Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread

[TheEngineer]

Great article!

[PokeReader]

Hey, re the regulation writing process I suggest everyone contact their banks. They will actually have much more of a voice at the table than anyone else we could hope to influence. I'll have to look it up but there will also be a banking trade association representing the individual banks during the reg. process. I would suggest that people's letters not be in the tone of "I play online poker and it's none of your business or the gov'ts either. Instead, the letters should argue against burdensome government regulations that will further restrain commerce and the free flow of liquidity. We should argue that we do not want banks restricting the use of lawfully possessed funds, the account-holder is entitled to the use of their money, and if they do something illegal with them it is up to the gov't to arrest them. However, to restrict the use of their funds without prosecting any underlying criminal act is unheard of, and sets a chilling and dangerous precedence for further financial restrictions in the future.

I don't know what kind of press coordination is going on generally, but if we need mass pushes for something like this we will need the different places poker players get information to coordinate. Generally, the gaming sites, web sites and forums, pro blogs, magazines, and ideally the tournaments (Ha!), should set up a coordinated contact system so that if something happens that needs player action there will be alot of place where they hear about it, and hopefully just have to hit through a pop-up to contact whoever. I admit trying to work on these kind of things at the end of the last electoral cycle was what made decide poker players were kind of hopeless as activists, but am dipping toe back in water now. Engineer definitely seems like superstar, made me feel guilty I'm not doing anything when I actually know these people.

[TheEngineer]

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with 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” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a 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) in 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. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. 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 regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. 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. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I do not believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you’ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We’re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


Cc: My Congressman (on the Financial Services Committee) and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee Chairman

[Merkle]

I recently wrote my first letter to a govt official and have jut received his reply. I will post his reply and my intended reply. If anybody notices any corrections I should make i my reply before sending it would be appreciated.

Dear Mr. xxxxx:

Thank you for contacting our office to express your support for H.R. 2046 the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. I appreciate the time you took to share your views on this issue with me.

As you know, language preventing the use of payment instruments, such as credit cards and fund transfers, as well as prohibiting internet gambling, was passed by both houses of Congress as part of Safe Port legislation and signed into law by the President on October 13, 2006.

H.R. 2046 would provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The bill has been referred to the House Financial Services Committee and the Committee on Energy and Commerce where it is currently pending with no legislative consideration scheduled at this time. Please be assured that we will closely monitor the progress of this bill should it begin to move through the legislative process in the future.

Again, thank you for your e-mail. Please do not hesitate to contact our office on issues of concern to you in the future or if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,


John Tanner, M. C.

And my planned response:

Thank you for your response to my message. And yes, I am very aware and very outraged at how the UIGEA bill was passed without debate in the Senate by tacking it on to a port security bill on the final day of last years session. That action led me to vote entirely democratic ticket in the last election for the first time in my life. In the past I have always voted Republican because I expect less government interference in my day to day life.

I am also aware that the UIGEA bill was in total disregard of our commitments under the World Trade Organization treaty and has potential ramifications not just with Antigua but with EU as well.

I rue the day when I have to look to a Democrat for less interference in my private life, but at least his bill will be a first step toward correcting our situation in regards to the WTO.

I am also aware that as a semi-professional chess player the UIGEA could be interpreted against online chess tournaments in which I have participated in the past. This is another reason I ask you to support Wexler's bill H.R. 2610.

By the way you do realize UIGEA did NOT make internet gambling illegal. After all it specifically allows horse race bets and lotteries as well as fantasy sports league gambling. We need H.R. 2046 and H.R. 2610 as the first steps toward correcting the poorly worded and thought out UIGEA bill. These issues need to be defined, regulated and taxed, not prohibited or left in limbo.

[TheEngineer]

Focus on the Family's new action item is to contact members of the House Judiciary Committee. Seems we should do the same for our next action item. Anyone have an opinion for or against?

[ QUOTE ]
FOF: Be sure to contact House Judiciary Committee members (202-225-3951) from your state and urge their opposition to Barney Frank's bill (HR 2046).

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

Sounds good. Thanks for taking the time to write and to share your letter. That encourages others here to fight back, too.

[Sniper]

Some people might find the free tools here useful.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s ...

