Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/18
 

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

Dear Secretary Paulson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

I am not sure where to post, so this thread looks good.

I sent my Congressman, the "Honorable" Chris Shays of CT the form letter found through PPA, and of course added some of my own verbiage to the letter. Shays basically said he supported UIGEA and has always been against gambling. His argument was to protect children and the poor people that are hurt most by having gamboling problems.

His letter was sent to me in snail mail format. I suppose I could post it, but I am not sure how.

Not sure what else I can do here in CT. sorry if this was the wrong thread.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure where to post, so this thread looks good.

I sent my Congressman, the "Honorable" Chris Shays of CT the form letter found through PPA, and of course added some of my own verbiage to the letter. Shays basically said he supported UIGEA and has always been against gambling. His argument was to protect children and the poor people that are hurt most by having gamboling problems.

His letter was sent to me in snail mail format. I suppose I could post it, but I am not sure how.

Not sure what else I can do here in CT. sorry if this was the wrong thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the right thread. Thanks for taking the time to write. Although Shays isn't with us, he now knows one more of his constituents isn't with him. If he knows opposing Internet poker isn't "free", he may back off a bit if enough of us write and call. This is especially true of Northeastern Republicans like Shays, who are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

Chris is a Christian Scientist. Fortuately, he is actually in a vunerable district. Won by like 7 points, if I remember correctly, and it was alot more than we thought it would be. He will definitely be on the target list for this year again. I haven't been paying attention to CT, so I'm not sure who the potential candiates are, (though it won't be Diane again), but I'll take a look. There is a local gaming issue with potential Indian casinos in the district.

What we really need to do is to come up with a target list. People who are against us who are in vunerable districts. Then we will have to try to influence the challengers with endorsements/contributions. This is the type of thing I would be happy to help with, I just need to not be publicly out there, especially this cycle. Not to say I can't arrange a meeting with somebody if it makes sense, I just can't become the internet poker playing campaign manager. Sadly, after this thing passed, it would limit my ability to work for different candidates.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
What we really need to do is to come up with a target list. People who are against us who are in vunerable districts. Then we will have to try to influence the challengers with endorsements/contributions. This is the type of thing I would be happy to help with, I just need to not be publicly out there, especially this cycle. Not to say I can't arrange a meeting with somebody if it makes sense, I just can't become the internet poker playing campaign manager. Sadly, after this thing passed, it would limit my ability to work for different candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted an analysis of where we stand relative to geography and political parties on a different thread. I think we'll learn a lot more as IGREA progresses, as it will separate the die-hard gambling opponents like Kyl from the folks like Emanuel Cleaver and Peter King (both voted for UIGEA, but are with us on IGREA....they're not anti-gambing; they are anti-unregulated, offshore, untaxed Internet gambling). We'll obviously want to take aim at Goodlatte, Bachus, and Shays. We'll be adding to the list as time goes on.

Maybe we should start a list of folks who are against us no matter what, on a new thread.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

My point is that is that it is irrevalent if they oppose us if we cannot defeat them. We need to focus our efforts on a groups of not really more than twenty Congressional seats, maybe eight to ten Senate seats, though it would be better if it would be substantially less on the Senate side.

Groups like our gain power by showing definitively that they can effect election results. If we try to defeat everybody against us, regardless of their vunerability we will dilute our effectiveness. We need to focus on people who are against us, who we can possibly create an edge for defeating, who have a more gaming friendly candidate running against them, ideally in the general, but we could do a few viable challenger primaries. In the end writing letters is helpful, but if we don't have money and volunteers to change election results we will not be able to repeal this. Fact of life. If the sites had been lining pockets this legislation would never had happened. That sad fact is why I only work campaigns and not in the legislation side. Buying Congress is easy. Buying enough to repeal something though, that is not cheap. We now need majorities and leadership in both houses, and the Presidency. I personally think we should have a PAC that will endorse/contribute to candidates that will send questionaires to all the Presidential candidates now - when we need the money - and then we could hopefully find out where we stood.

