Casino Gambling Web Delivers 435 Packets to Congress

[eddytom]

Casino Gambling Web delivered 435 informational packets to all representatives in the United States last week. Each representative was delivered a unique copy of the packet that featured all the comments from their state that voters left on the petition that CGW sponsored. CGW reps talked with many aids, lawyers, and company presidents who all told them the packet they delivered was strong and could cause legislation to come this year if it was coupled with phone support for the packets, which CGW titled 'The IGREA Initiative'.

It is suggested that all supporters call their congress person starting this week and say they support 'The IGREA Initiative' that was delivered as a packet last week. Ask to speak to the congress person, if he/she is not available, ask to speak to an aid, if they don't answer leave a message expressing your support.

Casino Gambling Web Finishes Trip to DC (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/casino_gambling_web_trip_to_dc_a_success_for_inter net_gambling_inudstry_46945.html)

Press Release on CGW Trip to DC (http://www.prweb.com/releases/onlinecasinos/igrea/prweb554057.htm)

[MiltonFriedman]

"CGW reps talked with many aids, lawyers, and company presidents who all told them the packet they delivered was strong":

CGW representative, dressed appropriately like a UPS man,:

"Can you sign for this package here ?"

Aid to Congressman:

"Sure Ooops I just dropped the package out the window."

CGW representative, "Don't worry, I ran one over with my bicycle today, it was just fine."

Congressional aid: "Sure sounds like a strong package"

[eddytom]

Thanks for the support everyone.

[MiltonFriedman]

Crybaby. You show up with a gee-whizz, poorly-written PR flack piece full of ridiculous characterizations.

What did you expect ?

Just give out the facts and skip the third-grade spin and you will get heard and listened to, perhaps.

[Coy_Roy]

Milton, your reply was completely uncalled for imo.

[eddytom]

Milton, not quite sure what the hell you are talking about. Here are some facts... 435 packets of paper, attached to a CD were hand signed and hand delivered to every representative in congress (on your behalf). The packets were specific to each state and included the comments from the petition from each representative's state. There was a list of 10 reasons why Internet gambling should be legalized and regulated. There was a CD that included all the testimony from the Financial Services Hearing, plus studies from Harvard and other places. People in Washington, who are very prominent people, including your PPA president, said the packet was strong, but it needed follow up phone calls for it to have a true value. Not quite sure where the spin is, and I am not quite sure whey everyone in the poker community is not jumping on this opportunity to call their representative to support this 'Initiative'.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the support everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eddytom, it would help if we knew who you were to help respond. Do you work for CGW? Not knowing who this post is coming from I have no idea how to respond.

Any effort to keep poker legal is great and all, but I had no idea how to respond to your post.

[ktulu22]

[ QUOTE ]
Milton, your reply was completely uncalled for imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This board has more [censored] than every other internet forum combined, in case you didn't notice

[eddytom]

I don't 'work' for cgw, but I am a close friend to a couple of the guys who write for them and when something happens with them, they ask me to help spread the word.

However, I am not sure how my relation to them is relevent. The fact is that they went way out of their way to go to D.C., and they spent months developing these 'informational packages' and hand delivered them at their own costs on behalf of the entire gambling community and they are now looking for help to make them more significant. I am not sure why this forum is so ungrateful for their help.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Milton, your reply was completely uncalled for imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This board has more [censored] than every other internet forum combined, in case you didn't notice

[/ QUOTE ]

Mild as mother's milk this envoironment is.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure why this forum is so ungrateful for their help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on there guy, one ass replying to your thread does not translate to the "forum" being ungrateful.

[eddytom]

[ QUOTE ]
Hold on there guy, one ass replying to your thread does not translate to the "forum" being ungrateful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Point taken. That was the only response I saw at the time, so I took it as representative of the entire forum.

[smoking blunt]

I have seen far less productive suggestions/actions posted on this forum that recieved much more attention.

Were there not discussions of sending "poker chips" to each member of congress? Well CGW took it quite a few steps further and more importantly followed through.

Good work.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Milton, not quite sure what the hell you are talking about. Here are some facts... "

Eddy, that is precisely what I am talking about .... giving some substance to your posts. Look at your original post in this thread, compare it to the facts you provide now, after your original post is mocked. Your factual post is 100% better, it describes something of substance, without the garbage about how "all" said the package was "strong".

I have no axe to grind and certainly wish your effort every success. However, as a rhetorical device, your original post was terrible, you are much more effective when you take the time to provide substance.

Don't you think an explanation of what was in this "package" would have been a good opener ?

[MiltonFriedman]

Roy, I thought it was worthwhile.

