Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Response from GA Congressman

Reply to Thread
  1. Cabo Cabo is offline

    Cumming, GA
    United States

    Posts: 2,027
    Joined: Feb 05

    Jul 29th, 2011 (7/29/2011 10:51pm)

    "I have concerns with provisions of these bills that grant the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to issue federal rules and regulations regarding Internet poker. I do not support onerous rules and regulations on states, individuals or businesses, and I believe the current forms of these bills grants the Secretary of the Treasury an open-ended ability to issue regulations."

    Sincerely,

    Tom Graves

    All I can say is, "huh?"
    Edited By: Cabo Jul 29th, 2011 at 10:52 PM
  2. Cabo Cabo is offline

    Cumming, GA
    United States

    Posts: 2,027
    Joined: Feb 05

    Jul 30th, 2011 (7/30/2011 7:26pm) in reply to Cabo

    Here's my response to the Congressman:

    Congressman Graves,

    Thank you for your response.

    While I understand the position you have stated, I hope you will still be open to considering HR 2366.

    Poker is a game of skill and citizens of the US should be free to play poker online in a safe and regulated environment. We should be free to use our money and time as we see fit. The internet provides the perfect platform for competitive poker between like minded free individuals.

    In addition to allowing the freedoms I have stated above, US regulation of online poker will create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues.

    Online poker is not prohibited in the US, however we must pass a federal law that provides rules and regulations in order for the US online poker industry to take seed and prosper.

    It is a matter of freedom and economics. While you may not be aware of them, many of your constituents feel the same way I do about this issue. The PPA has over a million members and many of them reside in GA.

    I would greatly appreciate a response that addresses these specific issues.

    Sincerely,

    xxxxx xxxxxx
    Thread Starter
  3. boneralert boneralert is offline

    Fort Worth, TX
    United States

    Posts: 670
    Joined: Jan 11

    Jul 30th, 2011 (7/30/2011 7:41pm) in reply to Cabo

    I love it. I was thinking about this the other day in fact. This new strain of Tea party-inspired pseudo-libertarianism in theory should be very pro-poker legalization. The ability of informed adults to conduct business transactions or pursue a hobby is libertarian boilerplate.

    But the way that this Republican Congress has vilified regulatory authority is truly unprecedented. I mean they really really hate it. But legal online poker can't really function without some basic level of regulation. We can't have a Wild West scenario where the sites are accountable to nobody. So when you get this clash of values between individual liberty and government regulation, they show their true colors and hold the line against any new regulation. Which is to say they don't truly care about liberty as much as they care about the liberty to do things they intrinsically value (pay absurdly low taxes, fuck up the environment, discriminate against gay people, etc.).

    The tone of some of these response emails, couple with the the total antipathy to compromise that the Republican House has shown makes me think online poker in the US is at least 2 years away.
    Edited By: boneralert Jul 30th, 2011 at 07:42 PM
  4. pokerscrub1 pokerscrub1 is offline

    Darlington, SC
    United States

    Posts: 543
    Joined: Feb 10

    Jul 31st, 2011 (7/31/2011 4:22pm) in reply to Cabo

     
    Originally Posted by Cabo View Post

    Here's my response to the Congressman:

    Congressman Graves,

    Thank you for your response.

    While I understand the position you have stated, I hope you will still be open to considering HR 2366.

    Poker is a game of skill and citizens of the US should be free to play poker online in a safe and regulated environment. We should be free to use our money and time as we see fit. The internet provides the perfect platform for competitive poker between like minded free individuals.

    In addition to allowing the freedoms I have stated above, US regulation of online poker will create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues.

    Online poker is not prohibited in the US, however we must pass a federal law that provides rules and regulations in order for the US online poker industry to take seed and prosper.

    It is a matter of freedom and economics. While you may not be aware of them, many of your constituents feel the same way I do about this issue. The PPA has over a million members and many of them reside in GA.

    I would greatly appreciate a response that addresses these specific issues.

    Sincerely,

    xxxxx xxxxxx

    This is a great rebutal letter, may i use pieces of it in my own correspodence with lawmakers from SC?
     
  5. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 5,239
    Joined: May 06

    Jul 31st, 2011 (7/31/2011 6:38pm) in reply to pokerscrub1

    I think you'd be okay using it for your correspondence with lawmakers from South Carolina. Just make sure to say you're a registered voter in their district or state. That's really important too; otherwise, what reason do they have to listen to you?
     
  6. Cabo Cabo is offline

    Cumming, GA
    United States

    Posts: 2,027
    Joined: Feb 05

    Jul 31st, 2011 (7/31/2011 8:59pm) in reply to pokerscrub1

     
    Originally Posted by pokerscrub1 View Post

    This is a great rebutal letter, may i use pieces of it in my own correspodence with lawmakers from SC?

    Please do.
    Thread Starter
  7. pokerscrub1 pokerscrub1 is offline

    Darlington, SC
    United States

    Posts: 543
    Joined: Feb 10

    Jul 31st, 2011 (7/31/2011 11:06pm) in reply to Dan

     
    Originally Posted by Dan View Post

    I think you'd be okay using it for your correspondence with lawmakers from South Carolina. Just make sure to say you're a registered voter in their district or state. That's really important too; otherwise, what reason do they have to listen to you?

    Yes i am a registered voter, the senators in my are Lindsey Graham and Jim Demint, both very conservative republicans, so i doubt we will be getting much support from them. in fact I sent Graham a letter and he basically gave me a lecture on the UIGEA
     
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads