Welcome to the PocketFives.com Legislation Forum! This is the official place on our site for all discussion related to legislation in the online gaming industry, as well as for ideas on how we can help in the fight for our rights as poker players.
The Poker Players' Alliance (www.pokerplayersalliance.org) is providing regular content in this forum to keep our readers aware of the ongoing efforts regarding our industry and to potentially organize events that will help our cause. The following members are considered credible sources of information on these topics by the PPA:
PPAdc - John Pappas, Executive Director of the PPA.
TheEngineer - Rich Muny, a member of the board of directors for the PPA.
PPABryan - Bryan Spadaro, a full-time employee of the PPA.
PocketFives.com encourages all users to join the PPA. We sincerely appreciate their willingness to keep us informed on these issues, and more importantly their effort in fighting for the health of the poker industry.
As is the case with all forums on this site, opinions/comments posted in this forum are strictly the those of the writer, and do not represent the views of PocketFives.com as an organization.
1. What can I do to advocate for online poker rights?
- You can stand up for your rights in only 60 seconds. Go to the PPA's website at http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/home to send letters to President Obama, your congressman, and both of your senators. Simply either type your info or click your AutoFill button, then click "submit". It takes literally one minute!
- You can find the phone numbers of your elected representatives there as well. Let's all call them to tell them that we demand our rights.
- Join PPA! Visit www.joinppa.com to join right now.
- Volunteer: http://pokerplayersalliance.org/volunteer
- Follow PPA and me on Twitter, at http://twitter.com/ppapoker and http://twitter.com/TheEngineer2008.
Yes. Simply cut-and-paste this text (or edit as you see fit) into the PPA letter sending tool, at http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/home:
I am a constituent, voter, and poker player asking for your support. Specifically, I ask that you introduce and support legislation that repeals the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
Explicit legalization with sensible regulation will allow the Congress to mandate rigorous safeguards against underage participation and protections for those with excessive gaming habits while providing consumer protections for the millions of Americans who participate in online poker and other gaming every day. Regulation will also allow American gaming companies to participate in the world's Internet gaming market, bringing needed jobs to America. Internet censorship and an unenforceable, unpopular prohibition provide none of these benefits. All censorship and prohibition can do is drive players underground or overseas while limiting my personal freedom.
Our nation's financial institutions have repeatedly warned that UIGEA is overly broad, and that the lack of definition in the law could result in the disruption of lawful financial transactions. Indeed, with regulators, legislators and financial institutions all warning that UIGEA is unenforceable, and with the need for banks to focus on our economic recovery, it is difficult to imagine why some in Congress continue to insist that the banking system be used to censor the Internet.
What's most important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance members, can count on your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
2. If online poker is regulated, won't the government just tax us too much?
The way to get taxed too much is to NOT stand up for our rights. After all, U.S. based B&M casinos aren't going to just watch offshore competition compete against them. Surely they will push for entry into the market, and their typical way in is via promises of tax revenue.
PPA promises revenue too, but that revenue stream is primarily driven by increased business in the U.S. plus improved tax compliance, and is a byproduct of giving us our rights.
IMO, our best shot at the best deal for poker players is for us to stand strong and to keep our seat at the table.
3. Aren't we better off without government involvement? Shouldn't we just stay quiet?
When we followed that strategy, we lost votes in Congress by 317-93 (HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA) and 90-10 (an earlier Senate vote). Congressmen acted like no one in America supported the right to play. It's likely that they heard from only a few Americans who did. Many poker players feared clear legalization and stayed quiet, hoping things would remain as they were then, IMO.
I have bad news. Things cannot stay as they are today. If they could, sites wouldn't be funding and lobbying for clear legalization. There is absolutely no way our government will continue to permit offshore sites to offer services in America while barring U.S. based ones from doing the same. Something will give. If offshore sites continue to serve Americans and poker players remain quiet on purpose, IMO either an effective prohibition will be passed or U.S. based interests will be allowed access. The status quo is simply unstable.
The reason we can access these sites today is not due to people staying quiet, hoping things will stay the same. Rather, the status quo exists because a bunch of people stood up for their rights, stopping the banners in their tracks.
I recommend we keep telling Congress that we want our rights. Fighting back has let Congress know that many Americans want their freedom. It has also resulted in greatly improved media coverage.