Do you want facts, even if they need to be painfully drawn out, or do you want "Gee-whiz, everyone says its great" ? Compare the OPs later posts to his initial pieces of puffery and petulance. He is 100% better at telling people WHY they should answer his call to action when he explains it.

Look, I hope he succeeds, but the initial puffery and subsequent petulance needed perhaps a firmer response than your opinion allows for. It seems to have worked in drawing out what NOW looks like a substantive effort by someone, whoever they are.

In my opinion, you should thank me for taking the time to get the ball rolling for this thread.

[MiltonFriedman]

Well. ktulu, it is a tough crowd, but it does actually act on posts which seem to have merit and substance.

Politics and legislation is a very critical arena. I will admit that calling the OP a crybaby was tough, but he was being one, instead of acting to garner support. I would suggest that he will be a more effective poster going forward in seeking action here.

This is a different arena than strategy forums or other discussions of poker substance.

[MiltonFriedman]

Hey, Socrates had to drink hemlock. That did not make him wrong or poorly written rhetoric right.

Post the facts, eddytom, it helps gain support for your cause and explain WHY people should anser your call.

(Rhetorically, it doesn't hurt either to have a little controversy to get noticed.)

[Eaglesfan1]

ok I think you beat the thing to death, lets get to making the calls.

[eddytom]

Milton, point taken. Your right, I am not very experienced at forums so I could have used the advice, and it is nice that the controversy got the thread rolling, so let's move on...

Here are some more 'facts'. Casino Gambling Web just released an article explaining that the most important people to call are those in the Financial Services Committee. Below is a link to the article, which includes all the Washington DC phone numbers of all the members of the Financial Services Committee who have not yet signed on to co-sponsor Frank's bill.

Actually, Ill just copy and paste that list...

[ QUOTE ]
Below is a list of all Democratic Congress people on the Financial Services Committee who have yet to sign on to co-sponsor Barney Frank's bill.



Paul E. Kanjorski 11th-PA ... 202-225-6511
Maxine Waters 35th-CA ... 202-225-2201
Maloney 14th-NY... 202-225.7944
Nydia M. Velázquez 12th-NY ... 202-225-2361
Brad Sherman 27th-CA ... 202-225-5911
Gregory Meeks 6th-NY ... 202-225-3461
Dennis Moore 3-KS ... 202-225-2865
Rubén Hinojosa 15th-TX ... 202-225-2531
Stephen Lynch 9th-MA ... 202-225-8273
Brad Miller 13th-NC ... 202-225-3032
David Scott 13th-GA ... 202-225-2939
Al Green 9th-TX ... 202-225-7508
Emanuel Cleaver 5th-MO ... 202-225-4535
Melissa Bean 8th-IL ... 202-225-3711
Gwen Moore 4th-WI ... 202-225-4572
Davis 4th-TN ... 202.225.6831
Albio Sires 13th-NJ ... 202-225-7919
Paul Hodes 2nd-NH ... 202-225-5206
Keith Ellison 5th-MN ... 202-225-4755
Ron Klein 22nd-FL ... 202-225-3026
Tim Mahoney 16th-FL ... 202-225-5792
Charlie Wilson 6th-OH ... 202-225-5705
Chris Murphy 5th-CT ... 202-225-4476
Joe Donnelly 2nd-IN ... 202-225-3915
Jim Marshall 8th-GA ... 202-225-6531
Dan Boren 2nd-OK ... 202-225-2701



Of the 32 Republicans listed as members of the Financial Services Committee, only 2 have signed on to co-sponsor Frank's Bill H.R. 2046. Those that have not yet, are listed below.



Spencer Bachus 6th-AL ... 202 225-4921
Richard Baker 6th-LA ... 202-225-3901
Deborah Pryce 15th-OH ... 202-225-2015
Mike Castle DE ... 202-225-4165
Ed Royce 40th-CA ... 202-225-4111
Frank Lucas 3rd-OK ... 202-225-5565
Steven LaTourette 14th-OH ... 202-225-5731
Don Manzullo 16th-IL ... 202-225-5676
Walter Jones 3rd-NC ... 202-225-3415
Judy Biggert 13th-IL ... 202-225-3515
Christopher Shays 4th-CT ... 202-225-5541
Gary Miller 42nd-CA ... 202-225-3201
Shelly Moore Capitol 2nd-WV ... 202-225-2711
Tom Feeney 24th-FL ... 202-225-2706
Jeb Hensarling 5th-TX ... 202-225-3484
Scott Garrett 5th-NJ ... 202-225-4465
Ginny Brown-Waite 5th-FL ... 202-225-1002
J. Gresham Barrett 3rd-SC ... 202-225-5301
Jim Gerlach 6th-PA ... 202-225-4315
Steve Pearce 2nd-NM ... 202-225-2365
Randy Neugebauer 19th-TX ... 202-225-4005
Tom Price 6th-GA ... 202-225-4501
Geoff Davis 4th-KY ... 202-225-3465
Patrick McHenry 10th-NC ... 202-225-2576
John Campbell 48th-CA ... 202-225-5611
Adam Putnam 12th-FL ... 202-225-1252
Michele Bachmann 6th-MN ... 202-225-2331
Peter Roskam 6th-IL ... 202-225-4561
Kenny Marchant 24th-TX ... 202-225-6605
Thaddeus McCotter 11th-MI ... 202-225-8171


