Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/6 & 8/13
 

[ QUOTE ]
August 10, 2007

The Honorable .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Tweaked and sent to both senators.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/6 & 8/13
 

Got a reply from Frank Wolf (Rep-VA).

"Dear Mr. XXX"
Thank you for your recent email sharing your support for a "skilled game" exemption to Internet gambling laws. I appreciate your comments.

Internet gambling was addressed in the 109th Congress through the UIGEA of 2006 (H.R. 4411). Introduced by Rep. James Leach, the measure passed the House with my support by a bipartisan vote of 317-93 on July 11, 2006.

The Senate failed to take action on H.R. 4411 but the measure was added to the Safe Port Act (H.R. 4954) which became public law 109-347. There has been no additional legislation regulating internet gambling during the 110th congress.

While I regret that we disagree on this issue, please be assured that I value your opinion and appreciate your taking the time to contact me.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,


[censored] Wolf

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/6 & 8/13
 

posted the folowing on my GOP BUZZ Central with a link to your TownHall Blog entry Engineer.

obg



I am becoming more and more concerned this single issue, playing poker on the Internet, and our adamant stance opposing this is going to cause more harm to the GOP than any support the Rev. Dobson and Focus on the Family can deliver.
Witness this by reading this single blog entry, by a fellow republican. There are literally thousands of these posts and the legions are growing.

It may be time for a repositioning of our stance adopting the idea that we can best “protect” the American family by regulating this activity rather than banning it.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/6 & 8/13
 

[ QUOTE ]
Got a reply from Frank Wolf (Rep-VA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the heads-up. It's great to have written documentation of where these guys stand. I did have Wolf F-rated already, as he cosponsored HR 4777 and voted for HR 4411. So, with the note for sure we know where he stands.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 7/16
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness sent a letter to several government officials concerning UIGEA regulatory burdens. It's at http://www.thecre.com/pdf/McInerney_Letter.pdf . The points brought up in the analysis may be good for us to use in our letters and in our comments on the proposed regulations (once they are released, starting the comment period.

Some points:

There is strong evidence that a substantial number of credit card issuers are small businesses.

Census Bureau data strongly suggests that a substantial number small companies are in engaged in financial transaction processing services.

Small, innovative American technology companies will be directly and/or indirectly impacted by the rule.

The rule will place significant direct and indirect burdens on a substantial number of small entities, potentially altering the competitive situation in financial transactions industries and leading to further consolidations in already highly concentrated industries.

The letter also contains a number of people to whom we may consider writing, including:

Ms. Roberta K. McInerney
Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance
Room 2304
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20220

The Honorable Robert J. Portman, Director, The Office of Management and Budget

The Honorable Thomas M. Sullivan, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration

Mr. Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Mr. Peter A. Bieger, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Banking and Finance

Dennis W. Carlton, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the UIGEA regs, please don't forget about the Regulatory Flexibility Act issue I shared with you all last month. Hopefully we'll include this in our letters. The longer we can delay the regs, the better off we'll be. Too bad we can't get this delay beyond Jan. 20, 2009 (but we can try, right?).

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 7/16
 

Here's the "Sports Coalition's" letter against Internet gaming (the other FoF letter that I mentioned). It's at www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gambling/08-02-07_Sports_Assn_Letter%20Congress7-30-07.pdf . I'm going to write to Congress (my rep and both senators) to express my displeasure. Will everyone join me?

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

July 30, 2007

Dear Member of Congress:

Sports betting is incompatible with preserving the integrity of American athletics. For many decades, we have actively enforced strong policies against sports betting. And the law on this point is consistent. Federal statutes bar sports betting, especially the 1961 Wire Act and the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. Enforcement of these laws against sports betting was also a significant motive for enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

Accordingly, we urge you to reject current proposals to legalize Internet gambling, such as H.R.2046 sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank. This legislation reverses federal policy on sports betting and would for the first time give such gambling Congressional consent. The bill sends exactly the wrong message to the public about sports gambling and threatens to undermine the integrity of American sports.

On a related point, we believe the Congress should not consider any liberalization of Internet gambling until the U.S. Trade Representative successfully resolves our trade disputes in this area. A rush to judgment on this subject could result in irreversible damage to U.S. sovereignty in the area of gambling regulation, including the capacity to prohibit sports bets.

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 Congress enacted UIGEA last fall. UIGEA emerged from more than a decade of Congressional consideration, in which stand-alone legislation aimed at restricting Internet gambling passed either the Senate or the House in each of five successive Congresses, each time by overwhelming bi-partisan votes. UIGEA also enjoyed a broad array of supporters, including 49 state Attorneys General and other law enforcement associations, several major financial institutions and technology companies, dozens of religious and family organizations, and of course our sports organizations.

