Please review my generic letter to Congress

[TheEngineer]

Hi everyone,

I finished a draft generic letter to Congress. Will you all please review and comment? Thanks.

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



Letter to Your Congressman:

I am writing to you as a constituent, a registered voter, and an avid poker player to ask you to support and cosponsor HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act and HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.

Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, like golfing or chess. Poker is also a great American pastime. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, and average Americans have enjoyed this game of skill for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game. I am proud to play it, and I do not believe there is any reason for the federal government to treat a poker game that individuals play against others online any differently than a Friday night poker game played around a kitchen table.

A national survey by Harris Interactive (June 5-12, 2007) confirms that sixty-nine percent of the general public agree that poker is a game of skill, while only seventeen percent disagree. Other polls have shown strong support for keeping Internet poker legal. The tide has turned so strongly that even a “red” state like Kentucky will elect a pro-gaming governor next month … in a landslide (challenger Steve Beshear currently leads staunchly anti-gaming incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher by twenty points). And, the Poker Players Alliance, a nonprofit organization comprised of poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States, now has almost 800,000 members! We are all energized and we will vote for poker.

Unfortunately, to my great disappointment and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was assaulted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), the fact is that this legislation has had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. I ask that you to help rectify this situation by supporting clarifying legislation.

HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. These safeguards will work; the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearings on Internet gaming proved conclusively that Internet poker can be effectively regulated. Neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish.

Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games for either the domestic or the international markets. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

What’s important to me is your support for restoring my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support and cosponsor one or both of these important bills. I will be watching your actions on this bill closely. I hope that I -- and thousands of other poker fans in your district -- can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to Your Senator:

I am writing to you as a constituent, a registered voter, and an avid poker player to ask you to support and sponsor HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act and HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act in the Senate.

Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, like golfing or chess. Poker is also a great American pastime. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, and average Americans have enjoyed this game of skill for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game. I am proud to play it, and I do not believe there is any reason for the federal government to treat a poker game that individuals play against others online any differently than a Friday night poker game played around a kitchen table.

A national survey by Harris Interactive (June 5-12, 2007) confirms that sixty-nine percent of the general public agree that poker is a game of skill, while only seventeen percent disagree. Other polls have shown strong support for keeping Internet poker legal. The tide has turned so strongly that even a “red” state like Kentucky will elect a pro-gaming governor next month … in a landslide (challenger Steve Beshear currently leads staunchly anti-gaming incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher by twenty points). And, the Poker Players Alliance, a nonprofit organization comprised of poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States, now has almost 800,000 members! We are all energized and we will vote for poker.

Unfortunately, to my great disappointment and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was assaulted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), the fact is that this legislation has had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. I ask that you to help rectify this situation by supporting clarifying legislation.

HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. These safeguards will work; the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearings on Internet gaming proved conclusively that Internet poker can be effectively regulated. Neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish.

Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games for either the domestic or the international markets. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

What’s important to me is your support for restoring my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support and sponsor one or both of these important bills in the Senate. I will be watching your actions on this bill closely. I hope that I -- and thousands of other poker fans in our state -- can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Coy_Roy]

I think it's excellent. Perhaps your best yet?

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, to my great disappointment and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was assaulted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), the fact is that this legislation has had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. I ask that you to help rectify this situation by supporting clarifying legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the use of the term "assault" detracts from your larger point that the the UIGEA inadvertently has had an adverse impact on poker. In addition, I suggest adding this point in the very first paragraph.

From a political viewpoint, I like the position that the proposed legislation is merely necessary to clarify an unintended consequence. I just think you should tweak the letter a little to make it clear you are supporting a relatively minor change (i.e., minor in the scheme of the entire UIGEA).

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, to my great disappointment and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was assaulted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), the fact is that this legislation has had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. I ask that you to help rectify this situation by supporting clarifying legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the use of the term "assault" detracts from your larger point that the the UIGEA inadvertently has had an adverse impact on poker. In addition, I suggest adding this point in the very first paragraph.

From a political viewpoint, I like the position that the proposed legislation is merely necessary to clarify an unintended consequence. I just think you should tweak the letter a little to make it clear you are supporting a relatively minor change (i.e., minor in the scheme of the entire UIGEA).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I appreciate your help. I'll get a few more suggestions and will post an update later today.

I hope everyone else will post like this....it's important that we get a few independent opinions on this. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's excellent. Perhaps your best yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[whangarei]

Brilliant, as always. The only thing that didn't flow like the Nile for me is:

[ QUOTE ]
The tide has turned so strongly that even a “red” state like Kentucky will elect a pro-gaming governor next month … in a landslide (challenger Steve Beshear currently leads staunchly anti-gaming incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher by twenty points). And, the Poker Players Alliance, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

At first read this makes you sound too political (you of course are for this fight, but I am assuming the letter is intended to be sent by regular PPA members). Also, it may turn off Congressman who are aware that Kentucky is much more getting rid of a bad governor than "electing a pro-gaming governor." So, I would just delete that sentence and start the next one by saying "I am a member of the Poker Players Alliance ..."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Brilliant, as always. The only thing that didn't flow like the Nile for me is:

[ QUOTE ]
The tide has turned so strongly that even a “red” state like Kentucky will elect a pro-gaming governor next month … in a landslide (challenger Steve Beshear currently leads staunchly anti-gaming incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher by twenty points). And, the Poker Players Alliance, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

At first read this makes you sound too political (you of course are for this fight, but I am assuming the letter is intended to be sent by regular PPA members). Also, it may turn off Congressman who are aware that Kentucky is much more getting rid of a bad governor than "electing a pro-gaming governor." So, I would just delete that sentence and start the next one by saying "I am a member of the Poker Players Alliance ..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I do want to keep this election in the letter in some fashion if possible, as it provides data backing up our point. Can you think of a way this would flow better? I'll try to improve it simultaneously.

Thanks again for the great input.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brilliant, as always. The only thing that didn't flow like the Nile for me is:

[ QUOTE ]
The tide has turned so strongly that even a “red” state like Kentucky will elect a pro-gaming governor next month … in a landslide (challenger Steve Beshear currently leads staunchly anti-gaming incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher by twenty points). And, the Poker Players Alliance, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

At first read this makes you sound too political (you of course are for this fight, but I am assuming the letter is intended to be sent by regular PPA members). Also, it may turn off Congressman who are aware that Kentucky is much more getting rid of a bad governor than "electing a pro-gaming governor." So, I would just delete that sentence and start the next one by saying "I am a member of the Poker Players Alliance ..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I do want to keep this election in the letter in some fashion if possible, as it provides data backing up our point. Can you think of a way this would flow better? I'll try to improve it simultaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the right paragraph if you want to keep it in there. Everything else is good solid facts (except maybe your conclusion on the House hearing, but who is familiar with that) -- drawing the Kentucky race into your argument just seems to be a bit of stretch to me. But maybe the race really has politicians thinking gambling is not an easy target, I dunno.

[Wynton]

Engineer,

I'm no lobbyist, so take this with a grain of salt. I agree with Whangarei.

To me, it seems appropriate to assert that poker has widespread popularity, but unnecessary to discuss a particular race and particular candidates. But it all depends on how you want to be perceived.

If you are supposed to be just an average voter - albeit one with a particular interest - then I don't see the advantage of discussing a particular race. If you were supposed to be an insider or a lobbyist who is expected to have special insight into politics, that would be different.

[whangarei]

Minor typo at the end of the 4th paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
I ask that you to help rectify this situation ...

[/ QUOTE ]