[/ QUOTE ]

Full CGW Article (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/internet_gambling_needs_regulation_time_to_call_co ngress_again_46926.html)

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't 'work' for cgw, but I am a close friend to a couple of the guys who write for them and when something happens with them, they ask me to help spread the word.

However, I am not sure how my relation to them is relevent. The fact is that they went way out of their way to go to D.C., and they spent months developing these 'informational packages' and hand delivered them at their own costs on behalf of the entire gambling community and they are now looking for help to make them more significant. I am not sure why this forum is so ungrateful for their help.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm not ungrateful just a little perpexled of this campaign. i will admit though that every little bit helps.

about this groups latest campaign: i don't see how spamming congress with misc. casino gambling papers is going to persuade anyone in congress. it's like getting spam in your email box of stuff you're not interested in--it gets tossed away. from the article itself this group didn't even speak to a single member of congress. hopefully this group has more up its sleeve and will engage in more effective means in lobbying congress.

[eddytom]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not ungrateful just a little perpexled of this campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little perplexed at this statement. CGW said when they started their petition that it would be hand delivered to each member of congress. That is what this was, CGW representatives hand deliverying the petition to every member of congress. Each representative received a unique packet of papers personally addressed to them, featuring specific signatures and comments from signers in their state. Each packet was hand signed by an American voter with contact information in order to keep it from seeming 'spam-like'. It also keeps it from being 'spam' if people call and say they support the packet.

You guys are unbelievable, this will be the last time I post here, I can't believe I am spending my time defending the actions of a group who has nothing but the interests of the American people in mind. But I guess you guys can spend your time debating the real reasons why CGW would do this, instead of just saying thank you for their hard work and moving on.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are unbelievable, this will be the last time I post here, I can't believe I am spending my time defending the actions of a group who has nothing but the interests of the American people in mind. But I guess you guys can spend your time debating the real reasons why CGW would do this, instead of just saying thank you for their hard work and moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why don't you search for and read the posts of the former poster known as "nrog" (no quotes in search). You and CSW are obviously cousins of his. N00b account shows up and claims they are saving online poker and everyone here should line up to kiss your ass. Then when being a total unknown with unverifiable claims you get no cred, you act hurt and tell us to [censored] ourselves and deny us the pleasure of donating funds to your organization (ask the guys here or on P5s who got scammed into donating to nrog whether they still think they were suckers or not).

So Cya and good riddance. If you're not a scam then you are just a representative of a narrow interest in online gaming that isn't much in accord with our interests (because the cause of poker gets hurt in current political enviro by *any* association with sports betting or casino interests).

[Tuff_Fish]

Holy Moses!

I read the OP and saw absolutely nothing wrong. I reread it and still see little to complain about.

Some of you just want to pi$$ on the boots of anyone who is not of your exact mindset.

If you don't like the way someone is doing things, DO IT YOURSELF, and do it better.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Tuff

ps I didn't read the links, just the OP. Still haven't read the links and still don't see anything wrong.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I can't believe I am spending my time defending the actions of a group who has nothing but the interests of the American people in mind. "

Okay, sorry. I had thought you might be realistic enough to understand that you need to bring facts, not hype here if you want serious assistance or credibility.

However, CWG has "nothing but the interests of the American people in mind". Good for them. I otherwise might have thought they had web-based gambling entities interests in mind. (THAT would have been a welcome message, go forth and do good.)

[MiltonFriedman]

The only thing "wrong" was the complete lack of any substance and a puffed out reliance upon "Gee-whiz, everybody says it is a strong move". He later posted something more, explaining what this "package" was, which I thought was pretty good.

Tuff, you took the bull by the horns in California. Good for you. What this OP did was ask for support of something without any facts about what this "Initiative" was. He did not say, hey support Frank Bill or the Wexler Bill, but instead "Support what CGW did", without bothering to explain what it was.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Holy Moses!

