Good News In WA

[ThreePutt]

Here is the response I received back from Representative Larry Springer, 45th District:
-------------------
Thanks for the email. The bill passed last session simply brought
Washington state law into concurrence with Federal law. After the bills
passage the Federal government has now imposed penalties in excess of
our state laws. The future of online gambling appears to rest with the
Federal government since they continue to impose laws that supersede
Washington state law.

Regarding HB 1243, I have not yet read the bill but will speak with the
bill's sponsor and consider your comments before making a final
decision, should the bill make it to the floor of the House for a vote.

Thanks again, and as always please feel free to contact me anytime.

Regards,

Larry Springer

45th District State Representative
----------------------

I'm not sure Larry has a solid grasp of the UIGEA. Anyone have any suggestions on how to reply to this?

[NPIII]

The other thing you can do is visit
http://washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49060

This site has info on house and senate bills and a forum where people express their views. SB 6613 is *still* the most commented legislation on their site. It would be great if HB 1243 became second (or even first). Go there and politely express your views!

[NPIII]

You can also contact anyone in the media that you know. The more we get this out the better off we will be.

[cardcounter0]

I called Rep. Stow's office to thank him for introducing H.B. 1243 and expressing my support. The aide that answered the phone told me they were surprised at the widespread volume of support they were getting.

[ZPinhead]

[ QUOTE ]
You can also contact anyone in the media that you know. The more we get this out the better off we will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

In searching through the Seattle PI website I found several articles that came out after SB 6613 went into effect. One was written by Mike Lewis mikelewis@seattlepi.com (a reporter for the PI) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/280330_poker07.html and another by Cathy Sorbo (she has a Saturday column) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturd...9_sorbo05.html

Perhaps we should start by emailing them and letting them know about HB 1243? (I already have). I suspect the more noise that we make about this bill, the more chance that we have. (squeaky wheel theory)

[NPIII]

That's a great idea - thanks!
I will do so as well.

In addition, I know that Dori Monson (a radio talk show host) and Ken Schram (TV and radio commentator) were media people who fought against SB 6613. Maybe if they recieve emails and phone calls from a lot of us, they will be willing to take up the HB 1243 call.

[KotOD]

From the press release:

“Most certainly choosing to gamble, or play a game of skill such as poker..."

If this passes, it sets up an interesting carve-out in other places.

[plaster8]

This is the response I sent to one of my legislators after I got the "we were just bring state law into compliance with federal law" response. Any improvements/suggestions for future use? Am I way off base with this?

(After rereading it in the post preview, it seems to me that this response is far too long. Oh well.)

Rep. Anderson,

Thanks for your response. I have a couple of further questions/comments, if you don't mind. I appreciate your time.

First, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer), federal law does not specifically outlaw Internet gambling. The recent federal legislation targets financial institutions regarding the funding of online gaming accounts. While the government has claimed that individuals who gamble online are in violation of the Wire Act, that is a grey area with much disagreement in the legal community. In my mind, the state went above and beyond federal gambling law with a law that is unfairly harsh and punitive.

I'd like to refer you to an interesting article by a California attorney regarding Internet gambling. He makes some very good points and speaks to the unclear nature of federal law. (http://therxcasinos.com/blog_neteller-legal.php)

Do you play poker, Mr. Anderson? If you do, you'll note that it's a game of skill. Yes, there's an element of chance to it. But skill comes into play far more than in, say, roulette or craps. I've made a yearly profit at poker in each of the past four years. (I play small stakes, and report my earnings appropriately to the IRS; we're not talking tens of thousands of dollars here.) And I'm not saying that I'm a great player; I've got a lot to learn. But four years isn't a lucky streak. I study the game, I think about the game, I practice the game. There's certainly skill involved.

I enjoyed playing online poker because of the variety of games and stakes offered (because overhead costs are low, online casinos can afford to offer one-cent and two-cent limits, believe it or not). And it was more convenient for me as well. However, I was forced to stop playing when the new state law took effect.

I'm sure people have lost a lot of money playing online poker. I'm also quite certain that people have lost a lot of money playing in live games at casinos. And still more people have lost money gambling on horse racing, which inexplicably has a carve-out in the state law, making it legal to bet on horses online. Can you tell me why this is?

I won't even get into the state-promoted lottery, which is, in essence, a tax on the poor and uneducated.

Rep. Anderson, the vast majority of people who gamble are like me -- they budget their money responsibly and choose to gamble as a form of entertainment. Please allow us the freedom to continue to make that choice.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX

[NPIII]

Feedback for your letter.

Positives: It is polite and makes many good points. It accentuates the fact that responsible gamblers are suffering under SB 6613.

Negatives: Too long. Unlikely that this lawmaker will go to your link. Your link could be argued is from a biased source (online casinos). Also, according to Washington state law, anything with *any* amount of luck at all is considered gambling. You and I can argue that poker is a game of skill (and it *is*), but we can't claim that there is no luck in it. Therefore, according to state law, it is gambling. (That is another Washington State law I would love to try and change.)

I would also try to reword the "grey area" section about the Wire Act. Instead of implying maybe it applies and maybe it doesn't, you should say that there has never been a single court ruling that says the Wire Act applies to anything other than sports betting over the telephone.

Hope that helps.

[plaster8]

Thanks for your thoughts. Thia one has already been sent, but I will revise it for future correspondence.