Got a letter back from my Congressman

[Lostit]

[ QUOTE ]

In E - parents have a responsibilty to protect this from happening, why would a parent leave a credit card 'laying around' all day anyway. if parents feel they cannot trust a child on a computer, then THEY have a responsiblity to not allow its use when they are not home, use password protection to actually 'log-in' when the computer is started.

B is the big one. Internet gambling is NOT againt the law in 50 states. 11 perhaps at best. I have had my most success pointing to games available via AOL, MSN and YAHOO! classified as 'skill' games that are wagered on and these include card games. More importantly, if he and congress are so concerned about children, why are these 'skill' wagering games linked from a page intended for children.

It generally comes as a surprise to most to learn you can legally wager on Solitaire, Hearts, Spades, Free Cell, CHILDREN'S games and more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks OBG

On E, I also was going to focus on this, but this is where I'm a little torn. I do not agree that a parent can be perfect about keeping those things out of little kids hands. I personally have 3 boys, between the ages of 3 to 8, and its AMAZING what they do get into. What I wanted to stress is that many payment processors utilize additional steps for security. The example I would mention would be Western Union. Its a recognized payment processor here in the US, and they already have safeguards as part of their SOP that make his stated example impossible. I would then stress that this could be part of any future legislation/safeguards and that its up to people like him to get that in place. My point would be that this is not a new concern for many existing businesses and they there are already established safeguards in place.

Thanks for the advice on B. My biggest challenge will be keeping this as a constructive dialogue and not having it viewed as something negative.

[oldbookguy]

I also had a meeting with a representarive from Sen. Rockefeller's office after exchanging several letters sometime back and hand delivered a letter.

It has many points you want to address.

It can be found here in the forum at:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

It may / maynot be of help however Rockefeller's stance was initially the same and after serveral letters he seems to have softened a bit.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I live in Georgia, so I didn't expect a positive response. My representative is Johnny Linder from the Seventh District.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the compliment.

We write letter to Congress to let them know how their constituents feel about issues. I know there is the tendency to think we can debate them and get them to change their minds. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you do write such a letter, it could possibly be useful if you were to send copies to both senators, the president, and your local newspaper.

If I were you, I'd write back and let him know that you value your liberty and that you won't vote for anyone who'd take it away. Next, I'd write a note for the study bill, then a separate one a few weeks later in favor of the SGPA. He won't change his mind, but this will get our opinion on the record. If this brings him down from actively cosponsoring legislation against us (he cosponsored HR 4777, the Goodlatte bill....rated "F*") to merely voting for it, that would be a good result.

[Uglyowl]

You could let your representative know that you are giving money to his opponent or whatever you think will hurt him the most as a result of his views.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You could let your representative know that you are giving money to his opponent or whatever you think will hurt him the most as a result of his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice one.

Prior to sending my contribution to Steve Beshear (the pro-poker challenger to anti-gaming KY Gov. Fletcher), I scanned the check. My next letters to Sen. McConnell, Sen. Bunning, Gov. Fletcher, and Rep. Davis all had color, original-looking copies that check attached, trimmed to size, of course. That should have gotten their attention. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Lostit]

Engineer,

Good feedback about breaking the arguements into separate letters. Pretty simple, but hadn't thought of that, and it should probably be a good tactic for many to use.

As for sending a copy of a check in support of an opponent... let me stress again that I live in Georgia... so I'm not really seeing any alternatives here. Great idea though.

One thing I'd like to add though. You'd be surprised how many politicians know very little about the whole subject of internet gambling. Many simply spout the same lines that they hear from their peers because its the "safe" response. I've talked to several state level and local level politicians because I have the opportunity to speak with them for other reasons, and they legitimately listen and learn from a lot of the stuff you tell them. Washington politicians are a different animal, but I do think it can't hurt to take every opportunity that you can to talk to any politician that who will listen on this subject. I haven't gotten one poor response once they've heard the facts, and these were from people who would tell me their exact opinion with no bs, if they had an opinion on this. Any grassroots movement benefits from all the communication and education that it can get.

[yahboohoo]

A. Congressman Linder, you say “inclined to oppose it.” Does that mean you haven’t decided yet and are leaning towards a no vote? (Why didn’t he just say, “I will vote no?”)

B. It’s circular to say something is illegal is because it is illegal. Online gaming is only illegal as long as Congress decides to keep it that way.

C. There would be no “potential for money laundering and other criminal activities” if Congress decided to legalize, regulate and tax it.

D. Law enforcement agencies wouldn’t be stressed if Congress decided to legalize, regulate and tax it.

E. I haven’t been able to use a credit card to fund an account ever -- always declined (even all the way back in 2000). Which illustrates a couple things: (1) Congressman Linder is out of touch and doesn’t know how effective laws he’s previously passed are. (2) Congress really can find the necessary mechanisms to control and regulate online gaming if it chose to. (3) Credit cards are abused by friends, family members and total strangers every day -- online and off -- so why don’t we outlaw credit cards (because, as Congressman Linder points out, things that can be used by criminals should be illegal)?

The typical case against online gaming (which is the proper PR term for us to use, NOT “Internet gambling”) is completely circular: It is illegal because it isn’t regulated which means kids can be exploited and criminals can move money on the sly. Ridiculous. It’s a laughably fallacious Catch-22.

The only way Congressman Linder can achieve his moral agenda ("to protect the children," "to keep America free from addiction," "to keep the Internet safe from criminals") is to legalize, regulate and tax online gaming.

We’re not talking about decriminalizing something like drugs either. We’re talking about taking something that is legal in 48 states and just letting people do it online.

I can buy a book in a bookstore 15 minutes from my house.
I can buy a book online.
I can play poker in a casino 15 minutes from my house.
But I go to prison if I play poker online???

Quasi-puritanical hyposcrisy. Go hump another teenage Congressional intern, Mr. Linder.

- yahboohoo

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]

E.) "Some have pointed out that a child could easily get the family credit card, log on to the family computer, and lose thousands of dollars online, all before their parents get home from work."



[/ QUOTE ]

Or they could take it to the mall and do the same thing but for some reason this is different.

[frommagio]

Whatever you do, please run your letter through spell-check before you print it. Little things like "corrolate" and "arguement" can jump right off the page and create a bad impression for many readers. It might not make a difference for everyone, but it will make a huge difference for some.

I that we should all keep this in mind for written communications with our elected officials. We want to appear to be 100% serious and professional.

[kidpokeher]

Regarding point E. I like OBG and 42it's arguments, not only because they're logical but because a child who had access to dad's credit cards would most likely spend it on shopping, porn, etc. long before signing up at a poker site.

Find out if he's a 2nd amendment guy. If so, ask him if we should ban guns because kids might get their hands on them. Or, for that matter, ask him if we should ban toasters because a kid might stick a fork in one.

Regarding point B:
Tell him that's just flat-out untrue and the courts have confirmed this. I went into it in more detail here.