That's awesome! I think a lot of politicians will hear from us who normally would not. Another benefit is that these are the party county chairs and other local officers, so it can really help at the grassroots level of both parties.

I'd probably start by going through the points in the letter (Internet freedom, your rights, money for states and America rather than offshore, age verification, jobs for Americans, etc.)

I wrote this for conservative lawmakers for CPAC, and it went over well:
Ante Up for Your Rights

The Conservative Case for Protecting Poker

Ante Up for…Limited government

• Many conservatives believe the federal government should not be in the business of preventing adults from playing a game of poker at a time and place of their choosing. These include former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, George Will, Walter Williams, and Grover Norquist, all of whom have written in opposition to prohibitions on poker.
• Conservatives believe “the government that governs best governs least.” Poker is a great American pastime that has been enjoyed by U.S. soldiers, presidents, world leaders, and everyday Americans. It is simply wrong that Americans are being told they are criminals for enjoying the great game of poker.
• The new law unfairly discriminates against poker giving special protections to activities such as intrastate gaming, on-line lotteries, betting on horse racing, and fantasy sports for cash.
• The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) requires banks and credit card companies to police the Internet and the financial system to stop Americans from participating in “unlawful Internet gambling” – a requirement the government could not even define. U.S. licensing and regulation removes this burden from America’s financial services industry. It’s time to stop treating banks and credit card companies like agencies of the federal government.

Ante Up for…Personal Responsibility

• Only through meaningful regulation, not prohibition, can we ensure fairness of the game, provide protections for children, and provide services for problem gamblers. And if taxed, significant revenue could be raised for federal and state governments without increasing taxes on citizens.
• U.S. licensing and regulation will mandate verification of the ages of the participants. Sites comply voluntarily now, but regulation will give U.S. laws the teeth needed for enforcement. It will also provide protections for those with excessive gaming habits, including mandated use of self-exclusion lists.
• Licensing and regulation will provide for consumer protections while stimulating the American economy and generating tax revenue and licensing fees.

Ante Up for…Internet Freedom

• Internet censorship and an unenforceable, unpopular prohibition provide no benefits to anyone. All censorship and prohibition can do is drive players underground or overseas while bringing the power of the federal government into America’s homes, where it doesn’t belong.
• Many voters – free speech advocates, young voters, and conservatives in particular – are suspicious of arguments contending that Internet freedom is dangerous and banning certain online activities or confiscating virtual property.
• U.S. licensing and regulation of online poker will allow American companies to participate in the world’s Internet gaming market, bringing needed business and jobs to America. All a prohibition can do is send U.S. jobs and money abroad.
• Regulators, legislators and financial institutions are all warning that UIGEA is unenforceable. With banks now needing to rebuild themselves, it is difficult to imagine the banking system being used to police the Internet to stop a legitimate game of skill like poker.

Just got off the telephone with Representative Mitchell Setzer (R-NC). This was a great telephone call - here is the summary:

I began by explaining why he received the letter, discussed the pending legislation and the opportunity for states to opt-in or opt-out, and also the skill vs chance argument. I also explained to him what the Poker Players Alliance was and why we were fighting for this legislation.

He was very open-minded. He said he did not play poker, but didn't see anything wrong with it. He talked about a cousin he has that plays and that he wouldn't mind learning how to play so that he could take that cousin's money! I told him that I was a 30 year old former college baseball player who couldn't physically perform at the level or the way I used to. I let him know that poker had become my competitive outlet just like golf does for many and he understood my point and why I enjoy playing.

He seemed to agree that poker was a skillfull game. I definitely made sure that he realized that we weren't fighting for online slots or sports betting, but rather games where a player's skill helped determine the outcome such as poker, chess, and backgammon. He agreed with me on all of those points. He is hugely against video poker machines and I let him know that I was too, and explained the difference in online poker and video poker.

I informed him about UIGEA. He was not familar with it at all, so I let him know how it passed, who was responsible for it passing, and what it has caused to happen (banks becoming police). He was hugely against this bill and was disgusted that it passed the way it did.

I let him know what HR 2267 and S 1597 would do for internet poker and how this could potentially wind up on his desk as a decision for North Carolina and it's citizens. We went into the benefits of the income tax and licensing fee revenues, which he was strongly in support of due to budget issues NC currently faces. We talked about how Prohibition would not work and how licensing and regulating the game would allow protection for our players and safeguards against underage and problem gamblers. He wholeheartedly agreed. If I had to say what way he was leaning after our conversation, I believe he would support North Carolina opting in.

We discussed the current state of the Republican Party and over-governing. He is strongly against a "nanny-state" and is also strongly against anything that would take away our rights to do what we choose with our own money and time. We also talked about some of the arguments that alot of our opponents use such as "Click A Mouse, Lose Your House". I told him that I could use my credit card on Target.com and click a mouse to lose my house. He definitely agreed with me on this.

He asked me to contact him when any movement is made at the national level on these bills. He would like to stay informed on the subject and I believe we both enjoyed our discussion. This phone call was 45 minutes long, so he now knows as much about poker legislation as I do!

After reflecting on our conversation and Mr. Setzer's responses, I would encourage all North Carolinians to support Representative Mitchell Setzer in the future. He's never going to be "pro-gambling" I don't think, but I do feel that he will be a solid figure in the fight for maintaining our individual rights and he could potentially be in our corner on the subject of poker on the internet.

PS - The only negative point from our phone conversation was that he did not like the wording in the PPA form letter at the end where it says:

"What's most important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support keeping our state in this important program. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely."

He said that while he knows this is a form letter and I did not write it, a lot of legislators take this "I'll be watching you" comment negatively. He said it was slightly threatening and that alot of legislators would read that and have negative opinions of the author, regardless of their subject matter. I told him that I would definitely report that part back to the PPA leaders so that we could possibly word that to be a little more friendly.

Excellent, this brings to mind a question. Clearly our movement is most effective in the grassroots phase, I doubt seriously we could compete with the mega bible tycoons, religion after all is good business. anyway my thought is, does the PPA make an effort to have its state directors schedule meetings with all of those who might have some part of the decision process?
I could think of no better influence than building positive personal relationships with adult responsible online players, taking away the underage image and replacing it with a solid contributing member of society. Thoughts? SOP's Engineer?