Let's lobby Sen. Barack Obama

[TheEngineer]

I was going to put this in Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread, but it seemed important enough for its own thread. We need a senator to support some pro-Internet poker legislation. We also need a top-tier presidential candidate with us. Perhaps we can get a two-for-one in Barack Obama.

As 61% of House Congressional Black Caucus members are with us ("A" or "B", meaning they've at least consponsored the study bill), and as 49% of House Democrats are "A" or "B" rated in my rating post, it makes sense to look at the top-tier presidential candidates who are Democratic senators and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Obviously there's only one....Sen. Barack Obama. So, I phoned his office yesterday to ask him to support us. I was very surprised to hear that they were familiar with the legislation and that they "may" release some statement in a couple of days.

Additionally, Barack Obama is reputed to be a good, tight player. On a blog on his own website, at http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...layersforObama , is the following post:

[ QUOTE ]
Obama Supports Poker Players-- and Poker Players SHOULD Support Obama
By Zach - Jun 4th, 2007 at 6:22 pm EDT

Terry Link, the senate majority whip, complained about Obama’s successes in a long-running poker game. “I’m putting his kids through college,” Link said.

Long before he became a political rock star with designs on the White House, Barack Obama was known to friends in the Illinois legislature as a fearsome card player.

During weekly games of Texas Hold 'Em, he played a tight style of poker -- patiently waiting for the right cards, folding when dealt a bad hand and taking few unnecessary risks.....


[/ QUOTE ]

A longer article is at www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0130165f-82d7-4c5a-85bc-64d52aaf8318&k=36044&p=1 .

So, he sounds like someone who may be on our side. Perhaps we should choose one day next week to all phone his office to ask for his support. By coordinating it for the same day, it should make a bigger impression. What do you all think?

[TheEngineer]

July 22, 2007

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to congratulate you on your performance to date in your presidential run. I wish you well in the race. As you know, a lot of your support comes from young, Internet-savvy Americans. While we are a diverse group, we do share one common interest; we want individual freedom and liberty. One important area for many of us is Internet poker.

As you are likely aware, HR 2046, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, provides for safe, secure, regulated online poker. The bill provides for stringent licensing to ensure that poker operators are legitimate. Via a regulatory framework, the bill addresses underage gambling as well as compulsive gambling. The bill also provides a provision by which states can choose to opt-out, thus preserving the rights of the states in this important area. Sports leagues can also opt-out, thereby allowing the leagues the ability to prohibit all Internet gambling on that sport anywhere in the U.S. What is your position on HR 2046 and on allowing Americans to choose to play Internet poker?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

July 25, 2007

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I am writing regarding my pleasant conversation with your Senate office today. I was informed that you may release a statement regarding your stand on pending Internet poker legislation “within the next couple of days”. This is encouraging to many of us in the poker community, as the attempts to ban this all-American game of skill have been serious affronts to our freedom and liberty.

As you know, a lot of your support comes from young, Internet-savvy Americans. I think if you were to publicly support our right to play poker on the Internet, you would significantly increase your support among this important group. I believe you would also significantly increase your support among the millions of Americans who believe the federal government has no business telling Americans what to do inside their own homes.

Politicians across America are lining up in support of the right to choose to play Internet poker. In fact, as of right now almost 50% of Democratic congressmen, and 61% of Congressional Black Caucus House members, have either voted against HR 4411 (the bill that because the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act when it was rammed through the Senate as part of the SAFE Ports Act), cosponsored HR 2046 (Rep. Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007), or cosponsored HR 2140 (Rep. Berkley’s Internet Gambling Study Act), and more join the side of freedom every day. It seems the party and its members want freedom. It also seems Americans regardless of party affiliation want freedom.

I encourage you to take a stand against the Internet poker prohibitionists and for liberty. America will thank you!

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

July 26, 2007

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

Some congressional Republicans resisted providing full aid to Hurricane Katrina victims on the grounds of “limited government”. However, when it came to trying to ban Internet poker, apparently no government was too big for these same politicians. Why is that? They wish to monitor banking transactions, censor the Internet, and have ISPs spy on American citizens! The DoJ flies around the world arresting people for.... gasp!... offering Americans the opportunity to decide to play a little poker in the privacy of their own homes with their own hard-earned money! In fact, rather than rebuilding New Orleans, they're preparing to send our hard-earned tax dollars to Antigua, the EU, Japan, and other nations in the form of trade concessions to get out of our WTO trade commitments allowing Internet gaming in America. Negotiations have already started. This all sounds very hypocritical to me.

