A Democrat in Congress, his position on Internet Gambling Prohibition

[MS Sunshine]

Below is my Congressman's response about his views on the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. There are four cardroom/casinos in his district. They have been tying up a local Native American tribe's casino plan for years that in partnership with one of the Conn. tribes wants to build a mega-casino 20 miles north of Portland. So they have political clout locally. I'm willing to bet my lunch money that they support his campaign and have given input about this bill.

MS Sunshine


[ QUOTE ]
September 11, 2006



Dear Friend :



Thank you for contacting me regarding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.



First, I want to be clear that I recognize a person's right to choose to gamble. However, as a former clinical psychologist, I have seen the devastating effects when people abuse that right. I have significant concerns with how easy it is to gamble on the Internet and worry about the extent to which Internet gambling contributes to the despair of those addicted to gambling. I am also concerned that Internet gambling is frequently carried out by entities that are located offshore and have no obligation to share profits with our local communities.



In addition, many websites require credit card as well as social security information before play can begin. Many online users, especially young adults, may not be aware of the potential for fraud and will willingly hand over important information. Beyond that, there are limited barriers to prevent children from accessing these gambling sites.



The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would crack down on illegal gambling by updating the Wire Act to cover all forms of interstate gambling. The bill also prohibits a gambling business from accepting certain forms of payment, including credit cards, checks, wire and Internet transfers, in illegal gambling transactions.



As you may know, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was added to the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act (H.R. 4411) and the combined bill was passed by the full House on July 11, 2006 on a 317-93 vote. In addition to the provisions of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, the bill amends the criminal code to prohibit persons engaged in a gambling business from knowingly accepting credit, electronic funds transfers, checks, drafts or similar financial instruments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The bill awaits further action in the Senate.







Thank you again for writing to express your views on this issue. Please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/baird/IMA/email.shtml to sign up for periodic email updates about my work in Congress.

Sincerely,

Brian Baird

Member of Congress



[/ QUOTE ]

[kidpokeher]

Time to throw this fool out.

[MiltonFriedman]

What a moron. PLEASE campaign against him this November.

'The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act would crack down on illegal gambling by updating the Wire Act to cover all forms of interstate gambling."

(EXCEPT, horseracing and lotteries)

'However, as a former clinical psychologist, I have seen the devastating effects when people abuse that right."

(Unlike alcohol. I can feel a Nanny State a comin')

I have significant concerns with how easy it is to gamble on the Internet and worry about the extent to which Internet gambling contributes to the despair of those addicted to gambling.

(So, take the right away from those people who are NOT addicted ... unless they go to one of your local brick & mortar joints. )

'I am also concerned that Internet gambling is frequently carried out by entities that are located offshore and have no obligation to share profits with our local communities."

(What a moron .... These businesses are offshore BECAUSE they are not allowed onshore. If they were, then they would be in the US .... Also, what kind of socialistic "obligation" does this yahoo impose upon Interstate Commerce to "share profits" .... Is there a "local community" tax on profits in his district. Would he support dealing crack, so long as the profits were shared with the local community ? Is he against Interstate Commerce, because it doesn't share with the local community ? )

[MagCFO]

I didn't know sites asked me for my SS#. That's news to me. Where the hell do these people get their info?

[6471849653]

Online gambling is bad and it's just too much online with all credit card and other problems, and it's both bad and immoral. I agree there seems to be something wrong in it, but it really isn't when the thing has been analysed to details.

Online gambling should be banned? They think something like that in USA, and have been doing for years and one may figure things are going to happen, but I don't think they are all that stupid in USA as they used to be; these days people can think too.

Poker is not only gambling so can't be banned like chess can't be banned (it has been done too). Credit cards may not be accepted anymore, so they see a difference between online gambling and credit card use. Some age checks are there, but still somewhat a formality. Money going to the account it came from from that part. So improvements have happened, but it has not resulted as a ban of online gambling, as it shouldn't have.

Poker (gambling) is not bad, sports (gambling) is not bad. Casino games are bad, and they connect them these days to poker too, more so the blacjack, but that is again no reason to ban poker or sports or stuff like that (other acceptable bets as they are a part of the way of life while some blackjack isn't and one can never get the money back one loses with balckjack (not counting bonuses) but with poker one can get it back by improving one's play.

Therapy is needed for stupid gamblers, not banning the game just because of some sick people.

Some people losing money that they would not if they would know better, so they are actually cheated at poker? Well, that's just one more idiot. All the rest know well enough what they are risking.

I just could continue, but this subject under the "ban it" is just so stupid, people keep trying to ban online gambling. I suppose they will succeed at some point as it needs only one time for it, all 999 failures to ban it before that do not count.

Not that I really bother that much as an European, though it can be a bad example as people are stupid here too, just more open. I just keep seeing that "ban it" stupidity year after year. Ban not being the solution, there being many steps that can take effect before that, and that will be enough.

[MrGladstone]

Funny...the exact same letter he sent me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MasterLJ]

That's why it's entitled "Dear Friend," as opposed to "Dear Mr. Blah blah blah"

They usually have aides make and send out cookie-cutter letters based on issues.

The "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" crap really gets me. Children's barriers to gambling are that they don't have access to money. The obvious rebuttal is "but they can use Mommy and Daddy's credit card!" This is true... but they could also use the same credit card to buy 26,153 giant pink dildos from the internet as well.

[AndyH69]

What's this all about then?!

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ing091306.html

He doesn't like gambling, but then refuses to back the bill to curb Indian gambling...

Does he have some sort of "interest"?

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
What's this all about then?!

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ing091306.html

He doesn't like gambling, but then refuses to back the bill to curb Indian gambling...

Does he have some sort of "interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

When in his letter he said...

[ QUOTE ]
I am also concerned that Internet gambling is frequently carried out by entities that are located offshore and have no obligation to share profits with our local communities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we all know, Indian casinos share a ton of profits with local communities because they pay SO much tax. <sarcasm btw>

[ProsperousOne]

Let's email him this blog.

I wish I could still tell Political jokes, but I was forced to stop. Too many got elected.