Poker Legislation
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
|
The new PPA prefilled letter is out and ready to send. It takes
just 60 seconds to send, so please take a moment to let Congress know
you want your rights. Click here to send the letter.
You can Twitter a quick message asking others to write in only ten seconds! I wrote a prepopulated message. Click here to send the Tweet. Finally, you can help support the guys who support us! Send a Tweet recommending P5s. Click here to send the Tweet. Thanks! ---------------------------- Here's the letter: Co-sponsor and Support H.R. 2267, The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act
I
am a constituent, voter, and poker player asking for your support.
Specifically, I ask that you co-sponsor and support H.R. 2267, the
Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act.
I also ask that you support legislation that clearly exempts games of
skill like poker from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of
2006 (UIGEA).
H.R. 2267 provides for sensible regulation of
Internet gaming and puts the U.S. in charge of safeguarding its
citizens. H.R. 2267 mandates rigorous safeguards against underage
participation and protections for those with excessive gaming habits
while providing consumer protections for the millions of Americans who
play online poker every day. This bill 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.
Separately,
something must be done to clarify the UIGEA. 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. Banks must
fully comply with this burdensome law by December 1, 2009. Please act
immediately to reform the UIGEA and exempt peer-to-peer games of skill
like poker from its enforcement.
Poker is a proud American
tradition and our nation's citizens have enjoyed poker for more than
150 years. It is an honorable game that I am proud to play. The simple
fact that I choose to play it on the Internet does not make it unlawful.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Good article in the LA Times: LA Times: A push to legalize Internet gambling
Read/digg: http://digg.com/d1r4AeDirect digg link: http://digg.com/politics/LA_Times_A_push_to_legalize_Internet_poker_casino_gaming
Twitter: http://is.gd/zkkL
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gambling13-2009may13,0,6672183.story
A push to legalize Internet gambling
Supporters tell Congress
that online gaming can be regulated and taxed. Critics worry that such easy
access to betting could worsen addictions.
By Ben Meyerson
May 13,
2009
Reporting from Washington -- The online gambling industry is waging
a campaign in Congress to legalize Internet betting, arguing that it is here to
stay and can be regulated and taxed. But opponents are raising moral
objections.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), head of the House Financial
Services Committee, is leading the fight for gamblers. A previous effort by
Frank failed to get out of committee, but the combination of grass-roots and
corporate support -- as well as the weakening of the Republican Party -- might
improve the odds, advocates said.
"The poker players and other online
gamblers have gotten organized," Frank said, adding that he supported the
legislation as a matter of personal freedom.
I. Nelson Rose, a professor
at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa and coauthor of the book "Internet Gaming
Law," thinks Frank will have the power to push legislation through the House
this time around.
"It will pass, although there will be changes," Rose
said. "Very few people in Congress really care at all about Internet
gambling.".......
|
|
|
|
jw
(United States)
193
Posts.
Joined
03-06-2005.
05-14-2009 12:47 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
Got a quick response from the Congressman who represents my district...although he didn't take a stand one way or the other.
May 11, 2009
Dear xxxx,
Thank you for contacting me about the Federal regulation of online gambling. This is an important issue and I appreciate hearing your concerns.
The Wire Act of 1961 makes the electronic transmission of betting funds or betting information a crime. While this law has been interpreted by the Department of Justice to include a prohibition of online poker playing, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in November 2002 that the Wire Act "does not prohibit internet gambling on a game of chance." The Supreme Court has not made a final ruling as to whether the Wire Act applies to online poker.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed into law on October 13, 2006. The UIGEA makes it a crime for businesses involved in betting or wagering to accept credit or electronic fund transfers or any other financial transaction in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, and H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, were both introduced in the 110th Congress in an effort to allow some Internet gambling. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the 111th Congress consider similar legislation.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can assist in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
John Hall
Member of Congress
|
|
|
|
JW,
Thanks for sharing that.
I little more from John Hall (the one in the middle):
|
|
|
|
"Sent" to all my local & state, OBAMA,and to all of the known supporters of poker through out the federal and state agencies. Which by the way I wish was an easier process to accomplish on PPA. I think it may help if the public servents who can and will recieve corospondence from outside ditricts got it!
|
|
|
 theeviltwin69: | |
"Sent" to all my local & state, OBAMA,and to all of the known supporters of poker through out the federal and state agencies. Which by the way I wish was an easier process to accomplish on PPA. I think it may help if the public servents who can and will recieve corospondence from outside ditricts got it!
Nice job sending it. Thanks!
I've sent letters to congressmen outside the district. It's fine with a unique letter, but it's much less effective with letter systems. In fact, legislators tend to get upset when organized groups flood them with letters from outside the district. Not to worry, though....they are all hearing from us!
|
|
|
Great news. The new PPA letter is up and running. Please send, of course. Also, let's Digg and Twitter to get new eyes on this. I believe we can get non-poker playing libertarians to help out here via hearing about it on the social networks.
Send/Digg: http://digg.com/d1ujyC
Click here to Twitter
When you send the letter, please reply with "sent" to encourage everyone, of course. Thanks! 
|
|
|
|
hasnt everyone done this x103892489234? i think they get the point(not being a dick, im all for helping..)
|
|
|
| pokerpoker69: | |
hasnt everyone done this x103892489234? i think they get the point(not being a dick, im all for helping..)
1. It's a new letter complaining specifically about the fund seizure.
2. It will be the new letter in the PPA system. We can all edit it prior to that, so it will reflect the community.
3. Unfortunately, not every PPA member has sent a letter.
4. If they got the point, the DoJ would not have seized our money.
|
|
|
|
TE, I would like to remove the paragraphs about Rep. Franks' bill and the UIGEA. It is too soon to further push Rep. Franks' bill because it is not finalized and the state opt out provisions are completely unacceptable. In addition, IMO it is not consistent for the PPA to push this bill in Congress and argue in a court of law that it is not necessary because no federal law covers online poker. I think that it is best if the PPA ignores the UIGEA on the grounds that it does not cover online poker for the same reason.
I would focus on the overreaching seizure and overzealous nature of the SDNY. IN addition, I would describe the PPA's intention to fight it in court if the DOJ does not change its position on the legality of online poker and reverse this seizure.
|
|
|
| JPFisher55: | |
TE, I would like to remove the paragraphs about Rep. Franks' bill and the UIGEA. It is too soon to further push Rep. Franks' bill because it is not finalized and the state opt out provisions are completely unacceptable. In addition, IMO it is not consistent for the PPA to push this bill in Congress and argue in a court of law that it is not necessary because no federal law covers online poker. I think that it is best if the PPA ignores the UIGEA on the grounds that it does not cover online poker for the same reason.
I would focus on the overreaching seizure and overzealous nature of the SDNY. IN addition, I would describe the PPA's intention to fight it in court if the DOJ does not change its position on the legality of online poker and reverse this seizure.
I added a version of the letter that does not endorse the Frank bill to the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
PocketFives.com Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
Carbon Poker Sorting Tables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|