Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread

[TheEngineer]

I updated the Wikipedia Online Poker article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_poker, to add the UIGEA repeal/reform efforts, including ours.

[ QUOTE ]
HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA), was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) on April 26, 2007. IGREA modifies UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The bill requires age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It also requires Internet gambling facilities to verify that their sites are not used for money laundering or terrorist financing. It provides an "opt out" for states, Indian tribes, and sports leagues. If passed, online poker, as well as other online gaming, will be unambiguously legal in states and on tribal lands that do not opt out.

There is currently a strong grassroots effort to repeal UIGEA. The main advocacy group is the Poker Players Alliance, with 542,731 members (as of June 3, 2007). Another major grop is at the Legislation Forum of www.twoplustwo.com. The Weekly Action Plan for the grassroots effort, authored by TheEngineer, is released every Saturday at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post9946416.


[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

Letters to Write THIS WEEK

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown">3. Now that we have bills out there, we should try to work on our public image. Let's write to newspapers, magazines, post to blogs, etc. with positives of online gaming. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
For this item, if I find a site where I can post a comment, I do. I try to write an intelligent post that mentions Inernet poker in a positive light, to get out the message in a casual way. Following the post, I save it to Word. then, I can reuse the same comment on multiple sites. I don't think we'll change the world with this, but it seems painless. Here's one I posted to an article on a conservative site (this is focused on the audience...one should write a left-leaning one for a left-leaning site, etc):

[ QUOTE ]
The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned any pretense of limited government. After all, it’s been more than a decade since President Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government is over. Too bad Bush has resurrected it form the dead. Under Bush, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, it regulates us more, and it reaches more deeply into our daily lives than it did pre-1994. This is driven by a new brand of conservatism; one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules Barry Goldwater while embracing Roosevelt (and I don’t mean TR). These guys really do have more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.

Under the guise of promoting conservatism, the "new" Republican Party is hard at work giving the federal government unprecedented power to legislate behavior. Look at the recent online poker "ban", where banks and ISPs are required to monitor American citizens at their homes for activities deemed inappropriate by the all-powerful federal government. It’s really the business of the federal government to concern themselves with people playing cards in their own homes? Look at most of Bush's initiatives. And now we have amnesty for illegal aliens. Of course Republicans are in open revolt.

Perhaps the social conservatives and liberals who believe big government is wonderful should form a new pro-government party. They can jointly spend like drunken sailors on programs like No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business folks can then take back the Republican Party. We’ll give rights back to Americans while enforcing our immigration laws (we're doing the reverse now). We’ll be pro-life, as our commitment is to respect the value of all individuals, and we’ll continue to keep government out of the lives of individuals. The funny thing is that this approach will result in improved morality and values. You see, our morals don’t come from Washington.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.
Everyone: Vote for freedom. Tell your Republican congressmen that they don't have to legislate everything they personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom. Perhaps, some day, we'll have a government that leaves some decisions up to the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="brown">3. Now that we have bills out there, we should try to work on our public image. Let's write to newspapers, magazines, post to blogs, etc. with positives of online gaming. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
For this item, if I find a site where I can post a comment, I do. I try to write an intelligent post that mentions Inernet poker in a positive light, to get out the message in a casual way. Following the post, I save it to Word. then, I can reuse the same comment on multiple sites. I don't think we'll change the world with this, but it seems painless. Here's one I posted to an article on a conservative site (this is focused on the audience...one should write a left-leaning one for a left-leaning site, etc):

[ QUOTE ]
The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned ....

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

To further economize, I took that post and turned it into three letters...one to my rep and one to each of my senators. Here it is. Feel free to use it:

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

The Honorable xxxx xxxxx
United States House of Representatives
xxxx Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx,

The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned any pretense of limited government. After all, it’s been more than a decade since President Clinton announced that the era of big government is over. Too bad Bush has resurrected it form the dead. Under Bush, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, it regulates us more, and it reaches more deeply into our daily lives than it did pre-1994. This is driven by a new brand of conservatism; one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules Barry Goldwater while embracing Roosevelt (and I don’t mean TR). These guys have more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.

Under the guise of promoting conservatism, the "new" Republican Party is hard at work giving the federal government unprecedented power to legislate behavior. Look at the recent online poker "ban", where banks and ISPs are required to monitor American citizens at their homes for activities deemed inappropriate by the all-powerful federal government. It’s really the business of the federal government to concern themselves with people playing cards in their own homes? Look at most of Bush's initiatives. And now we have amnesty for illegal aliens. Of course Republicans are in open revolt.

