If you want to play Internet Poker, tell your Senator NOW

[Ted Geisel]

Cutting through any bravado or big talk you might hear ... if you live in the US and you want to be able to play Internet poker, you better tell your Senator NOW and every week until the Senate version of the Funding Prohibition, Senate Bill 627 is defeated.

A House-passed prohibition must also pass the Senate in some form. The House version mustered a 2/3 vote by a couple of votes. The Senate prospects for Internet poker players look dim.

If you are a Republican, lobby your Senators on libertarian/big government grounds. Republican votes WILL be necessary to block passage.

Do not listen to posters who say ... but Neteller is offshore or so what, the sites will find a way ... The truth is that US players will be screwed if a US banking prohibition becomes law and about 85% of the market will die.

[GrannyMae]

if you are a democrat, write the republican anyway. lie and tell him you are republican. and vice versa i might add. write them all.

this one is important

[HUSKER'66]

This site will take your city and state info and send a "form letter" to your respective state representative. As
you mentioned in your post Ted, it is up to the Senate now.... it has not had the support before but with all the manipulating going on, you never know what the outcome will be this time. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Ted Geisel]

It is FAR more effective to write directly than to send a form letter.

Go to www,senate,gov and look up the link for your 2 Senators, then write them as someone from their State.

Tell them you want to play Internet Poker and ask them to vote against Senate Bill 627 or any prohibition against you using your own money to play poker.

A lot of Senators likely play poker. Tell them it is Player-to-Player and a social game of skill.

It is NOT money-laundering.

MAKE your email a POKER ISSUE, not a casino or sports betting issue.

[Bubmack]

No Senator wants to be known as the senator that voted for gambling. Its going to pass - I just hope the industry finds a way around it.

bubs

[Ted Geisel]

Bubmack, sorry but that sort of "poor us .. hope someone else can solve this problem" is the line we do NOT need to waste time on. That is precisely what we do not need to read .... 3 votes ..

The House version would have been dead and buried if 3 Reps had voted the other way ... 3 out of 424. It was that close.

The "industry" will not "find a way around it" because most of its customers will go do something else less burdensome for their at home entertainment. Players play because it has been made easy and convenient. Without the US Banking system, it will not be easy and convenient so US players will NOT take a way "around it".

The problem is real and imminent and it is up to the customers to stop it, the "industry" cannot make it go away.

A lot of posters on this site spend a lot of time on seemingly pointless debates and commentary. Next time, instead of debating about what onlinechamp or Granny or Lori or Mike Haven or Booya said or did not say, take 10 minutes and directly write your Senators and get someone else to do so also.

MAKE ONLINE POKER AN ISSUE for your SENATOR. Make it a vote about a right to play poker, a longtime American pasttime.

[Jeffage]

When does this vote come up in the Senate?

Jeff

[Ted Geisel]

There is no scheduled action in the Senate, but that is not the real point. The VERY real point is that a vote is certainly coming down the road.

In lobbying legislation it is never too early to beat the drum with your Senator. This has been presented as a "money-laundering" issue, not as your desire to play poker on the Internet.

CONTACT your Senator NOW to begin the theme that this is about YOU, you want to keep playing poker on the Internet and the moneylaundering stuff is hogwash.

You have a credit card and online banking, you use the Internet for all sorts of purchases, it is convenient and entertaining to play poker on the Internet ... ASK him to vote against any prohibition against using your own money to play poker.

(The Internet Gaming industry fell just 3 votes short of killing this in the House, but they did not really start in earnest until LATE in the legislative process, in 2003. IF they had started earlier and really raised player support, the prohibition might have died again this year. Instead, it has moved way ahead.)

[HUSKER'66]

Hey Ted, I wonder if I write them everyday/every other day, if they'll put me on some "hit list" /forums/images/icons/grin.gif It's a risk I'm willing to take. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Ted Geisel]

Well, once a month would be nice ... until something specific comes up for Senate or Committee action ... then, repeat your message and ask them to also lobby other key Senators on the Committees.