4. I like things the way they are now. Why change?
Again, the status quo is unstable. The U.S. simply has no incentive to allow offshore sites to offer online poker while prohibiting onshore sites. Something will have to give. Hopefully it will give in our direction.
There's really no way U.S. gaming interests will wish for the status quo to continue. They'll want either a piece of the pie or a real prohibition to stop the competition. If they have to get clear legalization without our help, they may use their tried-and-true model of buying in with excessive taxation. With the grassroots efforts of poker players, we can all fight for this on the basis of Internet freedom, and have tax revenue act as an additional benefit only.
Another concern is the willingness of sites to continue servicing the U.S. market in the event of a real prohibition. The ones that are here do so because they believe they are offering a legal service. I think many would leave rather than break U.S. law.
Regulated, legal online poker beats no (or very limited) online poker, which is what the 317-93 HR 4411 vote told us was coming if we didn't come up with an alternative. Otherwise, why would a libertarian like Ron Paul cosponsor these bills?
Ron Paul expressed it best when he said regulation is preferable to prohibition. Like Dr. Paul, I prefer no government interference to regulation on general principle, but that's not the world in which we live.
5. What regulations can we expect?
I think there will be regulations mandating age verification and protections for those with excessive gaming habits. Again, poker players will want a seat at the table.
6. Does advocating for our rights actually do anything?
Absolutely. There have been some negative posts regarding writing to Congress. Some players have actually gone out of their way to try to talk others out of writing to Congress. They express their belief that it won't do any good and that we shouldn't waste our time. Yes, one letter won't change the world, but tens of thousands of letters have certainly improved our position, making us stronger. That success has led to other successes, which has led to improved opportunities.
Letters also support the lobbying effort. Lobbyists need to show that they represent many voters. Lobbyists make our letters and other efforts stronger, while we make their lobbying efforts more effective.
We really saw the impact of this in Kentucky when the governor tried to seize the domain names of poker and gaming sites. Had this happened three years ago, there would likely had been little to no press coverage critical of the governor, and it would have been strictly a judicial affair.
Well, we were able to make it a political issue as well. We immediately had over 2,000 letters of opposition in Gov. Beshear's hands. Lots of poker players phoned him, too. This all helped with our media coverage. IMO we actually got evenhanded coverage on the issue, including publication on the day of the first public hearing of an op-ed that I wrote (good timing for us).
Nationally, we went from losing House votes by 317-93 to winning committee votes while stopping gaming opponents in their tracks. Offense has proven to be our best defense.
These successes build on each other. We're now perceived as a stronger lobby (both the PPA and the overall poker rights movement), and get more attention on Capitol Hill. This leads to better national coverage and to other gains.
7. Why does PPA push the "Skill vs. Luck" argument?
Many state laws already differentiate between games of skill and games of chance, so this works within the existing legal framework. This also helps to demonstrate a clear dividing line between casino gaming and poker, which can help alleviate the fears some may have that allowing poker will lead to an expansion of games of chance.
"Skallagrim" leads the PPA's Litigation Support Team. He maintains a great site on the skill vs. luck issue on the PPA site. He helped develop a proof that poker is a game of skill that is being used in some state challenges.
PPA used this in the Kentucky case. We filed a brief proving that poker is a game of skill, not chance. As such, we were able to argue that poker should not be considered "gambling" under Kentucky law. While it wasn't ruled on, it did show that we believe it to be a perfectly legal activity.
Poker has had recent court victories in Pennsylvania and Colorado with the skill vs. luck argument as well.
8. Does PPA only support poker carve-outs? Wouldn't a carve-out for poker harm other online gaming?
I think just about every online poker player would like for all online gaming to be legal. I know I do. I can't think of a single time I received an email from a member asking that PPA actively work to limit other forms of online gaming. That being said, it's important to remember the history of all this.
We lost the HR 4411 vote (the bill that became UIGEA after getting watered down in conference committee) in the House 317-93. The fact that we lost by that large of a margin on a bill far tougher on us than UIGEA shows where we online gaming/poker stood politically. IMO, it was obvious that an outright repeal was unlikely, given that margin, the organizations opposed to us, and the opposition of Kyl and Bush.
If PPA tried to fight for an outright repeal of UIGEA (and clarification or outright repeal of the Wire Act) on general principle, would players or sites contribute to a futile cause? Would they be taken seriously by politicians? IMO, we were in a position where we had to decide what could be passed. It seemed two things could -- licensed online gaming and clear legalization of games of skill. So, PPA went down both paths and secured support for both approaches. Victories on either path helped the other, so this has proven to be an effective approach to fight back IMO. It has allowed us to form alliances with those opposed to aspects of UIGEA and has given us a credible voice in Congress. This has made us more successful overall.
