The Honorable Henry M. Paulson
Secretary of the Treasury
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 2055 1

Dear Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke:

As Members of Congress who wish to see federal and state gambling laws effectively enforced, we wish to comment on your proposed regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) (Treas-DO-2007-00 15; FRB Docket Number R-1298) and express our concern that comments others have made may have the effect of undermining the purpose of the regulation. In general, we commend you for your efforts to faithfully carry out the intent of UIGEA. We particularly applaud you for not exempting any payment system from the regulations, because any such exemption would invite massive evasion of the law.

Much has been made of the possibility of "over blocking" under the proposed regulations, i.e. the possibility that financial institutions may block some legal transactions simply because they have some connection to gambling because it is too difficult for them to make state-by-state judgments about the legality of certain gambling activities. This concern is being raised primarily by persons who do not wish the gambling laws to be enforced at all. However, to the extent that persons of goodwill share this concern, we think it can be addressed without incorporating a state-by-state survey of gambling laws into your final regulations (a suggestion that appears suspiciously like a stalling tactic).

As a matter of U.S. policy, gambling operations are strictly limited and regulated wherever they are not banned entirely. Therefore, we believe that a broad application of gambling enforcement laws such as UIGEA is necessary to effectuate the intent of the law. A gambling business should be required to prove it is operating legally in order to avoid the sanctions of UIGEA. And if an enterprise steps over the line, it should not get a free pass simply because some of its steps were inside the line.

We urge you to clarify that the onus of interpreting and complying with state gambling laws should rest primarily on the gambling operations that wish to do business there, not on the financial institutions or on the Treasury Department or Federal Reserve System. Every state that authorizes some form of gambling has a licensing system for gambling, and it is these licenses that should constitute evidence of legality under state law, rather than the interpretation of federal agencies or private parties who have no expertise in substantive gambling laws.

Thank you for your work in drafting the proposed regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. We look forward to working with you to ensure the final regulations uphold Congressional intent and efficiently enforce the law.

Sincerely,

Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Rep. Walley Herger (R-CA)
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-MO)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN)

Yes, we should definintely be working against these sixteen congressmen. Not sure about a sting operation :-) ... was thinking more about writing to the newspapers and blogs in these congressmen's districts and voting against them. Of course, if you happen to see one in a motel room with a same sex prostitute and you have a camera with you, it wouldn't hurt to snap a shot. :-)

It is ironic to me. Mark Souder shook my hand, selected my short film, and personally played it at a congressional hearing to try to get schools accredited so students could transfer credits. He failed, and I waisted $40,000 on school. Poker got me through my two years of school and he is against that. Yet, he has no problem showing a film about a serial killer.

They call us gamblers, but the only thing I remember gambling on was the school I chose. It just irritates me that people are so close minded and feel they have to inflict their beliefs on everyone else.

Is there a list anywhere that shows what politicians are FOR poker.

During this quiet season, I was debating what is my next courses of action since I have bugged my representatives enough (for the time being). Well this is my calling I think for next week.

Two signers of this letter are in competitive races for a seat next year:

<span>Marilyn Musgrave</span>

Historically, the district has been friendly territory for Republicans, though Marilyn Musgrave has been thrown for a scare in the last two elections due to her Democratic opponents' strength in Fort Collins.

2006: Won 51% to 45%
2004: Won 46% to 43%

<span>John Doolittle</span>

John Doolittle and his family are thiefs, and this race very much interests me. Take a look at his wikipedia page for controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doolittle

He is under investigation as part of the Jack Abramoff bribery case.

In the past Doolittle has raised more money than opponents, but this is turning:

"Democrat Charlie Brown, who lost to Doolittle in 2006 by only 3 percent of the vote, announced in February 2007 that he would run again in 2008. Brown outraised Doolittle in the first and second quarters of 2007; as of June 30th, he had a net cash balance of $251,000; Doolittle had a negative balance of $32,000."

Sources: Cook Political Report; Wikipedia

Lets see if Charlie Brown would support (or at least be neutral) to our cause.

http://www.charliebrownforcongress.org/

Good stuff! We need to get to work in these close elections.

"Is there a list anywhere that shows what politicians are FOR poker. "

I have two:

<LI><SPAN>Congressional Scorecard</SPAN> <LI><SPAN>Pres. Candidate</SPAN><SPAN> Scorecard</SPAN></LI>