Perhaps the social conservatives and liberals who believe big government is wonderful should form a new pro-government party. They can jointly spend like drunken sailors on programs like No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business folks can then take back the Republican Party. We’ll give rights back to Americans while enforcing our immigration laws (we're doing the reverse now). We’ll be pro-life, as our commitment is to respect the value of all individuals, and we’ll continue to keep government out of the lives of individuals. The funny thing is that this approach will result in improved morality and values. You see, our morals don’t come from Washington.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

I urge you to vote for freedom. Congress does not have to legislate everything congressmen personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom. Perhaps, some day, we'll have a government that leaves some decisions up to the individual.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

Minor typo (in case you use it):

[ QUOTE ]
The Honorable xxxx xxxxx
United States House of Representatives
xxxx Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx,

The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned any pretense of limited government. After all, it’s been more than a decade since President Clinton announced that the era of big government is over. Too bad Bush has resurrected it from the dead. Under Bush, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, it regulates us more, and it reaches more deeply into our daily lives than it did pre-1994. This is driven by a new brand of conservatism; one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules Barry Goldwater while embracing Roosevelt (and I don’t mean TR). These guys have more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Uglyowl]

Bump since this has fallen to page two and is important. Can everyone make a few phone calls tonight for the June 8th hearing:

Here is the list of members of the financial services committee.

http://financialservices.house.gov/members.html

[TheEngineer]

Well, we're gaining some momentum! We have a long way to go, but it's great to see progress. Robert Wexler will introduce a "skills game" exception to UIGEA today. Also, IGREA is gaining some steam. The hearing is tomorrow, so there's some real progress. Also, HR 2140, Rep. Shelley Berkley's [D-NV] Internet gambling study bill, is progressing with 60 cosponsors. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has indicated his support for the study bill. Finally, the UIGEA regulations are due on 7/10. Our opponents are complaining that the regs aren't "tough" enough, so we have an opportunity there.

It seems there's a lot we can be doing right now. And, we really need to do it RIGHT NOW. So, based on our group discussions, let's do the following:
<font color="brown">
1. Please contact your congressman and senators by phone and by mail and ask them to support and cosponsor the Wexler poker bill (let's wait until it's out first, so we don't look like we don't read things we endorse, of course).

2. Please contact your congressman and senators by phone and by mail to praise the outcome of the 6/8 IGREA hearing and to encourage them to support the legislation.

3. Write to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Treasury Secretary Paulson. Ask them not to exceed the specific mandates of UIGEA when drafting legislation. Remind them that online poker is not illegal under any federal law. Focus on the Family is asking their members to write to Paulson and Bush to request tough regulations. See http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gamb...A000004244.cfm , a Focus site. We should counterbalance this effort. Also, Sen. Kyl asked Gonzales for tough regulations during the AG Senate hearings. We should counterbalance this as well.

I realize this was an action from last time, but since then the FBI now claims online gambling is illegal in the U.S., at http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm , so we really should speak up for ourselves, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
If you’ve ever thought about visiting a cyber casino, here’s something you should know: it’s illegal to gamble online in the United States.

“You can go to Vegas. You can go to Atlantic City. You can go to a racetrack. You can go to those places and gamble legally. But don’t do it online. It’s against the law,” says Leslie Bryant, head of our Cyber Crime Fraud unit at FBI Headquarters.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="brown">

4. Now that we have bills out there, we should try to work on our public image. Let's write to newspapers, magazines, post to blogs, etc. with positives of online poker/gaming. </font> </font>

Thanks everyone!

[TheEngineer]

Dear Congressman xxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

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

Dear Senator xxxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, when it is introduced into the Senate. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]

I realize this was an action from last time, but since then the FBI now claims online gambling is illegal in the U.S., at http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm , so we really should speak up for ourselves, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
If you’ve ever thought about visiting a cyber casino, here’s something you should know: it’s illegal to gamble online in the United States.

“You can go to Vegas. You can go to Atlantic City. You can go to a racetrack. You can go to those places and gamble legally. But don’t do it online. It’s against the law,” says Leslie Bryant, head of our Cyber Crime Fraud unit at FBI Headquarters.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="brown">



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't believe how much this puts me on tilt. I wish I had the funds to afford the legal hassles. If I was a high stakes guy with a fat bankroll I'd be trying to get myself arrested right now.

Thanks again for everything, Engineer. You're doing a great job of keeping us all informed, motivated and mobilized.

[Riverrun]

hey all, posted this under the x-post in medium stakes, but realized probably more interest here:

article from today's ny times that sounds a little hopeful

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-10...70&amp;emc=eta1