I think the best example of the overall success of this is in Kentucky. Our governor is trying to seize the domain names of foreign online gaming sites. Had this happened in 2004, there may have been noise made about Internet freedom, but I don't think we'd here much about the rights of poker players and online gaming enthusiasts. Well, it's not 2004, and we are fighting back. As a result of the momentum we have from fighting in Congress, our press coverage has been at least equal to Gov. Beshear's (which surprised me, given the conservative nature of the state). We flooded Beshear's office with thousands of phone calls and letters. I was able to get an op-ed published in the state's two largest newspapers. We fought back hard and we won in the Court of Appeals. Beshear knows we're for real. We've had several other legislative and judicial successes at the state level as well. So, the efforts are clearly bearing fruit.
Getting back to the initial question, IMO a poker carve-out isn't bad for other gaming. On the contrary, I believe it would help other gaming move forward. Some fights have to be won one battle at a time. Keep in mind that Wexler's bill doesn't speak to other gaming, so it doesn't throw other gaming "under the bus" or anything like that.
Many poker players, including me, were upset with the horse racing UIGEA carve out. IMO the main problem here was that UIGEA harmed online poker (although UIGEA shouldn't apply to poker on a nationwide basis, it has clearly had a chilling effect) and other gaming. As such, the horse racing carveout and subsequent backing of the bill by the horse industry did throw others under the bus. Note that many supporters of the horse racing carveout were not pro-gaming.
Poker carveouts, OTOH, would not change the law relative to other gaming. Note that the supporters of such legislation ARE pro-gaming. Most telling, the Interactive Gaming Council supports Wexler's bill. The IGC (see www.igcouncil.org/content/view/30/54/ for the member list) also contributes to PPA. Surely this is not a coalition looking to throw casino gaming under any buses.
9. Are pro-poker opinions represented on sites like Digg?
From Wikipedia: "Digg is a website made for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the Internet, by submitting links and stories, and voting and commenting on submitted links and stories. Voting stories up and down is the site's cornerstone function, respectively called digging and burying. Many stories get submitted every day, but only the most Dugg stories appear on the front page....The domain "digg.com" attracted at least 236 million visitors annually by 2008 according to a Compete.com survey." For more info on what Digg is and how it works, check out http://di66.net/digg.html.
The New York Times, the Washington Post, and others provide free links to Digg in all their stories, as they recognize the value of being "dugg".
Many poker players digg, including me. My profile is at http://digg.com/users/TheEngineer2008.
This effort has been good for poker, IMO. Poker went from zero representation on Digg nine months ago to having many pro-poker rights articles on the Digg front page.
Of the millions of visitors Digg has, for the last few months I've been in the top 10 (sometimes slip to #12 or so) for the most articles on the front page during the previous 30 days (#7 now: http://di66.net/top-users-30d-by-posts.html), so this effort has really been paying off.
One good submit was the Washington Post article that ran the day after the 60 Minutes story on online poker aired.
WaPo ran two articles. The first one covered the scandal and put online poker in a negative light, IMO, by not discussing what is being done to remedy the situation. The second one discussed regulation vs. prohibition and was the real story. That story is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113002006.html . It hit the front page (see http://digg.com/business_finance/Was..._Poker_Debated).
This generated a lot of views, keeping this story #1 on the WaPo "most read" list for the day (and, as importantly, ahead of the initial story), so it paid off.
We've put two articles on Kentucky case on the front page as well. One is at http://digg.com/tech_news/Appeals_Co...b_Domain_Names . This helped immensely, as that story was not getting national attention at that time.
I've gotten my blog on the Digg front page (it's at www.theleachlist.com). As it had an action plan that day, we generated a lot of calls to the Federal Reserve to ask them to delay issuing the UIGEA regs.
An article on the South Carolina case hit recently as well. It's at http://digg.com/world_news/S_C_Po...me_of_Skill.
We've gotten several other poker rights articles on the front page as well.
10. Is online poker legal?
PPA contends that the Wire Act does not apply to poker. An appeals court decision backs this interpretation.
