, as Rep. Bachus put it, in our robes!

XXXXXX
XXXXXX

[numbnuts007]

[ QUOTE ]

Suggested Letter Beginning

Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff would be quit proud of the 109th congress after passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

The Horse Racing Industry, The NBA, MLB, NFL and Indian Tribes donated millions of dollars in this effort. What did they all receive in return for this ‘support’ of illegal Internet Wagering?

The Horse Racing Industry was granted an exemption declaring that is not to be considered illegal.
The major sports, an exemption allowing them to run ‘Fantasy” Sports Betting, racking in millions of dollars in user and licensing fees.
The Indian Tribes, an exemption allowing them to decide for themselves if casinos on tribal Lands can offer Internet Wagering.

What did the average Joe who enjoys a game of cards get? He was the benefactor of the DoJ crackdown on Internet Wagering. An estimated 250,000 American Citizens had an estimated 94 MILLION dollars seized by the Federal Government.

Too bad we, the average Joe, did not have millions to donate to Congress for our personal exemption to play cards in, as Rep. Bachus put it, in our robes!

XXXXXX
XXXXXX

[/ QUOTE ]

add an "e" to "quit" in the first sentence.

don't use "in" twice in the last sentence.

looks good.

[oldbookguy]

Thanks, do not know how I and MS Word missed that.

Also, as in all things numbers count.

We need to all revisit the story and by EACH comment click the recommend button.

The higher the numbers, the more USA Today will pay attention.

You DO NOT have to join or log in, just go there and click the links.

STORY LINK:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-14-neteller_N.htm

obg

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if we just had an organization to rally and document those votes. Imagine some kind poker play's union or alliance that told politicians they would be voted out if they invaded our homes and livelihoods.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have voted and will continue voting against every Washington State representative who made online gaming a Class C felony here.

Incumbent? Out.

Only way to save your ass? Start by confessing your errors and start working for us.

[Teemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
For some it was the poker ban that made them re-examine their voting patterns... For many many more it was the "nanny state"/"moral highground" the Republicans are trying to stand on, which poker became a victim of. This has been cited in many polls as a weakness of the current Republican party.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true for many people. The poker was the straw that broke the camels back. The bigger issue, like you said, is the 'nanny state' attitude many republicans have. But when it became a direct hit on many wallets, it changes a lot of peoples minds.

I have always voted Republican, with the exception of a few times, and shall NEVER vote for one again that has ANY hint of standing against poker. If some Republicans changed their minds, I would happily support them.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
While your thought may be true, a poll in Iowa showed as follows after the defeat of Leahy:

75% care not at all.
15% voted against him because of the UIGEA and his involvement
10% for him because of it.

He lost by 3%.

UIGEA a net loss of votes to him 5%. Ergo, the UIGEA.

A look was going to be made in Virginia as well, however, that vote was so close requiring less that .05% of shift.

Yes, the UIGEA did influence the results.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that people here have been overstating the case for influence of the UIGEA in Leach's defeat by Loebsack. This is a relatively liberally-leaning district with a lot of college kids. Leach was far from a hardline conservative. Leach would be a Democrat in some other jurisdictions in the country. I've been voting in most elections since 1990, and he is the only Republican I ever voted for at any level above county clerk of court. I wrote him a letter after he voted to impeach Clinton saying that I think that he made the right decision and that I would not hold that against him in the future.
Elections are usually multifactorial. There were plenty of reasons why Leach got edged out. It borders on absurd to think that 25% of those casting votes did so solely on the gambling. Even the NRA could never boast that kind of single issue voting. I think that Loebsack would have won even without the gambling.

Iowa politics doesn't quite work the same way as in some other places. Leach lost points because he was associated with a war president in a place in the country where the war wasn't so popular. Loebsack was a political science professor who could make a very compelling anti-war case. Leach was sort of backed into support for his president. If you wanted to pick out one factor that put Loebsack over the top, I would point to some extremely unpleasant negative campaigning by the national Republican party. This sort of thing is unusual for Iowa. It didn't play well. Leach asked them to stop. At first they refused to stop. I think that Leach even went so far as to threaten to drop his party affiliation if they didn't pull the ads. By the time they stopped, I think too many people were pissed off.

In Leach's case, this wasn't pandering to the religious right at all. It was a genuine belief in his cause. I don't agree with him at all, but I don't think it was a calculated political decision.