Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread

[TheEngineer]

The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

I understand that some who wish to prohibit law-abiding Americans from choosing to play online poker in the privacy of their own homes have been lobbying your department for UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) regulations that would, in essence, create an Internet gaming prohibition. This concerns me greatly as a freedom-loving American and as a recreational poker player, as Congress did not ban any gaming with UIGEA. It seems anti-poker interest groups would have you disregard this fact and would use your department as a back door means of creating the prohibition they were unable to win legislatively.

As you know, UIGEA does not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists like Senator Kyl and Congressman Bachus are fond of saying this. However, what they neglect to mention is that Internet poker is not illegal under federal law (including the Wire Act of 1961, which covers only sports betting). 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. Given this, I believe the UIGEA regulations should either exempt or simply neglect to mention Internet poker – if not nationwide, certainly for play in states where Internet poker is not explicitly illegal. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet poker, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it.

As for other Internet gaming, Goldman Sachs held large positions in BetOnSports, SportingBet, and other offshore Internet gaming sites while you were CEO. Certainly they would have not held these positions during your tenure as CEO had you felt they either violated U.S. laws or were immoral. I believe you were correct to have authorized these positions and I commend you for it; Americans should have the freedom to make their own decisions with regards to online gaming.

Also, as you are undoubtedly aware, UIGEA has erected a trade barrier around the United States that purports to protect our land-based casinos, horse racing interests, and state lotteries from international competition. In fact, the WTO just ruled against the United States, again, regarding our closed gaming markets. Now your department is being asked by some to increase the height of this trade barrier even further. In fact, the controls some in Congress are suggesting, including having banks snoop through Americans’ financial transactions and having Internet service providers snoop through Americans’ Internet usage history, are more fitting for China or Iran than for America. As you are a well regarded and principled free trade advocate, I strongly urge you to support free trade in this matter by disregarding those who would have you exceed the specific UIGEA requirements.

Unfortunately, while these anti-gaming interest groups list various reasons to justify an online poker prohibition, these groups oppose effective regulations to address those concerns. On June 8, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing, entitled Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System? (available on the committee website, at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ). The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the feasibility of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. The hearing conclusively showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, operator integrity, homeland security concerns, integrity of sporting, tax collection, and other issues. However, rather than working toward regulation that addresses their stated concerns, the opponents of Internet gambling prefer you to restrict the freedoms of Americans well beyond what was passed by Congress with UIGEA. It seems they simply dislike gambling and wish to impose their personal opinions on others. I trust you will not allow your department to further this unworkable system, especially when effective regulation is being eschewed.

While your department is clearly compelled to enforce the Act, I ask that you enforce only that which is specifically mandated by the bill. Again, UIGEA is not an online gaming prohibition, regardless of what the anti-gaming interest groups say.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[Dr_Jeckyl_00]

I am not sure where to post, so this thread looks good.

I sent my Congressman, the "Honorable" Chris Shays of CT the form letter found through PPA, and of course added some of my own verbiage to the letter. Shays basically said he supported UIGEA and has always been against gambling. His argument was to protect children and the poor people that are hurt most by having gamboling problems.

His letter was sent to me in snail mail format. I suppose I could post it, but I am not sure how.

Not sure what else I can do here in CT. sorry if this was the wrong thread.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure where to post, so this thread looks good.

I sent my Congressman, the "Honorable" Chris Shays of CT the form letter found through PPA, and of course added some of my own verbiage to the letter. Shays basically said he supported UIGEA and has always been against gambling. His argument was to protect children and the poor people that are hurt most by having gamboling problems.

His letter was sent to me in snail mail format. I suppose I could post it, but I am not sure how.

Not sure what else I can do here in CT. sorry if this was the wrong thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the right thread. Thanks for taking the time to write. Although Shays isn't with us, he now knows one more of his constituents isn't with him. If he knows opposing Internet poker isn't "free", he may back off a bit if enough of us write and call. This is especially true of Northeastern Republicans like Shays, who are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

[PokeReader]

Chris is a Christian Scientist. Fortuately, he is actually in a vunerable district. Won by like 7 points, if I remember correctly, and it was alot more than we thought it would be. He will definitely be on the target list for this year again. I haven't been paying attention to CT, so I'm not sure who the potential candiates are, (though it won't be Diane again), but I'll take a look. There is a local gaming issue with potential Indian casinos in the district.

