Message From Senator Durbin

[oldmangrimis]

I have sent a letter with the PPA to the House-Senate and Mr Durbin reply. I am glad that I recived a reply and for other that have sent a latter they to have or will get a reply. The bad news is it not what most poker player wanted. He said that there is a lot of debate over it but most of the US does not want Internet gambling and poker is group into that. The cons won over the pro for Internet poker he says. The cons where amount of money spent,unregulated nature of this business, Internet sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud. When a House-Senate conference committee met to work out differences in their separate versions of the bill, the conferees added language regarding Internet gambling, and that got put into the SAFE Port Act of 2006. SAFE Port Act prohibits those who are in the business of gambling from knowingly accepting credit cards, checks, electronic fund transfers.

So the reply was not what poker player wanted but it still good to get a reply, it just are job to show that poker is more a game of skill then it is of game of luck. We are only going to be able to play poker on the Internet if we show that poker is more like a game of chess then it is to slots.

[BRDSR]

I don't mean this to be rude, OP, but I hope when you write Durbin your grammar and syntax are better than in that post. Legislators and the people that work for them are generally a stuffy, uptight, and overly-pretentious group of people. When they see a poorly written argument they tend to dismiss the argument as well as the person who made it.

In regards to Durbin's response, I think it is a form response because I got something very similar from him about 6 months ago. It seems partially true, but also short-sighted and uncreative. If poker players get organized and make enough noise, legislators will start to take notice.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have sent a letter with the PPA to the House-Senate and Mr Durbin reply. I am glad that I recived a reply and for other that have sent a latter they to have or will get a reply. The bad news is it not what most poker player wanted. He said that there is a lot of debate over it but most of the US does not want Internet gambling and poker is group into that. The cons won over the pro for Internet poker he says. The cons where amount of money spent,unregulated nature of this business, Internet sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud. When a House-Senate conference committee met to work out differences in their separate versions of the bill, the conferees added language regarding Internet gambling, and that got put into the SAFE Port Act of 2006. SAFE Port Act prohibits those who are in the business of gambling from knowingly accepting credit cards, checks, electronic fund transfers.

So the reply was not what poker player wanted but it still good to get a reply, it just are job to show that poker is more a game of skill then it is of game of luck. We are only going to be able to play poker on the Internet if we show that poker is more like a game of chess then it is to slots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance you could scan or type in the good Sen.'s reply?

It would help with whoever might be visting his staff tomorrow to have a point by point rebuttal.


Just a thought,


D$D

[smartalecc5]

I sent the from PPA letter to Durbin and Obama. Here are the responses.

Thank you for your message regarding Internet gambling. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.



The debate over Internet gambling has generated strong public interest. While most types of Internet gambling operations are prohibited under federal law, many Internet gambling operations are based in foreign countries and have fallen outside the jurisdiction of American enforcement agencies. Overall, Americans spend roughly $4 billion to $6 billion a year on Internet gambling. Because of the largely unregulated nature of this business, Internet gambling sites often fail to block access to gambling by children and often lack effective safeguards against fraud. Further, Internet gambling can be addictive, and this addiction has had a harmful effect on some individuals and communities.



In September 2006, the Senate passed the SAFE Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954). This legislation contained numerous important provisions that would improve the security of our nation's ports. When a House-Senate conference committee met to work out differences in their separate versions of the bill, the conferees added language regarding Internet gambling.



The language that the conference committee added to the SAFE Port Act prohibits those who are in the business of gambling from knowingly accepting credit cards, checks, electronic fund transfers or similar financial instruments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. The Act imposes fines and/or prison sentences on violators. The legislation further requires the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations directing banks and other financial transaction providers to adopt practices that will enable them to identify and prevent restricted transactions that support Internet gambling.



The final version of the SAFE Port Act of 2006 included a number of provisions important to our national security. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. There was not a separate vote on the provisions to prevent unlawful Internet gambling.



As the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board craft the regulations required by the gambling provisions of the SAFE Port Act, it is important that they work with law-abiding financial transaction providers. We can effectively improve the enforcement of our longstanding ban on unlawful Internet gambling transactions without imposing unrealistic or overly burdensome requirements on law-abiding financial transaction providers.


Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

---------------------------------------------

Obama's.
Thank you for contacting me regarding on-line gambling. You raise some important concerns.

As you know, prior to Congress’s action last year, internet gambling was a growing industry. According to a study by the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), since the mid-1990s internet gambling operators established approximately 1,800 e-gaming Web sites in locations outside the United States, and global revenues from internet gaming in 2003 were over $5 billion dollars.

Both states and the federal government have laws and regulations addressing internet gambling. At the federal level, the Wire Act prohibits gambling businesses from using interstate or international telecommunications firms to knowingly transmit or receive bets. Furthermore, private companies, including many in the credit card industry, have taken steps to restrict internet gambling, primarily by prohibiting cardholders from using the cards to gamble online.

In 1996, Congress created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission to examine the social and economic impacts of gambling, including internet gambling. In its 1999 report, the Commission recommended (1) that the federal government prohibit any internet gambling not already authorized and encourage foreign governments not to harbor internet gambling organizations, and (2) that Congress pass legislation prohibiting the collection of credit card debt for internet gambling.

Following up on the Commission’s recommendations, the House of Representatives approved HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, by a 317-93 vote. This bill was then folded into a conference committee report on unrelated port security legislation, and became Public Law 109-347 on October 13th, 2006.

I recognize both the need to comply with federal and state laws and the desire of many Illinoisans to not have the federal government over-regulate their behavior. As opportunities to reexamine this issue arise, I will certainly keep your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

[smartalecc5]

glad I put that together [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AKA Squared]

Is it just me or are they both avoiding saying anything?

I hate my Senators.