UIGEA applies only to financial transactions for Internet gambling unlawful under other state and federal laws. PPA contends that there is no federal law making poker unlawful, so UIGEA should not apply nationwide. The effect of state laws is less clear. Only a handful of states have laws that potentially affect poker players.
The Bush Justice Department believed all interstate online gaming is unlawful, including state licensed horse race betting. However, they acted on only sports betting, the one area where the Wire Act has been held to apply. We don't yet know where the Obama Justice Department will come down on this issue.
In any event, no one has ever been prosecuted in the U.S. for playing online poker.
11. How's the fight going?
The fight is actually going well, IMO.
We started well behind the eight ball. Groups like Focus on the Family and all major sports leagues (especially the NFL) lined up in opposition to online poker. B&M casinos were at best neutral as a group. Media coverage of online poker generally seemed inclined to reinforce a "gambling is bad" morality message. The GOP had a plank in their 2000 and 2004 platforms advocating a ban of all online gaming/poker. A Senate bill to ban interstate online gaming passed 90-10, and HR 4411 (the bill that became UIGEA) passed the House 317-93 in 2006. Judging by the letters politicians sent us back then, they didn't even know any Americans wanted the right to play.
With all this against us, things looked bleak. However, poker players rose up and made themselves heard. We all let Congress know that there really are many Americans who demand this freedom. We cultivated better media as well. On top of that, several pro-several bills were introduced into Congress. These kept us on offense (which, for us, is easily the best defense). And, we helped delay issuing the UIGEA regulations for two years.
Today, the landscape is changed dramatically from that of just two years ago. The GOP still has an anti-poker plank in its platform, but poker players were able to make enough noise to keep it from the initial draft. Kentucky is trying to ban online poker via judicial actions; this action is being fought vigorously, and everyone involved says the governor's office has been getting deluged with phone calls and letters from the state's online poker players. Kentucky news coverage has been good as well. The UIGEA regs were finally issued, but they're not as bad as they could have been, and we have a good shot at improving that situation further.
The bottom line is that we can win this, but we'll all have to pitch in. For starters, I hope we'll write and call our congressmen and senators to tell them that we demand our freedom.
12. Why is PPA bothering trying to engage Republicans?
The GOP Senate leadership led the charge to pass UIGEA in 2006. The GOP put an anti-online poker plank in its past three platforms. The social conservative wing of the GOP is so strongly opposed to us that the entire party tends to move in that direction.
That being said, there are plenty of conservative Republicans on our side. Sen. Al D'Amato, John Pappas, and I are all Republicans, for example. Reps. Ron Paul, Pete Sessions, and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey are solidly with us. We have a toehold in the party and hope to improve it. However, we won't be able to expand that unless we let the GOP know that we're not happy with the current direction regarding online poker, IMO. You can bet Focus on the Family lets them know when they're unhappy. We need to do the same. The GOP is looking for votes right now, so it's good timing for us in that regard. Why should I even bother writing to my congressman or senators? They oppose online poker. Isn't writing and calling them just a waste of time? Two years ago, many people asked me why they they should write to their congressmen and senators, as they felt these people would never support online poker. I responded that if we could get any improvement, it would be a victory for us. For example, if a congressman went from leading efforts against us to merely voting against us whenever bills happened to be up for a vote, that would be a win for us. If a politician who'd vote against us 100% of the time would drop to 80%, that would be a victory. If we could get all of Congress to improve just a bit, we'd be very close to winning this.
Since then, we've seen the replies to our letters to Congress improve dramatically. IMO, we're starting to see the fruits of all of our work.
Another thing to remember is that we were the bone the GOP leadership threw to Focus on the Family to keep them happy. As the NFL wanted a ban on online gaming/poker and as there is no U.S.-based industry, we were seen as a rather weak foe. In fact, many in Congress thought there was no downside at all to opposing us. Well, poker players have been doing there part to help them realize that there is indeed a price to pay.
If we can move from weakest to second-weakest, we'll have come a long way. It's like the old joke about the two hikers being charged by the bear. One hiker laces up his running shoes and the other asks if really thinks he thinks he can outrun a bear. The first hiker replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear...I just have to outrun you."
13. Why does PPA bother with things like having members vote on President Obama's Citizens' Briefing Book?
Things like the Citizens' Briefing Book (Obama's online site -- now closed -- to vote on issues Obama should address) present good opportunities to get our message out, and they are free and easy. As we take advantage of more and more of these, we'll get our message out that much more effectively.