I, and many of my fellow recreational Internet poker players, believe you could gain significant support by taking a stand against the Internet poker prohibitionists and for liberty. Rep. Robert Wexler and Rep. Barney Frank have certainly enjoyed great gains as a result of supporting freedom. Your gain would be many times that, as you are a national candidate. You’ll be able to highlight the hypocrisy of the prohibitionists while offering freedom and liberty to the rest of us. Now, there’s a winning combination!

I encourage you to take a stand against the Internet poker prohibitionists and for liberty. America will thank you!

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[Karak567]

Engineer,

When it comes to "big government", Obama is fully in support of it. A lot of his policies are downright socialist. He is not the man to back for online poker's future.

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

When it comes to "big government", Obama is fully in support of it. A lot of his policies are downright socialist. He is not the man to back for online poker's future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in the Bible belt, go to a church that would probably make FoTF look a bit liberal, and have always voted Republican. Yet if I were president today I would do my best to see that online poker was legal.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the big govt./socialist tag, but we can't surmise that "he's not the man to back for online poker's future" until his feelings one way or the other are made public.

If the articles are right about him being a tight card shark, he at least understands that poker is a skill game, and not to be lumped with slots and keno.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

When it comes to "big government", Obama is fully in support of it. A lot of his policies are downright socialist. He is not the man to back for online poker's future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big government / socialism / blah blah blah (or not) has nothing to do with online poker. It is being restricted because of religious/pseudomorality bs. Obama will not be relying on religous zealots for a large portion of his vote, thus there's absolutely no reason to believe he would not support this.

[Karak567]

Well, I'm sorry. If I had my pick between Obama pushing his socialist policies on the country and no online poker... then I'd take no online poker.

I just don't see how a "huge government" democrat is going to create any type of good situation for online poker. Could he bring it back? Sure.

It would be heavily taxed and heavily regulated (I understand that would happen now - but it could be worse than even our wildest dreams under his administration). We might be better off with what we have now than that.

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm sorry. If I had my pick between Obama pushing his socialist policies on the country and no online poker... then I'd take no online poker.

I just don't see how a "huge government" democrat is going to create any type of good situation for online poker. Could he bring it back? Sure.

It would be heavily taxed and heavily regulated (I understand that would happen now - but it could be worse than even our wildest dreams under his administration). We might be better off with what we have now than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

While Dem's are many times "big government" concerning the economy and business, they tend to not be big government in what they would consider personal freedom issues. (See: gay marriage, abortion, etc.) -- Playing online poker in our underwear would fall under that same "personal freedoms" tent I think.

Both parties would tax it like crazy if it's legalized, just like everything else is taxed to death in this country. I'd imagine online casinos would be fine though, judging by the fact that B&M casinos are obviously very profitable while paying taxes.

I understand where you're coming from. I can't choose to vote for a candidate soley based on their support for online poker. It will get some hefty weight though, since the industry is currently my full time job.

You might want to take a look at the Libertarian Party. They feel the govt. should stay out of their lives in both business and personal freedoms.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm sorry. If I had my pick between Obama pushing his socialist policies on the country and no online poker... then I'd take no online poker.

I just don't see how a "huge government" democrat is going to create any type of good situation for online poker. Could he bring it back? Sure.

It would be heavily taxed and heavily regulated (I understand that would happen now - but it could be worse than even our wildest dreams under his administration). We might be better off with what we have now than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The choices are vote for a government that will spend many billions on pointless wars and work to slowly strangle all personal liberties, or vote for a government that will spend many billions on largely impotent social programs but work to maintain all social liberties.

The way I see it there's a 0% chance of poker regulation in the former case, a small-moderate chance of poker regulation in the latter. The big government thing has no influence whatsoever. There's no such thing as a small government party anymore except maybe libertarian, as mentioned, but nobody'll vote for them because nobody wants to 'waste' their vote.