Got a letter back from my Congressman

[Lostit]

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

I actually got back a two page letter. The highpoints are as follows:

A.) "Should H.R. 2046 come to the House floor for a vote, I would be inclined to oppose it"
B.) "Internet Gambling is already against the law in the fifty states."
c.) "Offshore casinos are serious violators with the potential for money laundering and other criminal activities"
D.) "States continue to regulate gambling within their borders, but offshore internet gambling is stressing our financial, social, and law enforcement efforts. HR 2046 will... further increase the negative impact of internet gambling."
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."

Not that I expected any different from a bible belt republican, but he's my guy that I have to write to and I got him. Basically it looks like he's reading off of the FOF script.

I've already sent him a modified version of Engineer's letter (thanks again Engineer) pointing out the WTO impact, personal rights issues, and corrolated it to the impact that may be felt by some of the specific manufacturing (intellectual rights, patents, etc) companies located in his district. I also sent it on my company letter head, with my official title (Director of Finance) so that he would realize that its not some kid writing him, but instead a senior professional from one of the largest employers in his district.

My question to the group is this: What would you put in the reply? Of course I will take his arguement point by point, and attempt to debunk it. The only issue is that you know he's not reading this, but instead it'll be a staffer who will prepare the letter, and get his signature.

Other options include:
1.) Try to shift focus to Shelly Berkley's study bill, and see if he will support that.
2.) Try to shift focus to Wexler's bill, and only lobby on behalf of poker, instead of a broader bill like Barney Frank's.

I don't want to throw the kitchen sink at they guy, so which of the above "lines" would you take with him?

[CountingMyOuts]

Unfortunately, you are drawing dead here. You have no hope of convincing him otherwise. You are right, he's reading from the FOF script. Save your energy.

[ QUOTE ]
D.) "States continue to regulate gambling within their borders, but offshore internet gambling is stressing our financial, social, and law enforcement efforts. HR 2046 will... further increase the negative impact of internet gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be tempted, however, to ask him to prove this point and ask him exactly what "social enforcement" is.

[oldbookguy]

Personally, I would concentrate on B and E and tie the two together.

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.

When providing this, I have included a printed copy of the page that has the link, the page itself and a page example of a few games.

The worst, our opposition will try and introduce legislation to cover this, then a real battle can begin.

obg

[Lostit]

Let me clarify one point here:

Drawing dead is a given, and I fully realize that. But as I've seen stated by others, it should be our goal to take even the most hardened opponents and at least soften them up. As a result, I don't want to turn this into an adverserial disagreement, but a professional and constructive debate, where at least he sees the validity of some of the counter points. He will always vote against us, but he doesn't have to lobby against us. I would like to stress that the tone of his letter was kind and professional, and that may be an opening for a constructive debate. At the very least, its just letter and a phone call. It couldn't hurt.

I also caught the "social" enforcement piece, but bringing that up can't lead to anything constructive of positive, so I'll probably ignore it in any further correspondance.

[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.

[hollaballa]

like I posted the other day, the study bill is the only hope.

And to use two quotes from the head of the American Gaming Association "if poker players think they can over turn the internet gambling bill, they are sadly mistaken", and "no chance in hell" was his comment about reversing the ban with a bill like Franks.

So why am I posting this?

Many smart people in DC have said it, and it seems very logical to me.....there's no chance in hell congress is going to reverse a bill without having some tangible support in favor of a reversal.

Tangible support means a study. A study that shows we can effectively stop underage kids and people with problems.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

The skill game exemption has about a 2% chance. The Frank bill has a zero percent chance.

The sooner we focus our efforts on a study, the better.

[4_2_it]

If a parent leaves a credit card lying around, a teenage girl will spend thousands shopping and a teenage boy will sign up for every porn site he can find. I think gambling would be pretty far down on the list of activities teens will do if they get a hold of Dad's AmEx. Ask him why there are not laws on the books to prevent these much more likely occurrences.

[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

[Merkle]

I think the argument about children is the easiest to address. If he believe that the current sites are already illegal then why would they care if they broke one more law by allowing minors to gamble. Regulation of the sites motivates them not to break the law pertaining to minors as it would jeapordize millions of dollars of income for the few extra dollars a minor would bring to site. Do point out that there ARE many safeguards to prevent minors from playing on regulated sites.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me clarify one point here:

Drawing dead is a given, and I fully realize that. But as I've seen stated by others, it should be our goal to take even the most hardened opponents and at least soften them up. As a result, I don't want to turn this into an adverserial disagreement, but a professional and constructive debate, where at least he sees the validity of some of the counter points. He will always vote against us, but he doesn't have to lobby against us. I would like to stress that the tone of his letter was kind and professional, and that may be an opening for a constructive debate. At the very least, its just letter and a phone call. It couldn't hurt.

I also caught the "social" enforcement piece, but bringing that up can't lead to anything constructive of positive, so I'll probably ignore it in any further correspondance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for being so negative. It definitely cannot hurt to try. Good luck and I hope you can turn him. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]