FoF back at it again

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, ACTION ALERT?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I guess we should see what the lawyers here think first.

CitizenLink was formed specifically to allow for lobbying under the tax code, according to their site. I didn't dig much deeper than that.

I hope they overstepped. It would be sweet if we could get them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, from what I can surmise it seems they are monitoring us as well as us them.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe so.

[blutarski]

"We don't have to study Internet gambling to know that risks are too great."

This is my favorite line. In other words "We don't need to check facts, we just know."

I used to have a running dialogue with a conservative Christian political cartoonist about the Iraq War. When we got past all the conservative/progressive talking points, he came out and said "Sure you may cite facts that things are going poorly, but I live in a world of faith. I don't need facts because I believe that the just will triumph." Direct quote.

How is it possible to fight the illogical?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, ACTION ALERT?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I guess we should see what the lawyers here think first.

CitizenLink was formed specifically to allow for lobbying under the tax code, according to their site. I didn't dig much deeper than that.

I hope they overstepped. It would be sweet if we could get them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The letter is signed on behalf of "Focus on the Family Action." It seems to be a lobbying arm of FoF, most likely set up to avoid problems with the IRS. As for the other organizations on the letter, I'm really not sure.

The best strategy to oppose FoF is to elect more Democrats. I'm quite serious about this. FoF virtually owns the Republican Party these days, and they have zero influence with the Democrats. A running joke during the last Congress was that Bill Frist was nothing more than James Dobson's puppet.

As the saying goes... focus on your own damn family!

[Legislurker]

Believe me they know the legal part of it, and if they violated it, who in the executive would charge them? Maybe even a Dem would steer clear of provoking their ire if elected.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me they know the legal part of it, and if they violated it, who in the executive would charge them? Maybe even a Dem would steer clear of provoking their ire if elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're right about that. Just in my cursory reading of what they had set up for political advocacy, they seemed to be well aware of the limitations of what they could and could not do under tax law. Given that the ACLU watches their every move, I imagine they're on their toes. Still, I imagine we should check it out.

[CompatiblePoker]

I love this line.

Congress passed legislation to protect American families from online gambling predators and to prevent potential threats to our national security

Next on... dateline MSNBC...to catch an online gambling predator.

[eddytom]

Casino Gambling Web responded to their letter, too.

http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...gain_46822.html

[Legislurker]

I think we are almost to the point we need a UNIFIED gaming political website. Affiliates, players, sites, and software companies. The PPA is dropping the ball. This is the most coherent lobbying place online, but I don't think it has the traffic a website just dedicated to political action would. It doesnt have to be a PAC or 527 or anything, just a place to go for news and support grassroots letter writing, phone calling, and general activity. Who would pay for it, I don't know. A place we can spam links to at poker tables and on blogs, maybe hand out cards in bars, or my old trick, stick them in poker books in Barnes&Nobles. Beg FT and Stars for email lists. AND NOT REVENUE GENERATING. Unless its non gaming. Legality and appearances should matter.

[oldbookguy]

Take a look at one I am working on a little, I will be moving it soon to a new host with several good features.

www.wvgeneralstore.com

obg