Sincerely,

TheEngineer


Cc: My Congressman (on the Financial Services Committee) and Michael Duncan, Republican National Committee Chairman

[/ QUOTE ]

I found the carbon copy line was a good way to send out a lot of letters while having to write only one, so I share that with you all. With many letters I can simply change the recipient's name and reuse it. Others, like this one, work better by carbon copying. I sent this letter to Bush, Gonzales, my rep, both senators, the RNC chair, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Financial Services Committee, and to Paulson at the Treasury Dept. I thought that's a bit of mileage from one letter.

Here's some contact info:

Bush: comments@whitehouse.gov
Gonzales: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Paulson: 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, D.C. 20220
Rep: www.house.gov
Senators: www.senate.gov
RNC chair: Chairman@gop.com
DNC: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx
House Financial Services Committee: 2129 Rayburn House Office Building; Washington, DC 20515

[TheEngineer]

A post I've made to a few conservative blogs:

CINOs want bigger government, as usual
TheEngineer
June 16, 2007

The neo-pub CINOs spend like Democrats; they just don't wish to tax for what they spent. Somehow, this is supposed to be fiscally conservative. I hope we real conservatives retake the party someday.

There are fissures in our party. Many Republicans, especially younger voters, are rebelling from the takeover of our party by big government, big spending social conservatives. This is no longer the party of Reagan, which celebrated limited government and optimism for America. Our party abandoned its roots, so its members are abandoning our party.

It seems we conservatives have been too busy drinking our own bathwater (reading only conservative pubs, listening primarily to conservative radio, etc.) to see what's going on with our party. We were elected on the promise of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, especially at the federal level. Instead of that, we decided to spend and spend and spend some more. Then, we decided big government was fine, so long as it promoted a socially conservative agenda (one that Goldwater would not have even recognized, by the way). We don't like online poker? Rather than simply choosing to not play, we instead passed federal legislation mandating banks to comb through our financial transactions and mandating our ISPs nose in on our Internet sites (and also mandating that ISPs block access to certain sites, as is done by China and Iran). After all, we can't trust Americans to make wise choices, right? We don't like Democrat corruption? Fine, we have lots of hearings (as we should). Republican corruption? We'd better hide that and criticize reporters who mention it, then act surprised when we lose elections (and blame the liberals for our own transgressions).

You want to see how bad Congressional Republicans are now with respect to limited government? The House Financial Services Committee had a hearing on June 8 to discuss the feasibility of effective regulation of Internet gaming. Hearing documents are on the committee website, at http://www.house.gov/apps/list/heari...ht060807.shtml ; the hearing webcast is at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx . However, despite the fact that the hearing clearly showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated (in fact, those favoring a ban on Internet gaming were embarrassed), Congressional Republicans like Spencer Bachus have decided that American adults cannot be trusted with the freedom to decide to play. Sad.

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 and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business real Americans 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.

[TheEngineer]

Well, we're gaining some momentum! Robert Wexler introduced his "skills game" poker bill. Also, IGREA is gaining some steam. We demolished our opponents in the hearing, 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 concerned that the regs won't be "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 H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. His approach is more consistent with existing state law. Many states ban or regulate games of "chance" but not games of "skill". In fact, one can play various "skill games" on MSN, AOL, and Yahoo for money in 36 states with no legal issues whatsoever. While many of us (me included) prefer full legalization of all online gaming simply on general principle, to be fair Wexler is sticking to existing precedent. It doesn't hurt other gaming, as it doesn't legitimize UIGEA or create additional laws. Rather, it defined poker as not being governed by UIGEA or by the Wire Act. If you're not a poker AP....it's time to learn if this bill passes, because websites will be MINTING CASH for anyone with half a brain!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

2. Please contact your congressman and senators by phone and by mail to praise the outcome of the 6/8 IGREA hearing (www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml; webcast archived at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx ) 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. They say, "Representative Barney Frank, however, introduced dangerous legislation that would legalize Internet gambling and promote its expansion. The fight is on and we need your help to defend the family!" I think we all agree...the fight in on!!!

We should counterbalance FOF's effort. Whatever they do, we should do (unless it's stupid, of course). 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.

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. Since we proved our position in the 6/8 House hearing, let's post that link wherever we can. I have. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I found one place that link isn't.....it's not on Spencer Bachus' web site!! </font>

Thanks everyone!