Master letter thread

[TheEngineer]

My WTO letter to my conservative Republican congressman in a horse-friendly district:

June 22, 2007

The Honorable Geoff Davis
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman Davis:

I am writing to express my concern regarding Antigua and Barbuda’s request to the WTO for $3.44 billion per year in commercial sanctions from U.S. businesses for our failure to comply with the World Trade Organization ruling that our Internet gambling restrictions violate our agreements per the gaming sector of the GATS agreement. It seems this filing has significant potential to harm (my state), particularly our equine industry, while gaining us nothing. As such, I ask you to help America honor our international commitments by supporting HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act.

One notable aspect of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was its exemption of horse racing, consistent with the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1977. This served to demonstrate to the WTO that the U.S. does not have a true moral objection to Internet gambling, as certainly one cannot argue that betting on horses is more moral than betting on cards. This played a large part in our loss at the WTO. I fear the opponents of allowing Americans to choose to play online poker may push to place the same prohibition on all interstate remote horse wagering. While this is more ideologically consistent, it would clearly harm our state’s equine industry.

Additionally, the WTO action could harm our agriculture and aerospace industries, as the European Union, Japan, China, and others have joined the action against us. The trade concessions they seek will certainly harm our industries while, again, gaining us nothing.

Many Americans wish to have the right to play poker online. Many more do not feel it is the federal government’s place to prohibit this. Some polls have shown 75% opposition to UIGEA. I do feel there will be a continued backlash in 2008 to this, especially as our party continues to fracture along ideological lines. For example, the Poker Players Alliance now has 572,274 members. I imagine these poker players will vote for freedom. I took a look at the 2006 election results for a quick analysis. Thirty-four congressmen who supported UIGEA won with less than 55% of the vote (including you). Of these, it appears roughly half are vehemently opposed to allowing Americans to decide for themselves if they can play poker after work (again, including you, at least to date). Of these, the fact that this region of the nation will be very competitive in the 2008 election leads me to conclude you would likely be in the top five of any gaming rights group’s list of legislators to actively oppose (somewhere after Chris Shays and Heather Wilson…perhaps ahead of Steve Chabot). I hope this does not happen. I support you on a number of issues, such as your strong support for the Second Amendment (another freedom issue about which many like me are passionate). I support your pro-life stance as well. However, I do share with you that many conservatives are willing to work for, and vote for, their freedoms, like we did in 1994.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to vote in favor of HR 2046. Let’s have a regulated, taxed, and legal Internet gaming industry (especially poker and other skill-based games). It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions while honoring our international commitments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[TheEngineer]

I'll add more later...please post your letters. I think they're having some effect. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[kidpokeher]

Was about to start a thread of my own (as promised but was slow to get to.) Good thing I spotted this first. Here's mine to Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV)

- - - -

As one of your constituents, I am writing to ask you to strongly consider co-sponsoring Rep. Barney Frank's bill, HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.

As I understand it, 31 house members currently cosponsor this legislation that would effectively repeal the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, passed in the dead of night without debate via a shameful attachment to a "must-pass" port security bill. This smacks of politics at its worst and, regardless of any opinion of gambling in general, should be repealed simply for the manner on which it was passed. Your help is needed.

The need to repeal the UIGEA goes far beyond the general libertarian philosophy of Nevada residents like myself who consider gambling, whether in a casino or online, to be a personal liberty. We understand, as you do, that gambling as entertainment is a personal choice and realize that the majority of the population should not be made to suffer for the few who may be unable to gamble in a responsible manner.

Repealing the UIGEA is necessary not simply because national polls consistently show 75% of Americans oppose federal efforts to ban online gambling. It is necessary because we must, as a nation, strongly oppose any efforts to circumvent the normal legislative process in order to satisfy a personal agenda. It's no secret Senator Bill Frist attached the UIGEA in the manner he did because he knew he would not be able to get the support he needed to pass the bill on its own supposed merits. Already, the FBI is overreaching their authority and using the UIGEA to make the unsubstantiated claim that all online gambling is illegal. See the following link: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm

I know you have been working with Rep. Shelly Berkley to pass a bill that would study whether Internet gambling can be regulated. I appreciate the bipartisan effort, however the bill doesn't go far enough. Quite frankly, history has shown us prohibition simply does not work. When will we learn? I see little difference between the attempt to ban online gaming and the failed attempt to ban alcohol. You may as well be asking to ban the Internet. The question to ask is not whether Internet gambling can be regulated, but rather how can we best satisfy consumer desires to gamble online, while still providing the same checks and controls we have done successfully for years in our brick-and-mortar counterparts. Rep. Barney Frank's bill addresses these issues and for this reason I ask for your support.

Thank you for your time and service.

[kidpokeher]

I'd also like to include your letter to Focus on the Family as it contains great arguments against those who think playing poker is somehow immoral or un-Christian.

- - - -

Dear Amy and Focus on the Family,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my inquiry on your stand concerning Internet poker. I read it with much interest and felt compelled to reply. I honestly don’t feel your advocacy of a total ban on Internet poker is in the best interests of your organization, and I’d like to share my thoughts with you on this.

