The groups that pushed for UIGEA are, in the wake of the DoJ announcement on their interpretation of the scope of the Wire Act, seeking a federal ban on online poker and gaming!!

We'd better all be sure to speak up here and do our part to ensure that our reps on Capitol Hill hear from us.

If YOU don't participate, you are allowing these groups to claim that they speak for you. Don't let them speak for you. Visit the Poker Daily Action Plan thread and be sure to let Congress know that we demand our right to play and, by doing so, ensure that they know that there's no chance of any legislation passing that does not include licensing of online poker.

================

http://www.catholicadvocate.com/wp-c..._17May2012.pdf

The Honorable John Boehner
Office of the Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

May 17, 2012

Dear Speaker Boehner,

Six years ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly to protect vulnerable communities within our country as well as the integrity of professional sports by stopping the expansion of gambling on the internet. Unfortunately Congress’ clear intent in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act of 2006 (UIGEA) is now under assault and we are writing to urge you to work once again to protect those most at risk from the proliferation of illegal internet gambling.

A pro-internet gambling coalition of large states desperate for more revenue and foreign owned gambling companies have lobbied the Executive Branch to get around Congress’ intended protections and late last year they received an extraordinary boost from an unlikely source: Attorney General Eric Holder. On Friday, December 23, 2011, the Justice Department (DOJ) announced it was upending more than five decades of consistent interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act which prohibited all gambling over the internet with a new opinion that the law simply applied to online sports gambling.

The Wall Street Journal described what happened next: “When the U.S. Justice Department in December narrowed its interpretation of the 50-year-old Wire Act, saying it banned only sports betting and not other forms of online gambling, the decision sparked hope in state capitals that lotteries could start selling tickets online and lead a charge into online gambling.” The “charge into online gambling” was exactly what Congress intended to prevent –with very good reason.

DOJ’s determination has opened the flood gates for states to accelerate plans, many already underway, to go even beyond ticket sales to offer casino-like games on the Internet under the umbrella of their state lottery system. The CEO of the leading provider of lottery services in the United States has said, “The DOJ ruling does not limit the sale of authorized products solely to state lotteries. I think it’s possible that if lotteries are beat to market, they could be tarnished by the early entrants and also risk losing the ability to attract younger players.”

It’s those “younger players” and other vulnerable populations like seniors who are at the most serious risk. Ninety-three percent (93%) of teens age 12-17 utilize the Internet and 97% of teens of the same age participate in some form of on-line gaming making them attractive targets
for gambling marketing as well as illegal and fraudulent operators.

Congress still has an opportunity to act to reassert its authority and re-establish its intent to prevent the proliferation of online gambling in the U.S. By reinstating the more than 50-year old interpretation of the Wire Act and actually strengthening UIGEA, you can protect our children and families from the erosion of safeguards Congress has previously established. We, the undersigned, stand ready to work with you to undertake this vital effort.

Sincerely,

Gary Bauer
American Values

Phyllis Schlafly
Eagle Forum

Dr. Richard Land
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Bill Donohue
Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights

David Barton
WallBuilders

Colin Hanna
Let Freedom Ring

Matt Smith
Catholic Advocate

Tom McClusky
Family Research Council Action

William J. Murray
Religious Freedom Coalition

Jim Backlin
Christian Coalition

Jim Martin
60 Plus Association

Penny Nance
Concerned Women for America

I wrote to one of my congressman's staffers:

Hi *****,

I hope all is well. I wanted to apprise the congressman’s office of a letter some anti-gaming groups just sent to Speaker Boehner, which you’ll find attached. While no one honestly thinks Congress will pass legislation banning all online gaming – especially in the short time window that is available (prior to states authorizing intrastate gaming) – it is disturbing in the larger context. These are groups that purport to speak for conservatism, yet they are actively advocating bigger government, executive branch expansion, and reduced states' rights.

When these groups complain that the executive branch will no longer read a broad ban on online gaming into the Wire Act, rather than the ban on interstate online wagering on sporting events or contests that is defined in the actual text of the legislation, that is of great concern to me as a REINS-endorsing limited government conservative. The Constitution defines a process by which the legislative branch writes the laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the executive branch enforces them. When groups like these insist that the executive branch perform all three functions unilaterally, they weaken the case for Constitutional government and separation of powers as a matter of principle, while also weakening the principle-based case for REINS (my principle-based case for REINS: http://www.geoffdavis.house.gov/News...umentID=205179).

In addition, the aims of the letter are harmful to the Commonwealth, as their request would apply to interstate horse race wagering conducted under the auspices of the Interstate Horse Racing Act. Horse racing interests have had enough problems due to prior executive branch overreach on the scope of the Wire Act of the sort these groups champion. It is sad that they advocate compounding this.

Regarding the state-level bills that concern the groups so much, I agree that we don't need a patchwork of state laws with the federal government left holding the enforcement bag, nor should we have states erecting trade barriers against other states. Our founders included the commerce clause in the Constitution for very good reasons and we ought not violate that important principle here. After all, just as our nation would never permit Indiana (for example) to bar automobiles manufactured in Kentucky on the grounds that Indiana could socialize auto manufacturing for the financial benefit of the state, surely we ought not have state lotteries or other instate interests granted federally-enforced exclusive monopolies over online gaming. Additionally, online instant scratch-off lottery tickets -- the functional equivalent of an online slot machine -- would surely compete directly with private businesses in many states.

There is a better way forward. HR 2366, Rep. Barton’s Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act, actually gives these anti-gaming groups what they want, but in a way that respects our principles and our Constitution. Rather than upending states’ rights and limited government principles, we can instead license and regulate interstate horse racing and games of skill like poker in a manner consistent with the commerce clause and limited government principles, while preserving states’ rights with a state ‘opt-out’ provision. I had a great discussion with Grover Norquist on this prior to the 2010 election that you may find of interest (read at http://poker.blogtownhall.com/2010/0...ne_poker.thtml).

For the Commonwealth, conservatism, consumer protection, law enforcement, and liberty, I ask that Rep. Davis cosponsor HR 2366. I think it’s the right bill at the right time and I hope the congressman will give this due consideration.

Thanks for considering.

Best regards,

Rich Muny
Poker Players Alliance
Vice President of Player Relations & KY State Director