Response from Senator Feinstein

[AtticusFinch]

My response to Senator Feinstein:

Dear Ms. Feinstein,

Thank you for your response. I would like to make a couple of points in return. Specifically, I'd like to respond to the following passage of your message.

> There advent of the Internet has clearly been
> beneficial to American society, however, I believe the same cannot be
> said for Internet-based gambling activity. Internet gambling is too easily
> accessible to minors, too subject to fraud and criminal misuse, and too
> easily evades state gambling laws.

First and foremost, my message concerned Internet Poker specifically, not internet gambling in general. It is my opinion that games of chance played against "the house," such as Blackjack and Roulette, present a whole host of problems that Poker does not, and therefore, I express no opinion on policy regarding those games. Most States agree. For example, here in California, Poker rooms are legal in most areas where casinos are not.

Poker is a game of skill enjoyed by 70 million Americans, and has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity in recent years, as I'm sure you are aware. The Internet provides an extremely valuable open forum for players of all skill levels to meet and play at levels that are comfortable to them -- levels which are simply unavailable anywhere else.

The concerns to which you refer, such as money laundering, are valid. However, outlawing Internet Poker rooms will exacerbate, not address, these issues. By driving Poker rooms further underground, you will simply require the attendant financial transactions to flow through ever more unsavory and untrackable sources.

A far better solution would be to legalize the industry fully, then regulate it. If all financial transactions for the sites were required to flow through U.S. banks with full I.R.S. and F.B.I. reporting requirements, it would effectively end any money laundering threat. A ban, by contrast, would simply require ALL transactions to flow through overseas provides, beyond our ability to regulate and track.

The same could be said for access by minors. Legalization and regulation could do vastly more to curb this issue than a ban, which will simply eliminate our ability to track, and will not reduce demand in the slightest.

Poker rooms presently derive the vast majority of their profits from U.S. customers. Were we to legalize and regulate, they would be only too happy to comply with any reasonable restrictions we enacted, such as requiring monies flow through U.S.-licensed banks. Poker rooms by and large are legitimate, and highly profitable businesses, and could be a rich source of tax revenue, if embraced. A ban, by contrast, will accomplish nothing, and increase their potential for abuse.

As a California voter, an active supporter of the Democratic party, and a U.S. citizen, I urge you to reconsider your position on this matter.

Kind regards,
W. Sean Owen, Esq.