The one thing this community has if it ever cared to use it is money. As a experienced political fundraiser, I would think at 2+2K max I could easily get 10million out of the poker world with a halfway decent list and a committment to support my candidate. Instead of plodding along the pros need to do what GE does when it wants a Pres. candidate to support something, open up their checkbooks. But just like my push to do this to gain the support of the Congressional Dems before the next election, it is time limited. Dollars after the nomination is secured are discounted, and you do not get the same attention. So, suggestion that would do something, set up PAC, hire fundraiser, send questionnaires, set up meetings with candidates, and pay to get an administration that will at least ignore enforcement of this law.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

Sounds good to me. Go for it.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

The following congressmen voted for HR 4411 and won reelection in 2006 with <55% of the vote:

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54%
John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) 53.2%
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) 45.6%
Chris Shays (R-CT) 50.9%
Ric Keller (R-FL) 52.8%
Jim Marshall (D-GA) 50.5% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
John Barrow (D-GA) 50.3% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%
Mark Souder (R-IN) 54.3%
Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 51.8%
Geoff Davis (R-KY) 51.7%
William Jefferson (D-LA) 30.1% (56.6% in run-off) [>55%, but very vulnerable]
Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 55.0% (with us now!!! cosponsor of IGREA [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) 51.6%
Thad McCotter (R) 54.1%
Lee Terry (R-NE) 54.7%
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) 49.4%
Heather Wilson (R-NM) 50.2%
Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8%
Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%
Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%
Robin Hayes (R-NC) 50.1%
Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%
Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5%
Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%
Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 54.0%
Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%
Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%
Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%
Thelma Drake (R-VA) 51.3%
Dave Reichert (R-WA) 51.5%
Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 48.3%

Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This week should be a push in ALL directions, USTR, Paulson, Gonzales and Bernanke.

I will start a thread (and a copy of a letter i presented them) on a meeting I had today with a rep from Sen. Rockefeller (D. WV) today that may / may not have some promise.

Also, that Cato thing I read, they should receive something from us as well.

The e-mail for the lady there is:
sjames@cato.org

obg

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have we been sending letters or making phone calls to media outlets...it seems the best thing we could do now is get the public caught up on what the WTO decision could mean to economics in the US.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Excellent idea. What say you engineer?
perhaps a list of media could be made and concentrate our efforts there with the absurdity of this whole mess over a simple game of cards (and present it that way?).

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have we been sending letters or making phone calls to media outlets...it seems the best thing we could do now is get the public caught up on what the WTO decision could mean to economics in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have we been sending letters or making phone calls to media outlets...it seems the best thing we could do now is get the public caught up on what the WTO decision could mean to economics in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been all along...none published yet. The U.S. media hasn't picked up on any of this. They think "Internet gambling was banned....the end", at least from what I see. Hopefully the Antigua issue will wake them up.

I've had far better luck with simply posting to various blogs. I'll continue to write to the mainstream press, of course. I hope you'll consider doing the same. If you don't get published, at least you can spam lots of blogs and boards with your letter.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent idea. What say you engineer?
perhaps a list of media could be made and concentrate our efforts there with the absurdity of this whole mess over a simple game of cards (and present it that way?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Writing to the media has been an action item for a couple of months, and I imagine we'll continue to have it there.

I encourage you to write to the media outlets of your choice.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

I have noticed it has been an action item. I am wondering what has been done besides your own letters...has anyone else been sending them? To what outlets have you been sending these letters? Maybe get a list of who exactly is doing what and the specifics of where letters are being sent.

In light of this weeks recent announcements I think this is a time to really jump on board with sending letters to newspapers and other forms of media...and not just Enginner or other select few, but everyone (including me).

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

How about a quick primer on how to get something published or at least mentioned in newspapers and other media outlets. If someone who has been successful could tell us how to be effective it would be a big help to folks like me who have never tried any of this before.

Tuff

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

I've got Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) for my district (8th). He defeated Mort Meier 64-36% in the last election and voted Yes for HR4411 (Leach) and HR2143 (Bachus).

Can someone more knowledgable than me explain what this this vote is for that he voted No?

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've got Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) for my district (8th). He defeated Mort Meier 64-36% in the last election and voted Yes for HR4411 (Leach) and HR2143 (Bachus).

Can someone more knowledgable than me explain what this this vote is for that he voted No?

[/ QUOTE ]

The amendment eliminated the UIGEA carve-outs (horses, fantasy sports, etc) to show the hypocrisy of the politicians in allowing some Internet gambling but not all. Some in the House felt it was a "poison pill" designed to break up the alliance of various interests that ended up supporting UIGEA. That's why the anti-gambling rights politicians supported it, while pro-gambling rights ones opposed it.

Some anti-gambling politicians, like Chris Shays, hate allowing citizens to choose to gamble so much that they supported the amendment.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Sometime today or tomorrow I am going to go back through all the AP et al articles on the WTO issue this year, make a list of all the reporters emails, write out 2-3 basic form letters, and see if we can get people to pick one and edit them, and send them out to reporters who have covered this before. If someone wants to aim one at editors, and we can send that as well to editors of papers who have published work on the Antigua issue.

Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

<font color="red">Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25 </font>

<font color="brown">Based on our group discussions, let's do the following:</font>

1. Write to U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab (carbon copy your senators and President Bush) and let her know you object to U.S. actions relating to Antigua's online gambing access case. Please see posts within this thread for sample letters.

USTR Contact Info:
contactustr@ustr.eop.gov
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508
WTO-Related Issues: 202-395-3063
www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Contact_Us/Section_Index.html

Your senators are at www.senate.gov
Bush is at comments@whitehouse.gov

Others:
Justice Department: AskDOJ@usdoj.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

We get a lot of “bang for the buck here”, as one letter will go to at least four individuals. Send one (email and hard copy) to Ambassador Schwab. Then, email the same letter to each senator (separately). Add “cc: Senator xxxx to the top line”. <u>Let’s each send one letter per month to the USTR and the copy recipients until this is resolved.</u>

2. Now that we have bills out there, 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

3. 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, Bachus, 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
- 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

4. Write to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke <u>at least once per month</u> until the UIGEA regs come out. Ask them not to exceed the specific mandates of UIGEA when drafting legislation. Remind them that online poker is not illegal under any federal law. Focus on the Family is asking their members to write to Paulson and Bush to request tough regulations. Also, Sen. Kyl asked Gonzales for tough regulations during the AG Senate hearings. We should counterbalance this.

Thanks everyone!

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

Well, we keep improving our position. Things sure looked bad when UIGEA passed. I'm amazed at how we've improved week in and week out. We have a long way to go yet, but we're better at this point than anyone could have reasonably predicted last November.

The WTO ruled that the U.S. unfairly restrained Antiguan-owned online gambling sites from accessing the U.S. market, and the U.S. has exhausted all appeals. Antigua filed for $3.44 billion per year in damages, to be collected by suspending U.S. IP agreements (copyrights, patents, etc). Additionally, countries the U.S. regularly accuses of unfair trade practices, including the EU, China, Japan, and India, have signed on to Antigua's case. These nations will be pressing for remedies in the form of trade relief (likely in aerospace and agriculture). We lost our final appeal, but have hearings on appropriate remedies, so this will be interesting. It’s definitely time to write to the USTR and to our senators.

Additionally, there’s no word yet on UIGEA regulations. We need to make our feelings known here.

Finally, there are three pieces of pro-Internet gaming legislation in Congress. We need to keep pressing Congress to support these.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

From Autobet:

Here is a rough draft of a letter I plan on sending to my US reps and the US trade rep.

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

Dear Ambassador Schwab:

I am writing concerning the decision by the WTO on the case brought by Antigua and Barbuda against the United States entitled: “Measure Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Better Services” (WT/DS285). The WTO Appellate Body has found that the U.S. is not in compliance with its WTO obligations with respect to the provision of remote gambling services. Antigua, Costa Rica and the European Union are seeking or planning to seek billions in compensation. My understanding is Antigua has asked the trade body to target American Trademarks and Copyrights if the U.S. refuses to comply.

Besides facing sanctions, failure to comply with the WTO ruling will ruin our credibility around the world. If we refuse to comply, we are setting an example for every other country to follow. When we seek to press countries like China regarding their violations on a wide range of important issues including copyright violations, how can we expect them to comply if we do not lead by example and abide by the rulings of the WTO?

The best type of leadership is done by those who lead by example. I hope the United States steps up and abides by the ruling of the World Trade Organization regarding remote gaming.

Sincerely,

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

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

June 22, 2007

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

Dear Congressman xxx:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sometime today or tomorrow I am going to go back through all the AP et al articles on the WTO issue ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that it's easier to get a letter published if it pertains to a prior article. In fact, the NY Times asks for the article referenced on their online form. Fortunately, there was an article on Caribbean/U.S. relations in Friday's Washington Post, at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101743.html . I think we could all piggyback on this article with our WTO letters. The Post also published an article on the Antigua claim for $3.4 billion per year, at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002151.html , so that can be referenced as well.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Washington Post letters to the editor:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000709.html

Letters must be fewer than 250 words long and exclusive to The Washington Post; they may not have been submitted or posted to, or published by any other media or web outlet. They must include the writer's home address, e-mail address, and home and business telephone numbers. Anonymous letters will not be considered, nor does The Post permit the use of pseudonyms.

Due to space limitations, all letters are subject to abridgment. Because of the volume of letters we receive, we cannot respond individually to the authors of letters we are unable to use. However, we read every letter we receive, and we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments.

To send a letter by e-mail, please send to letters@washpost.com. Do not send attachments; they will not be read. If you prefer to send your letter by surface mail, please send to the following address:

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20071

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

Submitting an op-ed:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/opeds/submit/

Letters to the Editor should be sent by e-mail to letters@washpost.com as text within the body of the e-mail -- attachments will not be opened. Submissions for the Sunday Outlook section should be sent to outlook@washpost.com. You may not submit a piece to more than one section at a time. To submit comments and questions, and for all other correspondence, please click here.

Submission Guidelines
Op-ed submissions must be exclusive to The Washington Post and no longer than 800 words. There is no minimum length. Exclusive op-ed submissions will be reviewed by an editor within six business days. Articles sent to multiple media outlets or posted online, including on a personal blog, will not be considered for publication.

Due to space constraints, The Post must decline most op-ed submissions....

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Sent. Referencing Trade Sanctions

Besides facing sanctions, failure to comply with the WTO ruling will ruin our credibility around the world. If we refuse to comply, we are setting an example for every other country to follow. When we seek to press countries like China regarding their violations on a wide range of important issues including copyright violations, how can we expect them to comply if we do not lead by example and abide by the rulings of the WTO? If we choose to opt out of the parts of the trade agreements we don’t like, shouldn’t we expect other countries to do the same?

The best type of leadership is done by those who lead by example. I hope the United States steps up and abides by the ruling of the World Trade Organization regarding remote gaming.

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

Weekly letter - comments?

Note: Sorry to some it is geared with an eye on Poker only.....

Heading Edited to Gonzales &amp; Paulson.


Susan C. Schwab
Office U S Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508
United States of America


Susan Schwab,

I am greatly disturbed that your office in conjunction with the White House and a few U. S. Senators has allowed the Antigua-Barbuda tiff over online gaming to potentially escalate into a real international incident affecting so many Americans and American businesses.

There really are many very important matters that need to be addressed and quite frankly under the circumstances bickering over what should amount in the end to a game of cards is beneath us all.

Granted and I agree that there are strict laws prohibiting sports betting and these laws have been in place many years.

However, the WTO ruling should not be dismissed out of hand. There are excellent merits to many points, points not even addressed in the WTO ruling that are important.

Many United States companies and affiliates offer INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL online wagering.

Companies such as AOL, MSN and YAHOO! are affiliates of companies such as World Winner. This company is based in Newton, Massachusetts.

These affiliates and World Winner offer games referred to as ‘SKILL’. These ‘SKILL’ games include but are not limited to card games such as Spades, Hearts, Solitaire and Free Cell.

Certainly anyone with average common sense will agree that the card game of poker is NO LESS a game of ‘SKILL’ as the referenced games.

Additionally these companies offering ‘SKILL’ gaming adhere to all U.S. income tax and banking laws.

A simple solution is to allow a limited incursion into the U.S. market by international companies offering poker so long as they agree to and abide by the same rules and regulations as American companies do.

Please, I implore you ALL to quickly settle this matter in a sensible and amicable way and move on to the REAL important issues you are facing; the DOHA Agreement, Advancing American Trade, Protecting American Interests abroad and more.

obg

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread
 

Sounds good obg. Thanks for posting.

As for comments, I'd personally probably refer to her as "Ambassador Schwab". Otherwise, looks great aside from some minor grammatical things that you'll catch in your final edit.

Nice job. Hopefully we'll fill her mailbox.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

We need to let the media know online wagering IS NOT banned directing the to the SKILL sites and links in letters telling them the farce is a game with more skill is being targeted and asking WHY?

My letter to Lou Dobbs www.loudobbs.com (It will go to a few others with some modification).

Thank you for your efforts to expose this Immigration Bill for what it is, a shame.

If only someone like your self would look at another farce as well. The attempts by many in the federal government to limit Americans from playing cards on the Internet are silly and absurd.

No, not all cards, only Poker.

Allowed via AOL, MSN, and YAHOO! And others are card games such as Solitaire, Hearts, Spades and Free Cell. But these are American Companies offering wagering called ‘SKILL’. Whoa to the majority of online players who play the card game of ‘LUCK’ poker, though I see no difference.

This position has been challenged before the WTO and three times the U S government has lost.

The solution, withdraw from a portion of the GATS agreement EVEN though we may have to settle and let American companies pay upwards of 20 billion in trade sanctions.