Enactment of UIGEA was grounded on concerns about addictive, compulsive, and underage Internet gambling, unlawful sports betting, potential criminal activity, and the wholesale evasion of federal and state laws. When it passed the House a year ago, the vote was 317-93, including majorities of both caucuses and with the affirmative votes of both party leaders.

The final product was a law that did not change the legality of any gambling activity – it simply gave law enforcement new, effective tools for enforcing existing state and federal gambling laws. UIGEA and its predecessor bills could attract such consensus because they adhered to this principle: whether you think gambling liberalization is a bad idea or a good one, the policy judgments of State legislatures and Congress must be respected, not de facto repealed by deliberate evasion of the law by offshore entities via the Internet.

By contrast, H.R. 2046 would put the Treasury Department in charge of issuing licenses to Internet gambling operators, who would then be immunized from prosecution or liability under any Federal or State law that prohibits what the Frank bill permits. The bill would tear apart the fabric of American gambling regulation. By overriding in one stroke dozens of Federal and State gambling laws, this would amount to the greatest expansion of legalized gambling ever enacted.

This legislation contains an “opt-out” that appears to permit individual leagues to prohibit gambling on their sports. But regardless of the “opt-out,” the bill breaks terrible new ground, because Congress would for the first time sanction sports betting. That is reason enough to oppose it. In addition, 2 the bill’s safeguard opt-out for sports leagues as well as the one for states may well prove illusory and ineffectual. They will be subject to legal challenge before U.S. courts and the World Trade Organization.

In addition, this legislation would dramatically complicate current trade negotiations concerning gambling. In 1994, the United States signed the General Agreement on Trade in Services, which included a commitment to free trade in “other recreational services.” In subsequent WTO proceedings, the United States has claimed this commitment never included gambling services. The United States has noted that any such “commitment” would contradict a host of federal and state laws that regulate and restrict gambling. The WTO has not accepted this argument.

Accordingly, the U.S. Trade Representative has initiated negotiations to withdraw gambling from U.S. GATS commitments. Before withdrawal can be finalized, agreement must be reached on trade concessions with interested trading partners. Few concessions should be required because there was never a legal market in Internet gambling in the U.S. If Congress creates a legal market before withdrawal is complete, the withdrawal will become much more complicated and costly. Therefore, we oppose any legislation that would imperil the withdrawal process.

Finally, we have heard the argument that Internet gambling can actually protect the integrity of sports because of the alleged capacity to monitor gambling patterns more closely in a legalized environment. This argument is generally asserted by those who would profit from legalized gambling and the same point was raised in 1992 when PASPA was enacted. Congress dismissed it then and should dismiss it now. The harms caused by government endorsement of sports betting far exceed the alleged benefits.

H.R. 2046 sets aside decades of federal precedent to legalize sports betting and exposes American gambling laws to continuing jeopardy in the WTO. We strongly urge that you oppose it. Thank you for considering our views on this matter.

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

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 7/16
 

August 13, 2007

Roger Goodell
Commissioner
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Gene Upshaw
Executive Director
NFL Players Association
1133 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Commissioner Goodell and Mr. Upshaw:

I am writing to express my anger and disappointment at the National Football League’s very vocal advocacy of a ban on all Internet gaming (even non-sports betting). I fail to understand why your concerns over the honesty of your million-dollar players constitutes an “integrity issue” severe enough to necessitate restricting MY freedoms. Don’t forget, it’s the fans who make the league possible.

As a result of your work against my liberty, I’ll definitely watch less NFL football from now on. I’ll also be less likely to patronize your sponsors, especially Anheuser-Busch, to whom I wrote as well.

I urge you to reconsider your advocacy of what many of us are calling “Prohibition 2.0". It’s a loser for America and a loser for freedom.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 7/16
 

http://www.nfl.com/help/emailtech

Commissioner Roger Goodell
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Sir,

I must say I am quit disappointed in your alliance with Focus on the Family and your opposition to the Barney Frank’s proposed Internet Gambling Legislation.

I can and do appreciate your position concerning Football and your right to oppose sports betting.
I appreciate your right to forbid NFL players from betting or engaging in betting.

I do NOT appreciate this position however when you openly support fantasy football, allowing we fans to draft our own team to ‘GAMBLE’ on to win prizes.

