Internet Gambling Hearing Video FINALLY available!!!

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Hearing him badger that poor CEO of the UK payment processor made me want to puke. Bachus is an idiot, plain and simple. How many times can he ask the same question, get the same answer, and then repeat the same question? What a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Brit stood up pretty well but was a bit too polite. I was waiting for him to say "look dip**** do you really think I'd come here to get nicked if my firm processed US payments? PS as you regard Internet security and encryption as a weapon do you really think it is a great idea for you to set up stupid laws that force firms not to deal with the US or prevent their executives ever coming to the US? Way to go for a knowledge economy and national security."

[kidpokeher]

What is this law against sports gambling that Bachus claims was passed in 1992? It might help explain why the DOJ is going after sports sites to date (and how the FBI is trying to rewrite the law to include everything else.)

[TheEngineer]

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


Cc: My Congressman (on the Financial Services Committee) and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee Chairman

[Artsemis]

Very nice letter, TE.

[checkmate36]

[ QUOTE ]
This is such a rediculous debate; everyone against legalizing online gambling either babbles on about nothing or tells a sob story. I still don't understand what Bachus was getting at with his arrguement based around the FTP player bios...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is such a rediculous debate; everyone against legalizing online gambling either babbles on about nothing or tells a sob story. I still don't understand what Bachus was getting at with his arrguement based around the FTP player bios...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I was waiting for him to talk about Phil Ivey using a fake ID to gamble in a casino......could it be that he did not want to go there for some reason? What could it be?

[Ace0fSpades]

Very nice letter, I hope he feels extremely stupid after reading this. I think he believed these players bios were of current players on FTP and not of professionals endorsed by FTP based on his smug appearance; it was pretty clear that he had no idea what he was talking about. Also, the old lady at the end put forth a question that had no real replies, "what is the difference between placing a bet online and placing a bet in person?"

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
What is this law against sports gambling that Bachus claims was passed in 1992? It might help explain why the DOJ is going after sports sites to date (and how the FBI is trying to rewrite the law to include everything else.)

[/ QUOTE ]

prior to 1992 under the 1961 Wire act all states could legalize sports betting if they chose to.
After that law was passed it made it ilegal for any additional states to do so.

At that time there were 5 states that had legalized it though not all 5 actually permit it, that is they never passed laws to govern how it is to be regulated.

I belive Ct. is in the process now of finally doing it, they are one of the 5.

Also, Washington state is one, they have an instate only state run sports betting opperation.

And of course Nevada. The other 2 I am not sure of.

obg

[meleader2]

can we send a link of this to the daily show?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
can we send a link of this to the daily show?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did this morning. I hope they use some of it.