Our opponents started fighting us as soon as online poker and sports betting became feasible. Focus on the Family was fighting for for a ban in the late 90's, followed closely by the NFL (brought in by sports betting, but figuring shutting it all down was best for them). B&M casinos feared for their profits, and states feared for lottery revenue. And, many liberals feared that unregulated gaming businesses would exploit weaknesses in participants. They all got together and lobbied Congress for protection. "Click your mouse, lose your house" (and lots of money and lots of letters) was all it took.
During this time, many poker players thought they were better off without government interference. Many of us didn't see that instability of the status quo at that time. We thought no one could stop it, as it's on the Internet and out of foreign nations. When HR 4411 passed, poker players saw the light and stepped up. Unfortunately, by then there were few undecided senators to influence (and it was too late for the House at all, as that vote was done). As one can imagine, it's much harder to change someone's mind than it is to be there during the decision process with counterpoints.
When HR 4411 (the bill that became UIGEA) passed the House 317-93, it was obvious that Congress didn't even know many Americans supported the right to play online poker. Our opponents were very successful in getting their message out, while many of us either liked things as they were and saw no reason to change that, or were just apathetic. After UIGEA passed, the letters we poker players got in reply to our letters to Congress typically treated our position disdainfully. Media coverage of our position was even worse, at least IMO.
IMO poker players were able to reset the clock, so to speak, after UIGEA passed. We were able to start the process of building on small successes and changing minds. This happened because of the new leadership that came into Congress in 2006, along with us jumping in from the get-go. I believe we wish to do this with Obama. While this online vote surely won't do it all, showing the breadth of support for our freedoms will help us, especially as PPA will put it to use.
Now, poker players are making noise. We're on offense in Congress (clearly our best defense). We're now seeing much improved replies from our congressmen, along with much improved media coverage. In fact, one big surprise in the Kentucky issue was the fair and even media coverage.
So, we poker players really can't skip small opportunities. We build strength by taking advantage of opportunities like these. By showing strength, we help reporters decide to include our opinion in their articles. We encourage legislators to vote for our positions, or to at least not vote against them. These successes build upon each other, and that's where big opportunities come from.
14. What tangible results has PPA had?
First of all, we lost the HR 4411 -- the bill that became UIGEA -- vote HR 317-93. A few years before that, we lost a Senate vote 90-10. We were way behind our opponents at that time, which included Focus on the Family, the NFL, some folks on the left who thought these sites were "preying on the vulnerable," and many others. I don't know why anyone would think this should have been easy to overcome. It won't be, but we can win if we all work together for our rights.
Since then, PPA has had its biggest successes by putting poker on offense, rather than defense. Offense has been our best defense. Now, we're the ones with the legislation, not the banners. On the day UIGEA passed, Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) promised to pass legislation the follow year that would finish what UIGEA started. Well, not only did he not pass this legislation -- he didn't even introduce it!
Being on offense, PPA focused on holding off and modifying the regulations implementing UIGEA. PPA's work helped generate congressional hearing on the issue. They also worked to ensure many comments were submitted to the Treasury and to the Federal Reserve during the comment period. These comments came from players, banks and other financial institutions, state lotteries, and others affected by the legislation. IMO, this kept the UIGEA regs at bay for two years, allowing us to enjoy that status quo in which we find ourselves today.
PPA also passed a moratorium on implementation of the UIGEA through the House Financial Services Committee. While it didn't get voted on by the entire Congress, it did work to "officially" put us on offense by showing tangible evidence of our momentum.
By being on offense, IMO we've seen a huge improvement in media coverage of our side of the issue as well. We really saw the impact of this in Kentucky when the governor tried to seize the domain names of poker and gaming sites. Had this happened three years ago, there would likely had been little to no press coverage critical of the governor, and it would have been strictly a judicial affair. However, now that we've spent a couple of years on this, media coverage within KY was at least even, IMO. This surprised me, given that KY is a conservative state. I was able to get an op-ed I wrote on the issue published in the state's two largest newspapers as well.
- PPA won the appeal in Kentucky, and did a great job of putting out our side of the issue. We immediately had over 2,000 letters of opposition in Gov. Beshear's hands. Lots of poker players phoned him, too.
- PPA held off criminalization of online poker playing in Mass. last year. It was reintroduced this year, then promply taken back out. Letters to PPA members were actually apologetic in tone, with a claim that it was not added intentionally.