I do NOT appreciate your opposition to my being allowed to play cards on the Internet. It is not your nor anyone else’s place to determine what I do in my spare time.

Let me make a simple analogy for you between a football season and a poker tournament.

Your players and teams play the regular season hoping for the brass ring of the playoffs where they earn ‘extra’ money above and beyond the enormous salaries they are paid with the hope in the end to be crowned champion and get the gold ring.

A poker tournament is much the same; our ‘season’ is played to reach the money by beating out others to make the playoffs. Our ‘playoffs’ begin when enough players are eliminated and the bonus money level is reached. Each level of the ‘money / playoffs’ we advance to we earn more. In the end a champion is crowned and rather than the ‘brass’ ring we get the gold, we are champion in much the same way as a ‘Super Bowl’ champion is crowned.

In closing as a fan I would appreciate you making a distinction between your anti-sports betting stance and my playing cards.

A WV Fan,

XXXXXXXX

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 7/16
 

August 13, 2007

Mr. August A. Busch IV
President and Chief Executive Officer
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118

Dear Mr. Busch:

I am writing to express my anger and disappointment at the National Football League’s very vocal advocacy of a ban on all Internet gaming (even non-sports betting such as poker). I fail to understand why their concerns over the honesty of their million-dollar players constitutes an “integrity issue” severe enough to necessitate restricting MY freedoms. Seems they should have enough resources to maintain their integrity without infringing on my liberty. It seems they forget that it’s the fans who make the league possible.

As a result of their work against my liberty, I’ll definitely watch less NFL football from now on. I’ll also be less likely to patronize sponsors who remain silent in the face of this affront to liberty. Will Anheuser-Busch support freedom, or will you support Prohibition 2.0?

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/20 & 8/27
 

Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 8/20 & 8/27

<font color="brown"><u>Summary of Actions:</u>
- Write to the NFL, their sponsors, and Congress (senators and rep) to complain about the NFL’s advocacy of a ban for all Internet gaming (which goes beyond sports betting and beyond even UIGEA).
- Nationalize the 2007 KY gubernatorial election. It’s being waged and a fight between the right to gamble and prohibition based on family values (which makes it our fight).</font>

Ongoing advocacy:
1. Regularly contact Congress.
1a. Send Congress your opinion of the 8/1 FoF letter at FoF Letter.
1b. Write to Congress (your senators and your rep) to ask for their support and to ask where they stand on Internet gaming. Reference the Congressmen For and Against Online Gambling article in the letter.
2. Write to Treasury and DOJ officials AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK to request the minimum possible UIGEA regulations.
3. Contact your governor and to your state representatives.
4. Write to newspapers and post to blogs.

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

- Let’s all write to the NFL, their sponsors, and Congress (senators and rep) to complain about the NFL’s advocacy of a ban for all Internet gaming (beyond sports betting, and beyond even UIGEA). Their letter to Congress is at Sports Coalition Letter. It seems they’ve actually partnered with Focus on the Family to work to take OUR rights from us, rather than figuring out how to develop internal policies and procedures to deal with sports betting. After all, they have the financial resources to control their own integrity. It’s time they enter the 21st century, rather than trying to take the nation back to the prohibition mentality of the early 20th century.

Some contacts:

Commissioner Roger Goodell
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Gene Upshaw
Executive Director
NFL Players Association
1133 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Mr. August A. Busch IV
President and Chief Executive Officer
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118

PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577
(914) 253-2000

Mr. G. Richard Wagoner Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Directors
General Motors Corporation
300 Renaissance Center
Detroit, Michigan 48265


- Nationalize the 2007 KY gubernatorial election. It’s being waged and a fight between the right to gamble and prohibition based on family values (which makes it our fight). The pro-gaming candidate is the heavy favorite. Additionally, the fact that it’s off year adds to the visibility of the election (and to the effort we and others can devote to it). And, we can leverage the results against Sen. McConnell [R-KY], who’s running in 2008. This election will set the tone for the national elections of 2008, so let’s do our part.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher [R], the incumbent, has been under the cloud of scandal for the past eighteen months. He was indicted for rewarding political supporters with state jobs. Fletcher made a deal with the prosecutor’s office to get the charges dropped, then pardoned his entire administration. As a result, while he did win the primary, he’s way down in the polls.

Steve Beshear [D], the challenger, wants to pay for education reforms with casino profits. Many neighboring states, including Indiana, Illinois, and West Virginia, have casinos at which KY residents frequently play. Despite this, Fletcher has taken a hard line against casinos, saying they cause crime, divorce, and bankruptcy. “I don’t subscribe to Steve Beshear’s math and science program that teaches children only to count to 21,” Mr. Fletcher said. Basically, Fletcher has decided to run as a pure social conservative.