I read the OP and saw absolutely nothing wrong. I reread it and still see little to complain about.

Some of you just want to pi$$ on the boots of anyone who is not of your exact mindset.

If you don't like the way someone is doing things, DO IT YOURSELF, and do it better.



[/ QUOTE ]

For once I agree with you Tuff.

[Merkle]

I have been following this forum daily (actually several times a day) for months now. Yet I am disappointed at the reception of what to me appears positive action and actual initiative. I thought the link he pasted explained quite adequately what was delivered and who too. The request for the poker community to "follow up" their hand delivery with phone calls was not unreasonable and is very sensible. It isn't like they said "please send your entire wallet or signed blank checks to ABC for promoting online gaming".

His request should have been incorporated into TE's weekly action plan. Just like many of us did follow up calls and letters to NFL and their sponsers when the issue was hot. When you couple this physical approach to the congressman with the timely articles about WTO last week, then yes, it is a good time for follow up calls and extra effort to remind them we are watching and we do care.

If I want to build a fence to enclose my pool and my neighbor approaches me about sharing the costs of a fence to enclose his dog. Should I refuse his offer because we don'thave the same reason??

[BluffTHIS!]

Merkle,

The problem is that the interests of legalizing poker are harmed very much by allying ourselves to online sports betting and/or casino interests. So even if this initiative is legit, it still amounts to asking poker to make such an alliance, where poker gains *nothing* and instead *is harmed*. If you have been reading this forum for long enough, you would know this.

I want to note as I have before, that I do not oppose those forms of gambling, and in fact *after* poker were legalized fully and openly online would give my backing to it. It is just that we cannot in the current political environment put the sports/casino gaming albatross around our collective necks lest we DOOM our cause.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been following this forum daily (actually several times a day) for months now. Yet I am disappointed at the reception of what to me appears positive action and actual initiative. I thought the link he pasted explained quite adequately what was delivered and who too. The request for the poker community to "follow up" their hand delivery with phone calls was not unreasonable and is very sensible. It isn't like they said "please send your entire wallet or signed blank checks to ABC for promoting online gaming".

His request should have been incorporated into TE's weekly action plan. Just like many of us did follow up calls and letters to NFL and their sponsers when the issue was hot. When you couple this physical approach to the congressman with the timely articles about WTO last week, then yes, it is a good time for follow up calls and extra effort to remind them we are watching and we do care.

If I want to build a fence to enclose my pool and my neighbor approaches me about sharing the costs of a fence to enclose his dog. Should I refuse his offer because we don'thave the same reason??

[/ QUOTE ]

His initial request WAS part of my action thread, for some time. Not only that....I x-posted it to all the threads on 2p2. The requested follow-on action will also be part of the next update.

If you all don't recall, this is that e-petition we all signed in response to a FoF action warning about this very delivery. CGW promised to hand-deliver the packets to each member of Congress both here and at www.casinogamingweb.com (http://www.casinogamingweb.com) , so I imagine he didn't think he had to describe it all over again.

Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Merkle,

The problem is that the interests of legalizing poker are harmed very much by allying ourselves to online sports betting and/or casino interests. So even if this initiative is legit, it still amounts to asking poker to make such an alliance, where poker gains *nothing* and instead *is harmed*. If you have been reading this forum for long enough, you would know this.

I want to note as I have before, that I do not oppose those forms of gambling, and in fact *after* poker were legalized fully and openly online would give my backing to it. It is just that we cannot in the current political environment put the sports/casino gaming albatross around our collective necks lest we DOOM our cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. While I agree our fight should be freestanding, how do others arguing against Internet gaming harm us? I welcome anyone who hates UIGEA to the fight.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

[cjk73]

Yup, is an informative and mostly well written forum. That said, there are clearly "rules and cliques". Too bad.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally (I don't speak for the PPA) think the poker lobby should be freestanding. In fact, I was careful to make sure our KY advocacy effort did not endorse casinos or games of chance....it's poker only. Still, anyone against UIGEA is a friend of mine.

I think you overestimate the abilities of congressmen to discriminate between poker and roulette. Are you suggesting we should oppose IGREA on similar grounds?

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

[jlkrusty]

Here's a couple of options of how we could respond to the original post:

Option #1: "Your original post sounds interesting. But, before calling my Congressman, I'd like some more information about this. For example, can you give us details about what exactly was in the packet and how it was delivered? Also, more detail on which aids, lawyers, and company presidents endorsed this packet would be helpful."