Your organization thrives under freedom. The power you wish to give the federal government over our lives is the power the government will one day use against all Christians, including Focus. As I mentioned in my initial letter, you’ve essentially told the federal government that Americans cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, so I hope you won’t be surprised when preachers are prohibited from speaking against homosexuality and other issues (at risk of losing at least their tax exempt status). As you know, many feel discrimination is a moral issue as well. Many also feel the same way about gun possession, and I’m certainly not willing to initiate any process by which I end up surrendering my Second Amendment rights simply to keep people from choosing to play poker. Many of my fellow conservative Republicans feel this way, and we’ll vote for our freedoms. How will Focus fare under the Democratic majority you’re helping to create?

You mentioned that all laws are based on morality. I respectfully beg to differ. Theft may be immoral, but laws against it are based on property rights. Laws against murder are based on the right of the victim to life. Many pro-life people, me included, are pro-life not because of morality, but because we believe the unborn child has a right to life just as a “born” individual does. Even if you do believe freedom should be curtailed in the name of morality, you have not made the case that poker is immoral. Gambling is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible. In fact, your tortured “proof” that poker is a sin really only proves that your organization simply doesn’t like poker. Perhaps it doesn’t “seem” Christian to some. Sorry, but most of us believe God gave us His marching orders in the Bible and that we shouldn’t be in the business of inventing new sins. Does Focus feel the work God actually asked of us is done, such that you all feel compelled to figure out what’s next? If not, how much time and money is Focus taking from God’s work to work on curtailing freedom in America, and how much is too much? After all, you know my fellow poker players will be fighting hard for our freedom. Your ill conceived fight for big government will consume a lot of cash and political capital. Is it worth it?

Your citing of the experiences of Atlantic City, NJ was telling. First of all, it seems disingenuous that you chose the example with the most manipulable statistics to cite as average. The use of per capita stats appears disingenuous, as Atlantic City has many more tourists now than it had pre-gambling. As such, the city’s average daily population (which includes these many money-spending tourists) of Atlantic City is now much higher than the city’s resident population (which is used for per capita statistics). Were you trying to imply that crime rate increases were caused by former law-abiding citizens who were drawn to crime by gambling addictions? I hope not, as the reality is that crime went up simply as a result of increased economic activity, growth, and increased tourism; in fact, many believe any economic stimulus would have caused a similar outcome. And, the reality is that Atlantic City is far better off today than it was the day before gambling was legalized. Finally, this whole argument is better suited for “bricks and mortar” casinos and related zoning issues. As Internet poker does not cause any of the issues you attempted to show with the example of Atlantic City, it seems odd to cite this case as justification for an Internet poker ban.

Also, not all Internet gambling has been banned. Many Republicans schemed behind the scenes to allow Internet wagering on horseracing to continue. Why no Alert Warnings about this? Is Chad Hills okay with horse betting? Or, could it be that you all oppose all gambling…just some more than others? I imagine it’s hard to oppose your friends in Congress. It does seem hypocritical, though. After all, Internet horse betting is no less susceptible to the issues you cited than Internet poker. You can be sure the proponents of Internet poker will ask you why you support Internet horseracing wagering (at least implicitly by not opposing it with the same vigor as you do poker). What will you say? Will you stand for your friends, or will you stand for your principles?

Finally, I think your organization fails to understand the realities of poker. Poker is a game of skill that we play because we enjoy the challenges of the game. I think you feel everyone who plays is some kind of addicted gambler. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. A recent Harvard study concluded that only 0.4% of gamblers develop addictions. Why deprive the other 99.6% of their liberties when you could be at the forefront of helping those who actually need it? After all, they’ll find a bet somewhere. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, funds treatment for compulsive gamblers while regulating the industry for fairness, age verification, and other issues. Wouldn’t your organization be better suited to providing this treatment and to airing public service announcements warning of your concerns, so that Americans could make their own choices? I think you would.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx

[Pokerdemic]

Hi All,

Here is a draft of a letter I am sending out on Monday (hopefully). I've blanked out all of the location information. If you are interested in what I am doing and where I am doing it, I'll be happy to chat by PM. If you see any problems with the content or have any suggestions, let me know.

Dear Representative XXXXXX,


I am writing to ask you to co-sponsor the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). This bill will designate poker as a game of skill, and thus exempt it from recent anti-online gambling legislation. Before the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, online poker was rapidly expanding. While many poker players argue that online poker should be legal and taxed because it will provide additional revenue for the state, I believe it should be legal for an entirely different reason.

Online poker should be legal, ironically, because of its educational value. Learning how to play poker encourages analytical thinking, deductive reasoning, and numeracy, skills crucial to the success of America’s information economy. The research of James XXX, former professor of education at the University of XXXXXX, has repeatedly shown that video games contain enormous potential for educating the citizenry.