So, I think we have an awesome opportunity to demonstrate what we can do. It seems we can write letters of support to Beshear and can contribute, even if only token amounts, to his campaign. Then, we can send photocopies of the donations to Sen. Mitch McConnell with an explanation of our beliefs in our freedoms. Then, once Beshear wins, we can lobby McConnell, claiming that the people of Kentucky have spoken in favor of allowing people to choose to play cards.

Latest poll:

Ernie Fletcher (R) - 36.7%
Steve Beshear (D) - 57.3%

Contact Info:

Steve Beshear / Daniel Mongiardo
PO BOX 4227
Frankfort, KY 40604
Email: info@stevebeshear.com
Tel: 502-607-8600
Fax: 502-607-8611

Governor Ernie Fletcher
700 Capital Avenue
Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601

Senator Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

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

Ongoing efforts:

1a. Let’s all write and call Congress (senators and rep) to ask for their support and for their stand on Internet gaming. Reference the Congressmen For and Against Online Gambling article in the letter. [/b]Consider stating that you’ll vote based on the letter and inform them that you hope their rating improves by Election Day. This will help the congressmen see tangible evidence of our work, and it will show the senators what to expect. For many representatives, Googling “[their name] gambling” returns this article at #1, so that may be worth mentioning. Once done, please let me know if you receive a response, so I can update the report accordingly. I hope we can get rid of most of the question marks.


1b. Continue to contact your senators and representative. <u>Let’s call and send snail mail at least once every four to six weeks</u>. Let’s email at least once per week or biweekly. Some of these may be carbon copies of letters to others (like the USTR, Frank, FoF, etc).

We have many issues, so we can focus on one item for each letter while rotating. It does not matter to our movement which items you choose; any communication against attempts to ban online gambling at the federal level work in our favor. After all, if IGREA fails due to lack of public support, it’s not like the media will report that people disagreed with giving power to the FinCEN or to issues relating to shutting out foreign operators. They’ll report, “Frank’s Attempt to End Online Gambling Ban (as if there is such a thing, but the media don’t care) Fails to Draw Public Support”. Our opponents will say, "see, Americans are happy we’re 'protecting the public'". If Wexler’s bill fails, the media won’t report that some felt it legitimized UIGEA. They’ll report that Americans didn’t even wish to legalize poker. This year, we’re all about generating support for our general position, which is that online gaming should not be prohibited. Let’s focus there. So, here are some issues we can rotate:

- Antigua’s WTO case
- IGREA
- Hypocrisy of existing legal online gaming (games of skill, horseracing, etc)
- Wexler’s bill: H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act
- Praise for the 6/8 hearing. www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml; webcast archived at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx
- Shelley Berkley's study bill


2. Write to Treasury and DOJ officials AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK to request the minimum possible UIGEA regulations. We should contact Steven D. Laughton (the UIGEA Treasury Dept. focal point), Roberta McInerney (Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance), Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. The regs were supposed to be out by now...the fact they they are not is probably good for us. I think a big push here on our part could really pay off.

Let's ask them not to exceed the specific mandates of UIGEA when drafting legislation. Let's ask them to exclude all ACH transactions (too burdensome for banks to filter). Also, remind them that online poker is not illegal under any federal law. We should ask them to require unambiguous state laws, so banks aren't in the position of trying to interpret state laws that may or may not apply to Internet gaming. Finally, there should be no "site blacklists".

Contact info:

Steven D. Laughton
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Banking and Finance)
Room 2027B,1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington,DC 20220
Phone: (202) 622-8413
Email: steven.laughton@do.treas.gov

Ms. Roberta K. McInerney
Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance
Room 2304
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20220

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

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

The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D. C. 20551
http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm

Others:

Pres. Bush: comments@whitehouse.gov
Your senators: www.senate.gov
Your representative: www.house.gov
Republican National Committee: Chairman@gop.com
Democratic National Committee: www.democrats.org/contact.html
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm


3. Contact your governor and state representative. Congress won't pass anything that forces states to legalize gambling, so we ought to get the ball rolling at that level.


4. Now that we have bills progressing, we should try to work on advocating for the legislation. Let's write to newspapers, magazines, post to blogs, etc. Since we proved our position in the 6/8 House hearing, let's post the link to the hearing webcast wherever we can.

Letters to the editor, Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Letters to the editor, New York Times: letters@nytimes.com

Thanks everyone! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]