Antigua-Barbuda, Japan, the E.U., India, CANADA and Costa Rica have all now filed trade violation claims over this silly position.

If it were not so serious it would be comical, a game of cards could lead to such a mess when there really is so much more serious stuff the president and congress need to worry about.

XXXXX
XXXXXX

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have we been sending letters or making phone calls to media outlets...it seems the best thing we could do now is get the public caught up on what the WTO decision could mean to economics in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been all along...none published yet. The U.S. media hasn't picked up on any of this. They think "Internet gambling was banned....the end", at least from what I see. Hopefully the Antigua issue will wake them up.

I've had far better luck with simply posting to various blogs. I'll continue to write to the mainstream press, of course. I hope you'll consider doing the same. If you don't get published, at least you can spam lots of blogs and boards with your letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Two points:
1. I'm appalled at how little (shall we say non-existent) coverage there has been on the WTO developements. When I look at other headlines on Google, Yahoo, MSN there are many that are extremely trival in comparison. Can anybody give an answer why there is so little coverage, other than, "it is not of interest to the average American citizen" because there were a large number of articles in the world news sections that would be of even LESS interests to the average American.

2. While looking for these issues I noticed that msnbc.com has a gutcheck America section http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18826755/
This allows the readers to tell MSNBC what issues are important to them and why. This appears to be fourm where we could stress the importance of the situation and hopefully get some public recogntion of the ramifications of the US actions to date.

As noted on other threads all this hoopla over poker is trival. But the invasion of our rights as free citizens in the privacy of our homes partaking in an activity that is legal in so many areas and forms is an ugly precedent to set or to accept. And when that is coupled with our treaty violations, the high-handed manner that we have and are dealing with other countries that are acting in good faith, and the short-sighted denial of our growing reliance on a world community it becomes some what frightening.

&lt;grin&gt; my $.02 for the moment

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

I think a lot of the problem is that editors:
1) Don't fully understand the legality/illegality of online gaming.
2) Know almost nothing about the WTO arbitration process, and let's face it, neither did we before this.
3) It is hard to explain to people in soundbyte news stories.
4) News at the WTO today won't affect anyone for months or years. The US has been losing to Antigua for 4 years and nothing has happened. I think they want an event or a panicked statement from the administration. And, usually, a WTO dispute gets settled before anything drastic happens, and they know that. Its not impending doom and gloom(in their minds).

I don't think we can change this perception among news purveyors. I have had trouble explaining this to my more educated friends. Imagine a news editor trying to write a story/opinion peice on a 3rd grade reading level thats 250 words or less.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Thanks for the response. Yes, it is hard to condense all the issues and potential ramifications into a few simple statements. I've definetly learned this by trying to explain it to friends and relatives.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

I wrote the the Washington Post on Sunday...nothing published yet. I guess we'll see what happens. I'll post it here if it doesn't get published next week.

Also, let's all remember to keep Wikipedia up to date. I've updated the Internet poker and Internet gambling pages with IGREA and the Wexler bill. We can always update Frist's page, Kyl's page, Leach's page, etc.

As an aside, some social conservatives created "Conservapedia", at www.conservapedia.com. Apparently, allowing unfettered editing somehow results in a liberal bias. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] For example, on the "Kangaroo" article, it has a section on the origin on kangaroos that discusses how they got from Noah's ark to Australia. After that:

[ QUOTE ]
Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [7] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.[8]

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, let's not discuss Conservapedia or evolution on this thread; I merely share this with you to illustatrate the mindset of our opponents, and to provide one more site we can edit (I did tweak their "gambling" article).

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Also, let's all sign the anti-UIGEA petition, at www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 . See Casino Gambling Web Representatives Headed to Washington!

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Here's the letter I sent to the Washington Post last Sunday. No dice getting printed, though:

As stated in Friday’s op-ed, “On the Caribbean, 20/20 Blindness” (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101743.html), America has often demonstrated 20/20 blindness with regard to the Caribbean. The latest example is our failure to comply with a WTO ruling in a case brought by Antigua, where the WTO found America’s Internet gambling restrictions to be in violation of our WTO obligations (as reported by the Post on June 21 - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002151.html). Unfortunately, America refused to negotiate with Antigua. In fact, following the loss, in the twilight of their power the Republican Congress passed further restrictions on Internet gambling.