Apart from the skills learned while playing, each day thousands of people, many of whom are college students, congregate on the internet to write, read, and argue about poker strategy. I am a PhD student who studies the history of writing. And I consider many of these arguments to be so richly complex that I have begun an academic project, which has been submitted to a scholarly conference, to study the writing of the college students who participate in the discussions. I believe that by studying the ways in which students learn to adapt their writing to particular audiences, we can better refine the methods college instructors use to teach writing. In other words, the literacy acts encouraged by poker can be beneficial, and not detrimental, to these students’ academic success.

Writing is a crucial skill for success in college, and as an established body of research shows, writing is a crucial skill for the information economy. Studying poker strategy and theory encourages our citizenry to learn complex skills of argument and reasoning through written communication.

I would like to say that I do not necessarily support the gambling industry. Before I became a voting Democrat of XXXXX, I taught Adult Basic Education in XXXXX, XX, for a number of years. Based on what I saw in XXXXX, I do not consider casinos or gambling to be productive enterprises; however, as a Danish court has recently affirmed, poker is much more a game of skill than it is luck. Simply put, it is not gambling. Online poker should be legal and regulated. I can play poker legally in XXXXX casinos, but not in my own home: I think you will agree this is folly.

Historically, Americans and Congress alike have recognized new developments in technology enable new economic opportunities. But these new economic opportunities demand that citizens constantly re-skill and re-educate themselves. In the twenty-first century, our citizens must be life-long learners. I believe poker to be a wealthy source of educating our public in skills needed to keep America competitive in the global information economy. Please cosponsor Frank Barney’s bill to regulate online poker (H.R. 2046).

[permafrost]

The name is Barney Frank, not Frank Barney.

The Act does not "designate poker as a game of skill". It creates a Fed licensing, regulation and taxation scheme for lawful internet poker businesses.

Your argument that it is a skill game that should be made legal/regulated confuses me. Since it is a skill game, why does it need to be made legal?

And you can play poker legally in your home (most places). Things change when you bring in and play at an unlawful business.

[TheEngineer]

Hi,

Thanks for the PM.

First of all, I wish you remind everyone that our goal really isn't to try to write the perfect letter. It's to tell your senators and rep what you as a voter believe. I mention this because I don't want others to read the "fancy" letters in this thread and decide they have to wait until they have time to write the perfect letter, as time isn't a luxury we have. It's far better to simply write "I support IGREA because I should be able to spend my money how I want" than to wait a month or two to compose the perfect letter...one that will be read primarily to figure out what you want so it can be recorded in some politician's Access databases as a single checkmark.

I personally write longer letters because I distribute them around to many recipients and I post them on a few sites. I also reuse these on a few letters and on a few Internet posts. If I weren't doing these activities, I'd not write anything more than a paragraph or two, especially for my first letter on the issue.

That being said, it's a very good letter overall. The main thing I noticed is that you wrote about IGREA, but you make points against it in your letter, inclcuding the one against casinos and gambling. You also discuss poker as skill, which is not part of IGREA. I guess you intending to write this in favor of Wexler's skill game letter? If so, change the name of the legislation and it will generally be fine.

Where you discuss your personal feelings for casinos and gambling, I don't think it adds value to the letter as-is. Again, just my personal opinion. I think I'd either put something after that about my strong feelings about personal freedom and why I think people should be allowed to spend their own money as they choose, or I'd delete it.

I'd list James XXX's credentials as well (not a biography -- either accreditations after his name or "Dr." before).

"Internet" is capitalized.

Permafrost already mentioned Rep. Frank's name.

All-in-all, a very nice letter. Please remember to send it to your senators as well.

[ZServe]

Got a reply back from Rep Paul Kanjorski (PA). He did not specify if he was for or against Frank's bill, but the tone of the letter seemed positive. He was careful to stress that Frist's bill was attached to a port security bill, and that he voted for the gambling ban "because of the need to protect our nation's ports."

I was encouraged by the letter. If you live in PA please call his office or email him!

[Pokerdemic]

Thanks for the feedback. As you can tell, I know much more about learning than the actual legislation. My specialty is the relationship between learning, writing and the information economy.

The different types of legislation are precisely what I need help clarifying, because it is only in the past few days that I have begun reading about online poker and legislation. I plan to read much more, but I suspect I'll need to mail out the letter before I have a total handle on what is happening. I still don't know what's legal, illegal, illegal but impractical to enforce, and the relationship among state and federal law. The comments are helpful; please keep them up.

[Pokerdemic]

[ QUOTE ]

That being said, it's a very good letter overall. The main thing I noticed is that you wrote about IGREA, but you make points against it in your letter, inclcuding the one against casinos and gambling. You also discuss poker as skill, which is not part of IGREA. I guess you intending to write this in favor of Wexler's skill game letter? If so, change the name of the legislation and it will generally be fine.


[/ QUOTE ]

So I am conflating two different types of legislation? Much of what I wrote about legislation was pieced together from some pretty sketchy sources. So Frank's legislation has nothing to do with skill? This is something else entirely?

[ QUOTE ]

I'd list James XXX's credentials as well (not a biography -- either accreditations after his name or "Dr." before).



[/ QUOTE ]

The work I will be quoting is James Paul Gee, if anyone wants to take a look at it. He is one of the most well known professors of education & literacy in the country, not that that would make him well known to anyone but other education people [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]