Got a letter back from my Congressman

[Lostit]

Unfortunately I live in Georgia, so I didn't expect a positive response. My representative is Johnny Linder from the Seventh District.

I actually got back a two page letter. The highpoints are as follows:

A.) "Should H.R. 2046 come to the House floor for a vote, I would be inclined to oppose it"
B.) "Internet Gambling is already against the law in the fifty states."
c.) "Offshore casinos are serious violators with the potential for money laundering and other criminal activities"
D.) "States continue to regulate gambling within their borders, but offshore internet gambling is stressing our financial, social, and law enforcement efforts. HR 2046 will... further increase the negative impact of internet gambling."
E.) "Some have pointed out that a child could easily get the family credit card, log on to the family computer, and lose thousands of dollars online, all before their parents get home from work."

Not that I expected any different from a bible belt republican, but he's my guy that I have to write to and I got him. Basically it looks like he's reading off of the FOF script.

I've already sent him a modified version of Engineer's letter (thanks again Engineer) pointing out the WTO impact, personal rights issues, and corrolated it to the impact that may be felt by some of the specific manufacturing (intellectual rights, patents, etc) companies located in his district. I also sent it on my company letter head, with my official title (Director of Finance) so that he would realize that its not some kid writing him, but instead a senior professional from one of the largest employers in his district.

My question to the group is this: What would you put in the reply? Of course I will take his arguement point by point, and attempt to debunk it. The only issue is that you know he's not reading this, but instead it'll be a staffer who will prepare the letter, and get his signature.

Other options include:
1.) Try to shift focus to Shelly Berkley's study bill, and see if he will support that.
2.) Try to shift focus to Wexler's bill, and only lobby on behalf of poker, instead of a broader bill like Barney Frank's.

I don't want to throw the kitchen sink at they guy, so which of the above "lines" would you take with him?

[CountingMyOuts]

Unfortunately, you are drawing dead here. You have no hope of convincing him otherwise. You are right, he's reading from the FOF script. Save your energy.

[ QUOTE ]
D.) "States continue to regulate gambling within their borders, but offshore internet gambling is stressing our financial, social, and law enforcement efforts. HR 2046 will... further increase the negative impact of internet gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be tempted, however, to ask him to prove this point and ask him exactly what "social enforcement" is.

[oldbookguy]

Personally, I would concentrate on B and E and tie the two together.

In E - parents have a responsibilty to protect this from happening, why would a parent leave a credit card 'laying around' all day anyway. if parents feel they cannot trust a child on a computer, then THEY have a responsiblity to not allow its use when they are not home, use password protection to actually 'log-in' when the computer is started.

B is the big one. Internet gambling is NOT againt the law in 50 states. 11 perhaps at best. I have had my most success pointing to games available via AOL, MSN and YAHOO! classified as 'skill' games that are wagered on and these include card games. More importantly, if he and congress are so concerned about children, why are these 'skill' wagering games linked from a page intended for children.

It generally comes as a surprise to most to learn you can legally wager on Solitaire, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, CHILDREN'S games and more.

When providing this, I have included a printed copy of the page that has the link, the page itself and a page example of a few games.

The worst, our opposition will try and introduce legislation to cover this, then a real battle can begin.

obg

[Lostit]

Let me clarify one point here:

Drawing dead is a given, and I fully realize that. But as I've seen stated by others, it should be our goal to take even the most hardened opponents and at least soften them up. As a result, I don't want to turn this into an adverserial disagreement, but a professional and constructive debate, where at least he sees the validity of some of the counter points. He will always vote against us, but he doesn't have to lobby against us. I would like to stress that the tone of his letter was kind and professional, and that may be an opening for a constructive debate. At the very least, its just letter and a phone call. It couldn't hurt.

I also caught the "social" enforcement piece, but bringing that up can't lead to anything constructive of positive, so I'll probably ignore it in any further correspondance.

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]

In E - parents have a responsibilty to protect this from happening, why would a parent leave a credit card 'laying around' all day anyway. if parents feel they cannot trust a child on a computer, then THEY have a responsiblity to not allow its use when they are not home, use password protection to actually 'log-in' when the computer is started.

B is the big one. Internet gambling is NOT againt the law in 50 states. 11 perhaps at best. I have had my most success pointing to games available via AOL, MSN and YAHOO! classified as 'skill' games that are wagered on and these include card games. More importantly, if he and congress are so concerned about children, why are these 'skill' wagering games linked from a page intended for children.

It generally comes as a surprise to most to learn you can legally wager on Solitaire, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, CHILDREN'S games and more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks OBG

On E, I also was going to focus on this, but this is where I'm a little torn. I do not agree that a parent can be perfect about keeping those things out of little kids hands. I personally have 3 boys, between the ages of 3 to 8, and its AMAZING what they do get into. What I wanted to stress is that many payment processors utilize additional steps for security. The example I would mention would be Western Union. Its a recognized payment processor here in the US, and they already have safeguards as part of their SOP that make his stated example impossible. I would then stress that this could be part of any future legislation/safeguards and that its up to people like him to get that in place. My point would be that this is not a new concern for many existing businesses and they there are already established safeguards in place.