Option #2: "Since your original post left out information, I am going to tear you to pieces. I hope you enjoy me ripping you a new one--I know I will."

I dunno. Which option do you think is better? With so much infighting among us, it's no wonder that it is so difficult to rally together. OP wasn't asking us to send money afterall. He was just asking we call our congressman. I know that OP's original post made some overly broad statements, but I think there is a good way to ask for more information and a bad way.

So, EddyTom, please don't give up. This is a big forum, with a wide range of opinions. One person's statements do not reflect how all of us feel. A lot of us do support your efforts.

However, please understand that scammers have come on here in the past. So, try not to judge us to harshly either over what may be overreaction.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you stay on board, many of us will help by calling congressmen, etc. I wonder if you could send us a link containing at least some scans of what was actually in the packet. Seeing what the congressmen actually got would be helpful to me.

[Merkle]

I'll go on record Bluff as saying I see a BIG difference between casino games and poker. I will NEVER play casino backed games as I am not a gambler. I am a games player (chess, backgammon, poker, bridge, canasta etc...) Money is not only a way you keep score in poker and backgammon but it is a weapon in the form of the timely raise or offer of a doubling cube. And there is no effective way to play either one without money being on the line.

That said, I appreciate any help and efforts to rectify the disaster from last years law. If I honestly saw Wexlers bill moving ahead then perhaps we could reject the offers of CGW and others. But at this time, whether we like it or not we are in the same boat. But I think it will be the casinos themselves who get this reversed in the long run.

P.S.
I sincerely hope that in the long run poker is recognized as a game of skill for legal and tax reasons. Nothing says that can't be the ultimate goal, but shouldn't the immediate goal be to start playing again without ridicouls barriers to transferring our money?

[BluffTHIS!]

Merkle,

Your post above shows you are a proud poker player who isn't a negative EV gambling sucker. However you still need to be able to spot -EV prop bets when you see them, which is what CGW and the sports betting interests are offering us. No matter how much help our cause needs, we still come out with even less of a chance of success if we take that sucker bet and ally with those interests. Our gas tank may be perilously close to the empty mark, but adding casino/sports additives is only being suckered into pouring sugar water into the tank. It not only won't help but will cause the engine to fail before all the gas is truly gone.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we're basically in agreement there. I don't want to entangle poker and -EV gambling.

As for CGW, we have a common interest in opposing UIGEA. They set up an online petition against UIGEA. I posted something here about it. They posted here thanking us for the help. Most of us here signed it. And, they delivered packets as promised. Sounds very cool to me. Also, IGREA includes them and us, so their folks and our folks are likely lobbying Congress the same way. Common work when we have common ground while maintaining independence.

[Merkle]

Bluff,

I frequently agree with or at least pause to think about what you have said. I will do that in this situation. I hope you are correct about separating poker and gambling. Just not sure we can win anytime soon without mutually supporting each other.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff,

I frequently agree with or at least pause to think about what you have said. I will do that in this situation. I hope you are correct about separating poker and gambling. Just not sure we can win anytime soon without mutually supporting each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can be separate while supporting the same stuff. We all want to overturn UGIEA, for example. Then, when our interests diverge, we diverge. I'm sure they don't expect us to support lumping sports betting and poker into one bundle, for example, and we don't expect them to support the Wexler bill.

[BluffTHIS!]

Merkle,

The way to see the political truth of what I wrote, is to see how many opponents each form of gambling have, and how adamant those opponents are to the various forms. Even former Rep. Goodlatte said that the arguments of poker players were somewhat relevant. Sports betting has the strongest and most entrenched opposition, and casino gambling comes after that. The main reason casino gambling is ahead of poker in opposition, apart from the obvious skill aspect, is that those online casinos aren't mere facilitators of the games who have no vested interest in the outcome. While they *shouldn't* rig any game where they are destined to win in the long run against suckers who gamble on -EV forms, there is nothing to stop them and in fact they can up their own EV by doing so. And there have been more shady casino sites than shady poker only sites that have come and gone.

To use another analogy, if you are getting bullied by a particular group, how much does it help you to ally with another target of those bullies who can't fight a lick? All it does is expose yourself to even more abuse.

[Uglyowl]

Eddytom, people just don't show up on here and get immediate love and applause. You are only a screen name. It takes time to establish yourself here. If you are serious, then stay onboard and I am sure you will do fine. Oh yeah, and from what I have seen you need some thicker skin.

