Internet Gambling Bill Gaining Steam...PPA releases letter

[TheHammer24]

Most of you probably got this e-mail from the Poker Players Alliance. Evidently, Representative Goodlette of R-VA has held a press conference announcing his intentions of bringing legistlation to the floor that will ban online gambling and other forms of gambling. It makes expcetions for certain games of skill as well as State lotteries and horse racing.

As an active, Republican, I could not be more disgusted with this bill. Over the past years, my party under the Bush Administration has moved away from its central tenets of individualism, states' rights, and laissez-fairre government to instead pursue idealistic goals on moral grounds. This bill epitomizes my disgust. I urge all of you, espcially those who share my viewpoint, to write you congressman or woman and share your disgust.

Link to full article. READ

[BruinEric]

This is pretty important stuff. But of course it is the 'job' of the PPA to get us riled up. In reality, this bill has many, MANY steps to go through before it becomes law.

This is the webpage to track the status of this bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04777:

This was referred to the House Judiciary committee. Most bills die in committee. This just may die here.

I will be e-mailing my own congressman asking his position on the bill and reasonably sharing my opposition to it.

I'm a lifelong and ardent libertarian-leaning Republican. But you should not be surprised by Republicans OR Democrats wanting to outlaw gambling in one form or another. Opposing gambling for a variety of reasons is commonplace in American political history -- not some invention of the Bush administration.

Far from being an anti-gambling issue for many lawmakers, you may find that some supporters of this bill have strong support from Casinos in their own districts who fear loss of revenue.

I wonder if a watered-down bill that outlawed all Internet Casino Gambling with the EXCEPTION of Poker became law...what would be the effect? I suspect it might be GOOD for those of us who only play poker?

[AAAA]

the letter in the PPA is IMO, too long and will be totally ignored. I rewrote it with some points that were missed and it could be shortened more, but here is what i suggest instead of the letter they suggest.

I believe you are ablet to change what they send out, if you wish to use all or part of this.

[ QUOTE ]
I am writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte, R-VA. This bill would make Barry Goldwater rand Ronald Regan writhe in agony in their graves! As avid poker players, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower would be sick at legislation that tramples individual freedom as this bill does.
.
As an avid poker enthusiast, I feel strongly that poker is a truly American game of skill. Denying or even infringing on adults'right to play poker online would have our founding fathers revolting all over again!
.
Poker is not a passing fancy, and is predominately a skill game, like bridge and chess. We should be encouraging the the use of mathematics, psychology and strategy in Poker, not lumping it in with craps, slots and roulette!
.
Supporting total games of chance such as state lotteries and allowing online bets for horse races, while prohibiting games of skill like poker is not logical or ethical.
.
Ironically, Congress chastised China for forcing ISPs to regulate content that Chinese citizens could receive, yet they find it acceptable for the U.S. government to censor the Internet. I thought we were past 1984!


[/ QUOTE ]

[TheHammer24]

I'm aware of the difficult process involved in passing bills, I'm a Political Science major at Washington and Jefferson College. However, the bipartisan support of this bill is, without a doubt, intimidating.

Sure, it stands less than a 50% chance of being passed and an even smaller chance exists for it to be passed exactly as it reads now. Nevertheless, the fact that legislation with 118 cosponsors that bans online poker at all is alarming.

I agree that legislation and goals such as this one is not unique to the Bush Administration; however, the pursuit of social conservative and religious right goals is undoubtedly more prevalent in his administration than it was with most previous Republican presidents and today’s congressmen. This is probably a debate that should be saved for the politics forum, but I hate that forum

[TheHammer24]

I just read the proposed bill, and I didn't see anything that allows authorities to punish individuals placing bets (i.e. us playing poker). It more or less, is aimed at the gambling firms, most of which are overseas, but also has a provision that requires ISPs to disable and block any links to gambling sites.

This is an unprecedented move, essentially government censorship before the fact, something that has been struck down by the Supreme Court nearly everytime such a case is brought before it. Of course, in this specific case the question of whether or not Gambling is speech is paramount in any decision.

[Karak567]

Ironically enough, Goodlette is speaking to my college Republicans group in two weeks. I will speak to him then.

[LesJ]

<<<Ironically enough, Goodlette is speaking to my college Republicans group in two weeks. I will speak to him then. >>>
Just out of curiousity, what do you plan on saying to him? Are there others in your club that also play poker online? Your environment when he comes to visit should be intimate enough to allow you ample opportunity to tell him how you feel about this bill, although I do not believe he is in the least bit persuadable.

Good luck and have fun,
Les

[RikaKazak]

I just sent the letter, I encourage everyone else to.

[KP84]

I dont know about that. I dont see Casinos trying to outlaw online gambling. I see them trying to make it legal and regulated so that they can be incharge of it. I think I read a article about this a while back on how Casinos are ready to do it if it every comes to pass.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]

This is an unprecedented move, essentially government censorship before the fact, something that has been struck down by the Supreme Court nearly everytime such a case is brought before it. Of course, in this specific case the question of whether or not Gambling is speech is paramount in any decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I oppose the bill, but the USA has restrictions on where I can send my money already. I can't exactly wire a few grand to the El Banco de Cuba.

Also, because the precedent on applying the wire act to sports betting seems clear (last I read the info from I. Nelson Rose), restrictions on Gambling as "communication" is already standard. So IMHO suggesting online Gambling fits under the provision of 1st Amendment protections on speech is specious.

I believe the number of sponsors in this legislation is directly tied to this being an election year. I give this a 60% chance that the bill isn't even intended to make real progress, but instead meant to help incumbents get fodder for their community newsletter. Such issues will go over well across party lines amongst the population segment most likely to vote -- Seniors.

The time to worry in earnest is if a companion bill is created in the Senate. If this doesn't happen soon, the congress will run out of time for this session. If we hit May and there isn't a whiff of a companion bill in the Senate then there are no worries for this particular bill's passage for the time being.

Let me be clear -- I am concerned about this issue, and have joined the PPA (hey, where is my freaking TShirt guys!). If Online Poker were to become absolutely and clearly against the law I will stop playing. I don't want to, but I'll find another hobby.

The good news is that the PPA exists to lobby for our "side." The bad news is that entrenched USA Casino interests have more money and influence.