Response from Senator Feinstein

[AtticusFinch]

Here's the response I received from Senator Feinstein to the email I sent regarding internet gambling legislation. Note that it ignores the fact that I distinguished Poker from other forms of gambling.

September 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Owen:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet gambling. I
appreciate your thoughts and views on this topic and welcome the
opportunity to respond.

There is no doubt that the Internet and related technologies have
had a remarkable effect on the U.S. economy in recent years. Commerce
on the Internet has enhanced American industry=s ability to distribute
goods economically and efficiently. The continuing development of this
industry in California has provided hundreds of thousands of new, well-
paying jobs, and I am committed to strengthening online commerce and
preserving and expanding this vital job base.

While I understand your thoughts on internet gambling, I have
supported legislation aimed at curbing Internet gambling during my
tenure in the Senate. 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. The "Internet Gambling Prohibition
Act" (H.R. 4777) is currently under consideration by the Judiciary
Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, and at this time, there
is no companion legislation in the Senate. While we do not necessarily
agree on this particular topic, please know that I will certainly keep your
thoughts in mind should this particular bill be considered by the Senate
in the 109th Congress.

Again, thank you for your letter. I hope that you will continue to
write on matters of importance to you. Should you have further
questions or comments on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate
to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[CardSharpCook]

we got owned.

[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.

[jason75]

Good job in getting a response from Feinstein. I've emailed her, boxer, and Nancy Pelosi (I'm in SF) and never heard a peep other than an automated response.

I hope you weren't expecting anything different. Another politician more interested in what might get more votes than what might be a more effective solution for the American people.

If we had a political system that wasn't so horrendously corrupted by special interest money, where ordinary people had a voice in the political process we wouldn't even have to do these campaigns.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Good job in getting a response from Feinstein. I've emailed her, boxer, and Nancy Pelosi (I'm in SF) and never heard a peep other than an automated response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in S.F. as well. I haven't heard back from Boxer or Pelosi. But this responase took a good month to go through, so we'll see.

[APipeDream]

I'd doubt the email was even read. I bet one of her assistants read the first few lines until they figured out what it was regarding, and then a canned email was copied and pasted in the reply.

Owned, but excellent job on actually getting a real response.

[Foucault]

OMG really your elected official didn't offer a point-by-point refutation of your argument? Politics is rigged.

[jason75]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG really your elected official didn't offer an intelligent, researched argument that holds water in response to your concerns about a major piece of pending legislation? Politics is rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[IcyHotMonkey]

Never good when the investing community is also scared.
http://investors.partygaming.com/prt..._charts/chart/