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm not ungrateful just a little perpexled of this campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little perplexed at this statement. CGW said when they started their petition that it would be hand delivered to each member of congress. That is what this was, CGW representatives hand deliverying the petition to every member of congress. Each representative received a unique packet of papers personally addressed to them, featuring specific signatures and comments from signers in their state. Each packet was hand signed by an American voter with contact information in order to keep it from seeming 'spam-like'. It also keeps it from being 'spam' if people call and say they support the packet.

You guys are unbelievable, this will be the last time I post here, I can't believe I am spending my time defending the actions of a group who has nothing but the interests of the American people in mind. But I guess you guys can spend your time debating the real reasons why CGW would do this, instead of just saying thank you for their hard work and moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. someone is made of glass. but seriously, as i said before, every little helps/counts. i'm just not going to fall over in support and be grateful (as you seem to want) for a group i've never heard of and whose lobbying of congress i find ineffectual. i'm entitled to my own opinion. sorry you won't engage in meaningful conversation.

[eddytom]

Okay, sorry everyone for not writing sooner, I do see this thread has 'blown up' and there has been much debate going on. Meanwhile, I have been talking extensively all day with my friends at CGW and they gave me permission to publish here the '10 reasons' portion of the packet that their reps delivered. I was also told to be sure to clarify a couple of things... this is from them...

1) Casino Gambling Web began 'The IGREA Initiative' on behalf of the American people. We are not representing poker interests, casino interests, or sports interests, we are representing the will of the American people who want the UIGEA to be repealed.

No where in the packet or CD that was delivered will a congress person find the name Casino Gambling Web mentioned, as this was meant to be a packet delivered by the American people, not a gambling interest.

2) Casino Gambling Web is in NO WAY connected to sportsbooks or sports interests. We cover news related to gambling, including sports, poker, casino, brick and mortar casino, etc. No where in the packet of papers is sports even mentioned, other than to say that major sports leagues are one of the two groups who oppose gambling legalization.

3) Our stance, if it is not simply to gain a freedom back, is that regulations must be put in place in order to protect problem gamblers, underage gamblers, fraud, and other negative activities.

.................


They also told me to link to their latest article which explains in detail what 'The IGREA Initiative' is exactly.

Here is that link... (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/the_igrea_initiative_encourages_the_repeal_of_the_ uigea_46957.html)

Below is the 10 Reasons part of their packet...


[ QUOTE ]
The IGREA Initiative – September 12, 2007


Here are 10 reasons why you should not only repeal the UIGEA, but sign up to co-sponsor Congressman Frank’s Bill H.R. 2046 (aka the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, aka the IGREA) which legalizes and regulates Internet gambling…


1. Quite simply, the UIGEA is a form of Prohibition that has been proven ineffective. More than 25 million Americans gamble online each year. Attempting to prevent 25 million voting citizens from doing something they enjoy to protect the few who abuse the freedom is Prohibition and quite frankly not that smart for politicians who wish to remain in their voters favor.


”Do not underestimate the power of voters who all of a sudden are paying attention to politics because one of their favorite hobbies was taken from them,” said Sid Johnson, a US voter.


“The existing legislation is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans and this interference should be undone,” said Congressman Barney Frank.


2. By making internet gambling illegal while carving out exceptions for the horse racing industry and state run lotteries the US, via the UIGEA, is breaking a World Trade Organization ruling. By defying the WTO ruling, in favor of the island nation of Antigua, the rest of the world will lose respect for future decisions in US’ favor.


“A WTO panel ruled against the United States in 2004, and its appellate body upheld that decision one year later. In March of 2007, the organization upheld that ruling for a second time and declared Washington out of compliance with its rules,” said a New York Times article.


“One day they’re out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn’t respect WTO decisions, but then the next day there is a dispute that doesn’t go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don’t know what they are doing, why should we comply?” the article continues.


Repealing this law will be instrumental to the survival of the World Trade Organization.


3. We must protect underage citizens and problem gamblers in America. By banning Internet gambling it does not stop online gambling sites from existing, rather it stops us from knowing what those sites are doing. There are proven effective methods for protecting kids from gambling online, and there are means to protect problem gamblers, too. We must protect our citizens by regulating, not banning. There are also safeguards available to protect against money laundering and fraud.


“Clearly gambling on the Internet raises some difficult issues, but it provides theoretical opportunities for operators to deliver responsible gaming programs that meet or exceed current standards in the ‘bricks and mortar’ gaming industry,” said Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.


“The only circumstance in which crime can flourish is if the activity is unregulated,” said Clive Hawkswood from the Remote Gambling Association.


“The main areas of risk are criminal infiltration, fraud, and money laundering, however, despite statements made by opponents of online gambling there is no evidence that this sector is more prone to criminal activity than any other,” said Mr. Hawkswood.