What we really need to do is to come up with a target list. People who are against us who are in vunerable districts. Then we will have to try to influence the challengers with endorsements/contributions. This is the type of thing I would be happy to help with, I just need to not be publicly out there, especially this cycle. Not to say I can't arrange a meeting with somebody if it makes sense, I just can't become the internet poker playing campaign manager. Sadly, after this thing passed, it would limit my ability to work for different candidates.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
What we really need to do is to come up with a target list. People who are against us who are in vunerable districts. Then we will have to try to influence the challengers with endorsements/contributions. This is the type of thing I would be happy to help with, I just need to not be publicly out there, especially this cycle. Not to say I can't arrange a meeting with somebody if it makes sense, I just can't become the internet poker playing campaign manager. Sadly, after this thing passed, it would limit my ability to work for different candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted an analysis of where we stand relative to geography and political parties on a different thread. I think we'll learn a lot more as IGREA progresses, as it will separate the die-hard gambling opponents like Kyl from the folks like Emanuel Cleaver and Peter King (both voted for UIGEA, but are with us on IGREA....they're not anti-gambing; they are anti-unregulated, offshore, untaxed Internet gambling). We'll obviously want to take aim at Goodlatte, Bachus, and Shays. We'll be adding to the list as time goes on.

Maybe we should start a list of folks who are against us no matter what, on a new thread.

[PokeReader]

My point is that is that it is irrevalent if they oppose us if we cannot defeat them. We need to focus our efforts on a groups of not really more than twenty Congressional seats, maybe eight to ten Senate seats, though it would be better if it would be substantially less on the Senate side.

Groups like our gain power by showing definitively that they can effect election results. If we try to defeat everybody against us, regardless of their vunerability we will dilute our effectiveness. We need to focus on people who are against us, who we can possibly create an edge for defeating, who have a more gaming friendly candidate running against them, ideally in the general, but we could do a few viable challenger primaries. In the end writing letters is helpful, but if we don't have money and volunteers to change election results we will not be able to repeal this. Fact of life. If the sites had been lining pockets this legislation would never had happened. That sad fact is why I only work campaigns and not in the legislation side. Buying Congress is easy. Buying enough to repeal something though, that is not cheap. We now need majorities and leadership in both houses, and the Presidency. I personally think we should have a PAC that will endorse/contribute to candidates that will send questionaires to all the Presidential candidates now - when we need the money - and then we could hopefully find out where we stood.

The one thing this community has if it ever cared to use it is money. As a experienced political fundraiser, I would think at 2+2K max I could easily get 10million out of the poker world with a halfway decent list and a committment to support my candidate. Instead of plodding along the pros need to do what GE does when it wants a Pres. candidate to support something, open up their checkbooks. But just like my push to do this to gain the support of the Congressional Dems before the next election, it is time limited. Dollars after the nomination is secured are discounted, and you do not get the same attention. So, suggestion that would do something, set up PAC, hire fundraiser, send questionnaires, set up meetings with candidates, and pay to get an administration that will at least ignore enforcement of this law.

[TheEngineer]

Sounds good to me. Go for it.

[TheEngineer]

The following congressmen voted for HR 4411 and won reelection in 2006 with <55% of the vote:

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54%
John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) 53.2%
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) 45.6%
Chris Shays (R-CT) 50.9%
Ric Keller (R-FL) 52.8%
Jim Marshall (D-GA) 50.5% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
John Barrow (D-GA) 50.3% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%
Mark Souder (R-IN) 54.3%
Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 51.8%
Geoff Davis (R-KY) 51.7%
William Jefferson (D-LA) 30.1% (56.6% in run-off) [>55%, but very vulnerable]
Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 55.0% (with us now!!! cosponsor of IGREA [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) 51.6%
Thad McCotter (R) 54.1%
Lee Terry (R-NE) 54.7%
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) 49.4%
Heather Wilson (R-NM) 50.2%
Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8%
Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%
Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%
Robin Hayes (R-NC) 50.1%
Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%
Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5%
Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%
Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 54.0%
Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%
Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%
Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%
Thelma Drake (R-VA) 51.3%
Dave Reichert (R-WA) 51.5%
Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 48.3%

[TheEngineer]

What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you all wish to do for the week of 6/25 (with regards to our fight)? Should we write to Congress and the USTR about the WTO decision? Should we continue to badger stragglers to get their letters to Paulson and Gonzales? Please post your thoughts here. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This week should be a push in ALL directions, USTR, Paulson, Gonzales and Bernanke.

I will start a thread (and a copy of a letter i presented them) on a meeting I had today with a rep from Sen. Rockefeller (D. WV) today that may / may not have some promise.

Also, that Cato thing I read, they should receive something from us as well.

The e-mail for the lady there is:
sjames@cato.org

obg