- PPA jumped in to fight to a Virginia bill that sought to criminalize poker a couple of weeks ago. After hearing from Virginia's poker players, the bill was opposed unanimously by the committee in which it was introduced.
- The PPA Litigation Support Network is fully up and running, and is doing a terrific job of taking the pro-poker fight to states where poker players have been harassed simply for playing our game.
- We just won in Pennsylvania. The judge ruled that poker is a game of skill.
- PPA filed an amicus brief in the Kentucky case proving that poker is a game of skill.
15. What's up in Kentucky?
We won the appeal. Beshear appealed his loss to the state Supreme Court. Here's a nice article on this from the Lexington Herald-Leader:
Online gambling sites win this round
By Jack Brammer - email@example.com
FRANKFORT - Kentucky, a haven for gamblers who want to bet on horse racing, has hit a setback in its efforts to stop unregulated online casino gambling.
In a 2-1 ruling Tuesday, the Kentucky Court of Appeals said the state does not have the jurisdiction to seize 141 online casinos' Internet domain names in an effort to keep them from operating in the state.
The ruling also said a Franklin Circuit Court judge cannot hold further hearings on the issue.
"This is a tremendous victory for Internet freedom and the rights of Kentucky residents who enjoy playing online poker," said John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, in a statement....
Did PPA send an alert to its members on the KY issue?
Here's the latest alert we sent to every Kentucky PPA member:
Dear [poker player],
I have great news to share with you. Thanks to your willingness to take a stand for your rights and to the dedicated work of your Poker Players Alliance, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that the Commonwealth cannot seize the 141 domain names in the domain seizure case! Click here for the Lexington Herald-Leader article on the decision.
The appellate court was provided powerful arguments from a strong coalition of independent voices. Groups like your Poker Players Alliance, the ACLU of Kentucky, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation all successfully weighed in with the appellate court from a variety of legal perspectives.
I believe Governor Beshear and Secretary Brown should abandon this misguided effort and focus their energy on regulation and reasonable taxation of Internet poker. This common sense approach would benefit Kentucky's poker players, and the revenue would benefit the Commonwealth. Rather than wasting hard-to-find dollars on this case, the Governor could actually turn this into a much-needed new revenue stream for the Commonwealth.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth has chosen to appeal the appellate court's decision to the Kentucky Supreme Court. It seems the Governor and his "hired gun", out-of-state, contingency-fee only lawyers want to delay their ultimate defeat by dragging their rejected claims to yet another venue at the expense of Internet freedom and the rights of law-abiding Kentucky poker players. Let's urge him to stop this farce.
- What Can I Do?
Please call Governor Beshear (502) 564-2611 to tell him:
<ul type="disc">[*] You're a voter, not a victim[*] You oppose this attack on your liberty and on Internet freedom[*] Beshear should support the regulation and licensing of online poker and abandon this legal effort immediately[/list]Your opinion matters. Your phone calls matter.
Please forward this email to your fellow Kentucky poker players and let's keep telling Gov. Beshear: "I'm a voter, not a victim!"
For all the latest news and updates, check out our KY Case page:
Thank you for standing strong with your fellow poker players.
Proud to play,
PPA Kentucky State Director
P.S. I also urge you to help build on our current momentum at the national level by sending our all-new, fully editable letter to Congress right now. It takes less than 60 seconds! Just click this link, type in your name and address, and click "submit". You'll send a personalized pro-poker letter to Senator McConnell, Senator Bunning, and your Congressman. It takes literally one minute!
16. Do any conservative authors support online poker rights?
Here are some articles from conservatives who oppose federal prohibition of online poker:
- George Will: http://www.newsweek.com/id/72444?tid=relatedcl
- Jacob Sullum of Reason: http://townhall.com/columnists/Colum...a-edcb1da79d97
- Walter Williams: http://townhall.com/Columnists/Walte...=true#comments
- My Townhall.com article: http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichM..._gop_imploding
- Pro-poker comments submitted to the GOP's party Platform idea submission site: http://theengineer.pokerplayersallia...-the-internet/
- Another article by Jacob Sullum of Reason: www.reason.com/news/show/128698.html
- Grover Norquist: http://pokerplayersalliance.org/pdf/...040208_ATR.pdf
Last Post: Sep 3rd, 2010, 10:25 PM37 Replies
Last Post: Dec 22nd, 2007, 03:18 AM0 Replies
- 7 Replies
- 0 Replies
- 16 Replies