Thanks for the advice on B. My biggest challenge will be keeping this as a constructive dialogue and not having it viewed as something negative.

[hollaballa]

like I posted the other day, the study bill is the only hope.

And to use two quotes from the head of the American Gaming Association "if poker players think they can over turn the internet gambling bill, they are sadly mistaken", and "no chance in hell" was his comment about reversing the ban with a bill like Franks.

So why am I posting this?

Many smart people in DC have said it, and it seems very logical to me.....there's no chance in hell congress is going to reverse a bill without having some tangible support in favor of a reversal.

Tangible support means a study. A study that shows we can effectively stop underage kids and people with problems.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

The skill game exemption has about a 2% chance. The Frank bill has a zero percent chance.

The sooner we focus our efforts on a study, the better.

[4_2_it]

If a parent leaves a credit card lying around, a teenage girl will spend thousands shopping and a teenage boy will sign up for every porn site he can find. I think gambling would be pretty far down on the list of activities teens will do if they get a hold of Dad's AmEx. Ask him why there are not laws on the books to prevent these much more likely occurrences.

[oldbookguy]

I also had a meeting with a representarive from Sen. Rockefeller's office after exchanging several letters sometime back and hand delivered a letter.

It has many points you want to address.

It can be found here in the forum at:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10900443&page=0&vc=1

It may / maynot be of help however Rockefeller's stance was initially the same and after serveral letters he seems to have softened a bit.

obg

[Merkle]

I think the argument about children is the easiest to address. If he believe that the current sites are already illegal then why would they care if they broke one more law by allowing minors to gamble. Regulation of the sites motivates them not to break the law pertaining to minors as it would jeapordize millions of dollars of income for the few extra dollars a minor would bring to site. Do point out that there ARE many safeguards to prevent minors from playing on regulated sites.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me clarify one point here:

Drawing dead is a given, and I fully realize that. But as I've seen stated by others, it should be our goal to take even the most hardened opponents and at least soften them up. As a result, I don't want to turn this into an adverserial disagreement, but a professional and constructive debate, where at least he sees the validity of some of the counter points. He will always vote against us, but he doesn't have to lobby against us. I would like to stress that the tone of his letter was kind and professional, and that may be an opening for a constructive debate. At the very least, its just letter and a phone call. It couldn't hurt.

I also caught the "social" enforcement piece, but bringing that up can't lead to anything constructive of positive, so I'll probably ignore it in any further correspondance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for being so negative. It definitely cannot hurt to try. Good luck and I hope you can turn him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jennaecks]

I guess its ok to leave the credit card lying around and spend thousands of dollars on porn.....

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
like I posted the other day, the study bill is the only hope.

And to use two quotes from the head of the American Gaming Association "if poker players think they can over turn the internet gambling bill, they are sadly mistaken", and "no chance in hell" was his comment about reversing the ban with a bill like Franks.

So why am I posting this?

Many smart people in DC have said it, and it seems very logical to me.....there's no chance in hell congress is going to reverse a bill without having some tangible support in favor of a reversal.

Tangible support means a study. A study that shows we can effectively stop underage kids and people with problems.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

The skill game exemption has about a 2% chance. The Frank bill has a zero percent chance.

The sooner we focus our efforts on a study, the better.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already have a thread on this....no real need to hijack another. Anyway, we've been writing in favor of the study, as well as IGREA and SGPA. Check out my "Fight for Online Gaming" thread for details.

Anyway, IGREA has always been an underdog, but we aren't going to give up just because you keep telling us that you hear people say it's "dead in the water", even if they are "very smart". If we gave up every time someone said we couldn't win, we wouldn't have ever even started. Anyway, IGREA is not dead. It could be used as a source of funding for must-pass legislation and get through that way. Or, it could get through by folks like us continuing our efforts to win House approval. With that, it could find its way onto some Senate legislation. Or, we could simply make a good run this year and get it through next year, especially if the current U.S.-facing poker sites are still offering services to Americans.

We'll also fight for IGREA and SGPA because they help the study bill. After all, some congressman may be thinking "I can't support IGREA, but I'm hearing a lot, and that damn Engineer fellow keeps rating me "F"...maybe I'll meet them halfway and support the study. However, if we push only for the study, supporting the study is no longer a compromise. Let's do our compromising at that point..not now.

Cheers.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I live in Georgia, so I didn't expect a positive response. My representative is Johnny Linder from the Seventh District.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliment.

We write letter to Congress to let them know how their constituents feel about issues. I know there is the tendency to think we can debate them and get them to change their minds. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you do write such a letter, it could possibly be useful if you were to send copies to both senators, the president, and your local newspaper.

If I were you, I'd write back and let him know that you value your liberty and that you won't vote for anyone who'd take it away. Next, I'd write a note for the study bill, then a separate one a few weeks later in favor of the SGPA. He won't change his mind, but this will get our opinion on the record. If this brings him down from actively cosponsoring legislation against us (he cosponsored HR 4777, the Goodlatte bill....rated "F*") to merely voting for it, that would be a good result.

