Christopher Shays replies to HR2046

[gulon]

I wrote my local congressman in support of HR2046 but received this reply. Unfortunately, Shays (R-CT) was one of the original sponsors of the UIGEA. I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading. I also find it interesting that Shays finds it his responsibility to protect ME from MYSELF and that he has based his career on this. I believe what this comes down to is personal responsbility - and he does not believe the average American has the mental fortitude to exercise this restraint on their own so he is going to do it for you by legislating your morality for you.

I have retyped the letter by hand, so there may be some typeos:

"Thank you for contacting my office expressiong support for HR2046, the internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office.

I am not a cosponsor of HR 2046 and would be inclined to oppose this bill should it come to the House floor for my consideration. This legislation would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online. Specifically, the bill establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals.

In the last Congress, I was a cosponsor of HR 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and voted for this bill when it passed the House by a vote of 317 to 93 on July 11, 2006. The President signed this bill, which would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets, into law on October 13, 2006.

The legislation also included provisions to prohibit gambling business from accepting credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form. During my 14 years in the state legislature I voted against every gambling bill we considered. Gambling financially cripples those who can least afford it -- the poor -- through the cruel and misleading lure of "winning it big".

I am concerned about the spread of gambling, especially among our children. We need to pause and rethink whether we truly want to legalize so many forms of gambling in so many areas of the country.

In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now I can actually respect that position, even though I disagree with it. What I can't stand is the hypocrisy engaged in by most politicians in favoring some forms of gambling over others to benefit certain vested gambling interests, including monopolisic state lotteries.

And the fact is that we benefit from such "all or nothing" positions held by anti-gambling people, because it makes it more likely that the end result will be "all".

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, try again.

[BluffTHIS!]

UglyOwl,

If you're going to use the quick reply posting option, I think it is better to preface a quote with something like "the OP said" to make it clear whom you are quoting. Although that quote obviously didn't come from my short post, it isn't always clear in regards to longer posts.

[questions]

Even if it were true about amending the Wire Act, laws should be specific, not just laws that say basically "oh, if we think it's illegal, we will let you know." No you won't. You are OUR public servants. If something needs to be prohibited, there will be a compelling reason why, and that should have to be the extent of your prohibition. His statement just illustrates to me how the government and its administrators have gotten TOO powerful and big. We need a smaller government that will mind its own fricking business.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it were true about amending the Wire Act, laws should be specific, not just laws that say basically "oh, if we think it's illegal, we will let you know." No you won't. You are OUR public servants. If something needs to be prohibited, there will be a compelling reason why, and that should have to be the extent of your prohibition. His statement just illustrates to me how the government and its administrators have gotten TOO powerful and big. We need a smaller government that will mind its own fricking business.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is a stupid and hypocritical thing for him to say, when he gambles everyday of his life. Life is a gamble, getting in a car is a gamble, crossing the street is a gamble, tithing at your church is a gamble, etc. This is why I really despise that my Christian brothers and sisters have taken up this cause.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the measure would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify that its prohibitions apply to all gambling by an technological means of communication, not just sports bets placed over telephone lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shays was referring to HR 4411, which did modify the Wire Act. This provision was watered down in UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...98AAenk:e1886:

H.R.4411
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

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



TITLE I--MODERNIZATION OF THE WIRE ACT OF 1961

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1081 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by designating the five undesignated paragraphs that begin with `The term' as paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively;

(2) by amending paragraph (5), as so designated, to read as follows:

`(5) The term `communication facility' means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system, or other like connection (whether fixed or mobile) between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(6) The term `bets or wagers'--......


[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

Thanks for sharing Rep. Shay's note. It's time for him to go. We should help him with his retirement as much as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but he is correct in that HR 4411 passed the House 317 to 93 as a stand-alone bill. And, as he stated, it was even tougher than UIGEA. The addition to the Safe Ports Act was done to get the bill through the Senate before the session ended.

I mention it because it is important for us to remember that we did lose by a wide margin. We need to know where we stand and how to overcome it. Considering the magnitude of the loss last year, I think we've done an outstanding job of getting to where we are right now so quickly. It's somewhat unprecedented, actually.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for sharing Rep. Shay's note. It's time for him to go. We should help him with his retirement as much as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting he attempted to quote the landslide numbers in the vote, when in truth it was an addendum to a bigger, must-pass port-security bill. This is very misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but he is correct in that HR 4411 passed the House 317 to 93 as a stand-alone bill. And, as he stated, it was even tougher than UIGEA. The addition to the Safe Ports Act was done to get the bill through the Senate before the session ended.

I mention it because it is important for us to remember that we did lose by a wide margin. We need to know where we stand and how to overcome it. Considering the magnitude of the loss last year, I think we've done an outstanding job of getting to where we are right now so quickly. It's somewhat unprecedented, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.