“Thankfully, again despite claims to the contrary, online gambling provides many opportunities to put in place protections that are not there in all traditional gambling environments.”


“While technology may be perceived by some as a threat, the truth is that when it comes to combating crime and problem gambling it offers a whole range of additional solutions and protections,” Mr. Hawkswood continued in his sworn testimony.


“Despite the purported illegality of Internet gambling, millions of Americans continue to gamble online, but without uniform regulatory structures that protect against fraud, underage gambling, problem gambling, money laundering or other financial crimes,” said Frank Catania in his sworn testimony to the Financial Services Committee.


The opponents of Internet gambling, in their opinions, state that the industry must be banned to protect underage gamblers, to protect problem gamblers, to keep fraud and money laundering out of our land. Proponents of Internet gambling would like to achieve the same goals, they just have facts that say they can more effectively achieve them through regulation. The following is a quote from the conclusion of an extensive international study on the effects of problem gambling and is a key fact on this issue…


“If a jurisdiction introduces new forms of gambling and does nothing else it will most likely experience an increase in the incidence of problem gambling. However, if the jurisdiction combines the introduction of new forms of gambling especially with an effective public awareness campaign about the dangers of gambling and how to avoid them, it is likely to experience a decrease in problem gambling numbers and even in the numbers of people who gamble regularly as well.”


4. Money. The American online gambling industry is a 12 billion dollar a year industry and it is growing exponentially. American casinos are going up all over the country and the effects on the cities where they have been built have been that of revitalization. If America regulates and taxes this industry there will be billions of extra federal tax dollars that could go to fund problem gambling programs, amongst a vast majority of other federal programs.


5. The United Kingdom, America’s closest ally, has completely legalized and regulated Internet gambling. They have successfully instituted strict regulations that all operators must abide by. Operators are mandated to provide only the most secure betting platform that is resistant to the allowance of underage gambling. Problem gambling resources have been instituted using the funds from the tax money. Advertising regulations have been put in place. The UK, along with Italy, Spain, South Africa, and a large host of other nations across the world, have embraced the industry as a reality of the 21st century. It is time American does too.


In addition, “The illegality of Internet gambling in the United State effectively disables legitimate American gaming companies from engaging in a profitable activity which has found wide spread acceptance in the rest of the world,” said Mr. Catania, former New Jersey regulator in his sworn testimony to the Financial Services Committee.


6. Hypocrisy. 48 of 50 states host some form of legalized gambling. Casinos are being built all over the country. One study suggests that no matter where you are in the country you are only a two hour drive to a casino. Individual state governments run lotteries, which are proven to be the most addictive form of gambling, and they advertise them heavily. It is simply hypocritical to legalize gambling all over the country, then make it illegal on the Internet.


7. A Bill has already been proposed in the US House of Representatives that would legalize and regulate the online gambling industry. The Bill was proposed by Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and is titled H.R. 2046. There has already been a full hearing in front of the Financial Services Committee debating whether there are current and proper regulations that can be implemented in the industry. The hearing testimony includes both proponent and opponent views. After reading all of the testimony one can only logically conclude that the future is that of regulation.


8. The legalization of Internet gambling is a bi-partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have already signed on to co-sponsor Bill H.R. 2046. One of the only groups against the legalization of Internet gambling are the right wing religious conservatives who claim that legalization will lead to an explosion of underage gamblers while opening up the wounds for problem gamblers. However, the Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling has said the exact opposite is true. Study after study has proven that regulation is the answer for the people who worry about the perils of gambling.


Major sports leagues are also against the legalization of Internet gambling, however, they do not realize that in Barney Frank’s Bill H.R. 2046 there are caveats that would allow any sport league to opt out of allowing bets on their games. However, this may be seen as a violation of a WTO ruling since betting on sports is legal in Las Vegas and via the lottery in Oregon. This is one issue that needs to be debated before the bill is passed. In the UK, betting on sports is legal, however, any participant in a sporting event who is found guilty of corruption gets an automatic two years in prison. They provide strict regulations in order to ‘maintain the integrity of the game’.


9. This is not a new industry that needs more studying. Harvard University has done an extensive study on Internet gambling and found that 0.4% of the 40,000 online gamblers they studied developed gambling problems. A South African study found that problem gambling actually went down in areas where the expansion of gambling occurred if public problem gambling programs were instituted simultenously.


The online gambling industry has been thriving since the late 1990’s. The software used by these online casinos is the most sophisticated on the Internet. Antigua, the Isle of Man, and other nations that regulate online casinos employ strict auditing techniques that keep the software operating fairly and accurately. The payout odds on slot and video poker games at online casinos are 10-15% better than the odds you will find at any Las Vegas casino.


