Sen Richard Burr (NC) response

[scarfire]

Sen. Burr sent me this letter on May 19, 2006 in response to my inquiry about the pending anti-gambling bills.

Dear Todd:

Thank you for contacting me about federal legislation to regulate Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you.

With the expansion of the world wide web, illegal gambling over the Internet has increased over the past decade. I have many concerns with its recent growth and with its associated problems. I fear the Internet provides an ease and accessibility to gambling sites and on-line casinos that can hurt those already addicted to gambling and create opportunities for others to become addicted as well. Furthermore, the volume and international scope of Internet gambling presents opportunities for criminal activity. The FBI has found that online gambling can be readily used for money laundering by criminal and even terrorist organizations.

Gambling over telecommunications lines is illegal and has been prosecuted under federal law for several decades. Individual states which allow gambling usually establish commissions or licensing agencies to closely watch and regulate all gambling within their borders. Internet gambling provides a way for casinos that are usually located overseas to bypass state laws and provide gambling opportunities to anyone who has Internet access. This not only undermines what state legislatures have decided, but allows gambling to occur outside of state regulation providing increased opportunities for criminal abuse.

Congress has sought in recent years to pass legislation to better combat Internet gambling. Proposals offered in the current 109th Congress seek to combat Internet gambling in a variety of ways. In the House of Representatives, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (H.R. 4777), would enhance current law to ensure the ability to prosecute illegal gambling over all types of interstate communications. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (H.R. 4411) would seek to combat illegal gambling by blocking financial transfers to Internet gambling houses and online gambling providers. This bill would implement methods similar to those already used to block financial transactions with terrorists and drug dealers. During my service in the House of Representatives, I supported legislation similar to the Gambling Enforcement Act and I will be watching both of these bills closely if they are considered in the Senate.

Richard Burr

[Poofler]

I'm getting so tired of the addiction argument. It shouldn't even have merit when certain types of gambling are permitted. I'll bet a lot of welfare moms are addicted to the lottery. Has anyone heard anything, from any senator, or any scholar, who's actually been up front and hasn't used addicition as a cornerstone argument?

[cameroncrazy]

<warning, rant to follow>

I moved from NC at the end of last year after seven years residing in that lovely state. (I wouldn't mind moving back at some point, actually.) I am not sure how closely you follow state politics, but Burr is blithering idiot. He is a neocon robot, voting with the Bush stance something like 98% of the time.

Bowles clearly outclassed him in the debate and only lost in the last few weeks thanks to the Republican machine smearing his image.

In other words, I would expect no less than this response from his office. <end rant [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]>

[dlk9s]

http://lottery.nc.gov/instant_games_...gameNumber=005

[demon102]

This burr dude is a [censored] idiot and WTF is with the odds with that lotto? 15 people in 2.6 billion for a crappy 6k. They might as well have BEND OVER AND TAKE IT UP THE @SS IN FINE PRINT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.

[Lego05]

That's 1 in 2.6 billion actually. So..uh...yea. Not actually the best deal. Well unless you plan on buying 7,123,288 tickets per day. Then you can expect to win within one year. But of course then in each day you spend 1187.22 times more than you expect to win in the entire year. It seems fair though.....better than poker anyway.


P.S.

I think my math is correct..... if not let me know.

[govman6767]

hmm any ancient relation to aaron Burr

[Richard Berg]

I got the same letter from Burr. I didn't expect anything better -- he's a raving idiot, like cameroncrazy said. Several nonpartisan groups who watch the Washington money trail rank him in the top 3 of all Congressmen for taking bribes from special interest groups. Despite the steadily increasing lunacy of the Republican leadership, he's never met an "R" bill he didn't like.

[Richard Berg]

FWIW: the response I got from David Price was much more reasonable, although he still supported HR4411. He talked about how the bill didn't change anything re: the legality of poker itself, merely aiding enforcement of laws on the books. He felt it was a good attempt to buck the trend of federal laws that were impossible for states like NC to implement (e.g. No Child Left Behind).

I disagree with Price on a lot of things but at least he's a scholar and a gentleman. Despite his stance on HR4411 I doubt he would ever pull a dirty trick like we saw with Frist last Friday night.

[Mal_Pais]

I got the same form letter response months ago when I wrote Sen. Burr.

My first thought was "I had no idea they had wireless internet hot spots in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan."

While I disagree with the bill, Sen. Burr is an elected representative and is free to vote his conscience and/or the will of his base. Accountability for his actions takes place at the polls under our form of government. I've dealt with his office on various issues in my job, and always found his office to be responsive to the needs of his constiuents.

I may disagree with the Senator on numerous issues, but I respect him and the office he holds. Calling him an idiot is pointless and counterproductive. He is anything but an idiot.

As far as the Senator and the NC Lottery, the lottery was signed into law by the General Assembly of North Carolina. Sen. Burr had no role in the NC Lottery; he represents NC at the federal level; the lottery is specifically a state decision and issue.

I've read the nasty, vitriolic responses to the legislation and the actions of our legislators all week here on the forum, and I must say I'm disappointed in the rhetoric used by many posters.

We, as a community (the community of degenerates [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) will never advance our cause using such tactics. Only through participation and civil discourse (I emphasize the word "civil") can we ever hope to legitimize our cause.

Just like in poker, go with your second set of instincts if your first set is primarily an emotional response.