Now, Antigua is demanding commercial sanctions worth more than $3.4 billion each year. They will seek permission from the WTO to target American copyrights and patents. They don’t need America’s permission; they can simply legally pirate Hollywood movies and Microsoft software. The EU, Japan, China, India, and others have joined the case and will be demanding trade concessions of their own. So, the Bush administration’s unilateral foreign policy will cost us again. Not only will we lose money; we’ll also potentially lose an important tool in fighting various Chinese and EU unfair trade practices.

There is a solution. The House Financial Services committee has been debating a bill that regulates and taxes gambling on the Internet. They held a hearing on June 8 (www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml) where they proved Internet gambling can be effectively regulated. Unfortunately, the administration prefers prohibition, in clear violation of our trade obligations with Antigua and with the world.

Re: Ideas for Actions for week of 6/25
 

Engineer, you are my hero!

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 6/25
 

My letter to the USTR:

June 29, 2007

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

Dear Ambassador Schwab:

I am writing concerning “United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (WT/DS285)”, the WTO challenge to U.S. Internet gambling laws by Antigua and Barbuda. As you know, the WTO’s Appellate Body found that the U.S. is not in compliance with our WTO obligations with respect to allowing access to our remote gambling services market. Unfortunately, rather than trying negotiate in good faith with our fellow WTO members within the framework of our agreements, we instead decided to ignore our trading partners’ concerns by withdrawing from the gambling services sector of GATS. This has resulted in Antigua’s demand for $4.3 billion per year in compensation, to come from American intellectual property and copyrights. Additionally, the EU, Macau, India, Canada, Costa Rica and others are lining up for damages as well. It seems our action has significant potential to harm us in many areas while gaining us nothing (aside from the continuation of an unpopular prohibition).

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The Engineer

Cc: President George Bush, my senators, my rep, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, Senate Majority Leader)

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 7/2 & 7/9
 

<font color="red">Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 7/2 &amp; 7/9 </font>

<font color="brown">Based on our group discussions, let's do the following:

1. In addition to writing to U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, let's also write to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Let them both know you object to U.S. actions relating to Antigua's online gambing access case. Please see posts within this thread for sample letters. </font>

USTR Contact Info:
contactustr@ustr.eop.gov
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20508
WTO-Related Issues: 202-395-3063
www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Contact_Us/Section_Index.html

Sen. Harry Reid is at http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542

Your senators are at www.senate.gov
Bush is at comments@whitehouse.gov

Others:
Justice Department: AskDOJ@usdoj.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

<font color="brown">We get a lot of “bang for the buck here”, as one letter will go to several individuals. Send one (email and hard copy) to Ambassador Schwab and Senator Reid. Then, email the same letter to each senator (separately). Add “cc: Senator xxxx to the top line”. <u>Let’s each send one letter per month to the USTR and the copy recipients until this is resolved.</u>

1a. Please sign the "Repeal UIGEA" online petition at www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 . The site is reputable, and the signatures will be hand-delivered to Capitol Hill by representatives of Casino Gambling Web in July (see http://www.prnewsnow.com/P.......20D.C.). Be sure to check the box to hide your name if you don't want it displayed on the website. Also be sure to deselect the boxes that offer to send regular updates if you don't want them. Focus on the Family is warning their members about this march, so it must be a good thing. See www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm .

2. Please write to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke <u>at least once per month</u> until the UIGEA regs come out. Day 270 will be July 13th or so. In case they're trying to meet this date, let's get out some mail this week (even if they don't read it in time to use it, you can still post the contents during comment period). 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 gambing.

Focus on the Family is asking their members to write to Paulson and Bush to request tough regulations. Also, Sen. Kyl asked Gonzales for tough regulations during the AG Senate hearings. We should counterbalance this. </font>

Addresses:

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

<font color="brown">3. Now that we have bills out there, 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

4. 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, Bachus, 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
- 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 </font>

Thanks everyone!

Re: Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 7/2 & 7/9
 

June 29, 2007

The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D. C. 20551

Dear Chairman Bernanke:

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

As you know, UIGEA does not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists like Senator Kyl and Congressman Bachus are fond of saying this. However, they neglect to mention the fact that very few types of online gambling are illegal under federal law. Specifically, federal law covers only some sport betting. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gaming. Regarding other states, prohibitionists are trying to use ambiguous, arcane gambling laws to claim that some types of Internet gaming MIGHT be illegal in their states. To keep from placing an unfair burden on our banks, I ask that the upcoming UIGEA regulations apply only where laws are unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to specific forms of gambling illegal under those state laws. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet gaming, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it.

Additionally, I ask that the regulations exclude the highly automated ACH system, as the addition of manual verification steps to ACH would be overly burdensome.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,