Also, the stereotypes of this industry are just not true. The operators of these online casinos are not criminals and mob-type guys. They are run by business men and women who are of great standing in the corporate world. They run legitimate companies, some publicly traded in their world markets.


This industry was well regulated before interference of big countries like the UK and the US because each casino/poker room/sportsbook’s survival depended upon their good reputation. Any unscrupulous activity would have seen a betting site blacklisted in a flash and they would quickly go out of business. This led the industry to be one of the most honest in the world, with the best customer support in the world, etc., contrary to stereotypical beliefs.


10. Remember freedom? In the United States we cannot restrict adult citizens from doing something in the comfort of their own home that is harming no one. We must give adults the freedom of choice, encourage them to do what is responsible, and trust that our education system has prepared them to make intelligent decisions.


Please help keep the United States of America the land of the free!





Please see the enclosed CD to read the official testimony from the Financial Services Committee hearing on if regulating the Internet gambling industry is a viable option at this time. Also included on the CD is the full Repeal the UIGEA petition, the Harvard University study, the South African study, and more. If you take the time to read up on this issue, we (the 15-25 million Americans who gamble online every year) feel confident that you will come to the conclusion that Internet gambling must be legalized now.



Thank you for your time.




Sincerely,





(Name Hidden for Privacy) - On behalf of 25 Million American Citizens
Contact for further information: (Contact Information Hidden for Privacy)

[/ QUOTE ]

My friends at CGW explained everything EXTENSIVELY to me so if anyone has ANY questions please post and either I will answer them, or if I don't know the answer I will contact one of them at CGW and ask them and then get back to here.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Casino Gambling Web is in NO WAY connected to sportsbooks or sports interests. We cover news related to gambling, including sports, poker, casino, brick and mortar casino, etc. No where in the packet of papers is sports even mentioned, other than to say that major sports leagues are one of the two groups who oppose gambling legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is CGW connected to online casinos? In fact does it act as an affiliate for same?

If the answer to either or both questions is yes, which I'm sure it is, then see my earlier comments as to why poker is harmed by an open association with such casino interests.

[eddytom]

That may be true Bluff, however, the point is that the packet delivered has nothing to do with CGW. It was not signed by them, there is no reference to them, they were simply the creators of these packets which included thousands of comments from Americans who signed the petition to repeal the UIGEA, most of which commented about how poker should be legalized. I think this is a big portion of what everyone is misunderstanding here. They simply put the packet together. It was delivered by friends of theirs, not staff, just regular Americans who want freedom back.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Casino Gambling Web is in NO WAY connected to sportsbooks or sports interests. We cover news related to gambling, including sports, poker, casino, brick and mortar casino, etc. No where in the packet of papers is sports even mentioned, other than to say that major sports leagues are one of the two groups who oppose gambling legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]


Is CGW connected to online casinos? In fact does it act as an affiliate for same?

If the answer to either or both questions is yes, which I'm sure it is, then see my earlier comments as to why poker is harmed by an open association with such casino interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

A serious question if you will.

Lobbing is done by those with a vested interest. The ones with the biggest stakes in an issue tend to provide most of the financial resourses. Take the NRA for example, I'd imagine that a high portion of their at least seed money came from gun makers. Now this might have changed some as the group matured but is it still a fact? Did the NRA stop taking money from gun makers when they started getting sued? How about affiliates? Did the NRA ever stop any "influence" from anyone who makes money from the puschase, sale or advetising guns or hunting?

Are not some of these issues exactly the same?

D$D

[IndyFish]

Thank you. It is obvious that a lot of work went into this effort. I tend to agree with TheEngineer that, while getting poker exempted from the UIGEA is ideal, going against the UIGEA is a common cause shared by all. If no mention was made about casinos or CGW in the packet, then this is good for poker IMHO. I remember reading a LOT of the petition, and most was indeed about poker.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

...
...

Below is the 10 Reasons part of their packet...
...
...




[/ QUOTE ]

From what I see, these are the same arguments almost all of us have made in response to Barney Frank's bill and against the UIGEA.

So chill Bluff et al..

Sheesh, they delivered a well reasoned letter to the congress folks and you guys whine that they, gasp... /images/graemlins/shocked.gif ...might represent gambling interests.

And who else, pray tell, has the money, and willingness, to take on the cause of defeating the UIGEA.

Keep in mind a couple of things. Defeating the UIGEA is GOOD for poker players.

We can, and must, still pursue the "poker is skill" argument.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Tuff