[Uglyowl]

You could let your representative know that you are giving money to his opponent or whatever you think will hurt him the most as a result of his views.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You could let your representative know that you are giving money to his opponent or whatever you think will hurt him the most as a result of his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice one.

Prior to sending my contribution to Steve Beshear (the pro-poker challenger to anti-gaming KY Gov. Fletcher), I scanned the check. My next letters to Sen. McConnell, Sen. Bunning, Gov. Fletcher, and Rep. Davis all had color, original-looking copies that check attached, trimmed to size, of course. That should have gotten their attention. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lostit]

Engineer,

Good feedback about breaking the arguements into separate letters. Pretty simple, but hadn't thought of that, and it should probably be a good tactic for many to use.

As for sending a copy of a check in support of an opponent... let me stress again that I live in Georgia... so I'm not really seeing any alternatives here. Great idea though.

One thing I'd like to add though. You'd be surprised how many politicians know very little about the whole subject of internet gambling. Many simply spout the same lines that they hear from their peers because its the "safe" response. I've talked to several state level and local level politicians because I have the opportunity to speak with them for other reasons, and they legitimately listen and learn from a lot of the stuff you tell them. Washington politicians are a different animal, but I do think it can't hurt to take every opportunity that you can to talk to any politician that who will listen on this subject. I haven't gotten one poor response once they've heard the facts, and these were from people who would tell me their exact opinion with no bs, if they had an opinion on this. Any grassroots movement benefits from all the communication and education that it can get.

[yahboohoo]

A. Congressman Linder, you say “inclined to oppose it.” Does that mean you haven’t decided yet and are leaning towards a no vote? (Why didn’t he just say, “I will vote no?”)

B. It’s circular to say something is illegal is because it is illegal. Online gaming is only illegal as long as Congress decides to keep it that way.

C. There would be no “potential for money laundering and other criminal activities” if Congress decided to legalize, regulate and tax it.

D. Law enforcement agencies wouldn’t be stressed if Congress decided to legalize, regulate and tax it.

E. I haven’t been able to use a credit card to fund an account ever -- always declined (even all the way back in 2000). Which illustrates a couple things: (1) Congressman Linder is out of touch and doesn’t know how effective laws he’s previously passed are. (2) Congress really can find the necessary mechanisms to control and regulate online gaming if it chose to. (3) Credit cards are abused by friends, family members and total strangers every day -- online and off -- so why don’t we outlaw credit cards (because, as Congressman Linder points out, things that can be used by criminals should be illegal)?

The typical case against online gaming (which is the proper PR term for us to use, NOT “Internet gambling”) is completely circular: It is illegal because it isn’t regulated which means kids can be exploited and criminals can move money on the sly. Ridiculous. It’s a laughably fallacious Catch-22.

The only way Congressman Linder can achieve his moral agenda ("to protect the children," "to keep America free from addiction," "to keep the Internet safe from criminals") is to legalize, regulate and tax online gaming.

We’re not talking about decriminalizing something like drugs either. We’re talking about taking something that is legal in 48 states and just letting people do it online.

I can buy a book in a bookstore 15 minutes from my house.
I can buy a book online.
I can play poker in a casino 15 minutes from my house.
But I go to prison if I play poker online???

Quasi-puritanical hyposcrisy. Go hump another teenage Congressional intern, Mr. Linder.

- yahboohoo

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]

E.) "Some have pointed out that a child could easily get the family credit card, log on to the family computer, and lose thousands of dollars online, all before their parents get home from work."



[/ QUOTE ]

Or they could take it to the mall and do the same thing but for some reason this is different.

[frommagio]

Whatever you do, please run your letter through spell-check before you print it. Little things like "corrolate" and "arguement" can jump right off the page and create a bad impression for many readers. It might not make a difference for everyone, but it will make a huge difference for some.

I that we should all keep this in mind for written communications with our elected officials. We want to appear to be 100% serious and professional.

[kidpokeher]

Regarding point E. I like OBG and 42it's arguments, not only because they're logical but because a child who had access to dad's credit cards would most likely spend it on shopping, porn, etc. long before signing up at a poker site.

Find out if he's a 2nd amendment guy. If so, ask him if we should ban guns because kids might get their hands on them. Or, for that matter, ask him if we should ban toasters because a kid might stick a fork in one.

Regarding point B:
Tell him that's just flat-out untrue and the courts have confirmed this. I went into it in more detail here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11577369&an=0&page=1#Pos t11577369)

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you do, please run your letter through spell-check before you print it. Little things like "corrolate" and "arguement" can jump right off the page and create a bad impression for many readers.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I that we should all keep this in mind for written communications with our elected officials. We want to appear to be 100% serious and professional.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I ______ that we should all keep this in mind."
Is the missing word "think?"

Oh the irony of scolding someone for their typographic misgivings, when...