Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread

[TheEngineer]

Standard reply from Pfizer....at least they have it.


----- Original Message -----
From: Corporate Governance
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Other Governance Issues

Dear xxxxxxxxx,

This note will acknowledge receipt of your e-mail sent to Pfizer’s Lead Independent Director. Thank you for taking the time to write to us and share your views. Your comments have been noted and will be shared with the Board.

Sincerely,

Margaret M. Foran

Senior Vice President – Corporate Governance,
Associate General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
Pfizer Inc.

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

From: Pfizer
Sent: Friday, 24 August, 2007 12:37:23 AM
To: leaddirector
Subject: Other Governance Issues

Activity Subject:Other Governance Issues

Activity Body:As a Pfizer stockholder, I read with great concern articles in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal concerning upcoming WTO sanctions on U.S. businesses to compensate for the government’s blocking of access to our Internet gaming market. [The articles are available online at www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/business/worldbusiness/23gamble.html?ref=business and at http://online.wsj.com/public/article...870406171.html.] The articles are very troubling, as it appears the U.S. is already preparing to give billions of dollars in trade sanctions to the EU and other nations in order to keep its Internet gaming restrictions. Also, the U.S. is willing to weaken the WTO by backing out of a previously agreed-upon sector of GATS. While it is bad enough that the U.S. government would choose to not allow people the freedom to choose to play poker in their own homes with their own money, expecting our most successful industries and our largest employers to finance this decision to the tune of billions of dollars per year in trade concessions is egregious. What makes this even worse is that, had Congress truly felt Internet gaming was wrong, they could have avoided this trade issue by simply banning all Internet gaming. However, this was not the case. Congress specifically allowed interstate horse race betting and fantasy football to be wagered over the Internet (apparently these are more moral than poker to someone in Congress). So, in essence, Pfizer is being asked to subsidize these two activities, which I’ve nicknamed the Mitch McConnell Horse Racing Subsidy and the NFL Fantasy Football Tax. Negotiations with the European Union over this issue are scheduled for next month. I urge you to speak up before the United States Trade Representative places these taxes on the shoulders of Pfizer. Sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[DeadMoneyDad]

Hey TE!

Clear up your mail box! It's so full it can't take any more!

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey TE!

Clear up your mail box! It's so full it can't take any more!

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I cleared it. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

IGREA gains one more cosponsor (36 total):

Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA] - 9/7/2007

Rep. Scott moves from A- to A. He voted against HR 4411.

[suppasonic]

So my congresswoman, Lois Capps [D-CA], is A- under the list. So I should write a letter asking her to cosponsor the bill?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
So my congresswoman, Lois Capps [D-CA], is A- under the list. So I should write a letter asking her to cosponsor the bill? [/quote

Yes, definitely. You should write to Congress regardless of rating. However, as Rep. Capps voted against HR 4411, you have a real chance here. Please write as soon as you can. Thanks.

[suppasonic]

Is UIGEA = HR 4411?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
IGREA gains one more cosponsor (36 total):

Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA] - 9/7/2007

Rep. Scott moves from A- to A. He voted against HR 4411.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome, it has stood at 35 forever it seems.

[suppasonic]

Ok, does this look good? Im not exactly sure what each individual act and bill is, so hopefully i didn't confuse them in this letter.

Dear Congresswoman ***,
I'm writing to request that you vote for and cosponsor HR 2046, Rep. Barney Frank’s online gambling licensing bill. The Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act troubles me. It makes concessions for horse racing and online fantasy sports, but not for online poker, which is a game of skill as much as if not more than horse racing and fantasy sports. Many people are able to consistently win in poker and many are able to use casino poker games as primary income. Poker is in no way the game of chance that roulette, slots, and other gambling games are.
In addition, the federal government has no right to regulate internet gambling, which California allows. You have already voted against HR 4411, so you already agree the federal government is out of line in regulating online gambling. What I do in the privacy of my own home for a little bit of enjoyment here and there to no one else’s detriment should not be outlawed;
The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement act (HR 2046) would help to correct this mistake by allowing internet gambling and, by extension, poker to go aboveboard in the US. With the licensing under this bill, it would making online gambling an clean operation, just like any other corporation in the US.
The upcoming elections will be my first I am eligible to vote for. Cosponsoring this bill would make me an enthusiastic supporter of you next time you go up for re-election and for all future elections.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,
suppasonic

[Uglyowl]

Looks good, how about tax revenue? That seems to be the big thing that would grab their attention. Anyhow here are the big three that are in the works:

HR 2046: Barney Frank sponsored: License and regulate online gambling in US

HR 2610: Robert Wexler sponsored: Amend and allow games of skill

HR 2140: Shelley Berkley sponsored: To study online gambling for potential regulation in US