As for a "hit list", we are ALL on one, this prohibition effort is aimed at every online poker player.

Ted

[HUSKER'66]

Good point......you and I seem to be on the same crusade my friend and I only hope that others join us. Surely the various online sites have lobbyists knocking on doors?!? As you mentioned in one of your earlier posts, I brought up the fact that poker is a social game of skill between players. Heck, if we are to believe the numbers, more than 50 MILLION AMERICANS play poker at least occasionally! /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif I'll try to control myself and write 1 or twice a month. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif I have enlisted the help of several co-workers who have agreed to write in....they might not play poker near as much as I do, but they see this as another infringement by our government being perpetuated under the premise that they are "protecting" us from the evils of the world.

[RockLobster]

I did the form-letter thing a couple of weeks ago, but today I sent an e-mail to both of my senators. I've met each of them in the past, and I really hope that I got the message through. I stressed:

- Poker is social and skillful.
- Enjoyed by millions of adults around the world.
- Played against other players, where the house provides a fair game and takes a small portion from each pot (it is in their interest to provide fairness).
- This reeks of "big government".
- etc, etc

I can't believe that there's even a chance of having online poker becoming illegal. Does anyone know what sort of details this includes?

[Ted Geisel]

The Details:

HR 2143, which passed the House last night, will block any US Bank, Western Union, or "International" transfer service from using US bank accounts, checks, wires, electronic transfers, anything to send YOUR money to a gaming site or third party payment system which handles gaming. Norcould your Bank accept your money on cashout from a gaming site. (Even if we could quibble about its reach to Neteller, it would certainly send ANY US Bank running from anything related to gaming transactions.) The approach is regulatory and requires action within 6 months of becoming law.

The Senate has S 627, which is basically the same prohibition. S 627 wasn't introduced until this March. It has criminal penalties and banking provisions, which would send it to two Committees.

The Forecast: In the House, the industry bottled up a different bill in Committee, so the Prohibitionists wrote a new version, took out criminal penalties and sailed HR 2143 past that Committee without a vote there. a pretty clever move that worked. I don't know the Senate Rules, but the Prohibitionists are very skillful at advancing their cause. Expect S 627 to be stripped of any excess baggage to ensure as swift a passage route as avaiable.

THAT is why the time to act is NOW.

[GrannyMae]

A lot of posters on this site spend a lot of time on seemingly pointless debates and commentary. Next time, instead of debating about what onlinechamp or Granny or Lori or Mike Haven or Booya said or did not say, take 10 minutes and directly write your Senators and get someone else to do so also

i absolutely agree ted. i have already submitted 5 names via the www.profreedom.com (http://www.profreedom.com) site, and i have sent a personalized one as well.

i think ted's point is that the effort required takes no longer than a post, so please take the moment to do it. a 3 vote swing in the senate would obviously have a huge impact.

the biggest issue here is not that joe homegame will no longer feel safe by playing, he will.

the issue is the sites themselves being pressured by this new law, and therefore no longer being able to handle the transactions.

many gaming sites may close if this bill passes. certain sites, in certain locales will not want to be the target of US scrutiny or associated with the perception of being lumped as a money launderer or terrorist. certain nations will actually make the sites close because their relationship with the US is more important than the revenues they derive from the rooms.

this bill would not kill online gaming, but it would push it VERY hard in the wrong evolutionary direction.

please write the email

http://emoticons4u.informationalot.com/country/flag48.jpg

[Daithi]

First off, I don't think writing your Senator will do much good.

A congressman that votes for gambling is taking a huge political risk, can't you already see his political opponents commercials, so the only way they will do that is if the online industry heavily contributes to their reelection campaigns. Congressmen don't give a flip about the desires of gamblers.

However, if the bill passes and I own an online Casino/Poker room there is a simple solution. This U.S. law will prevent U.S. financial institutions from funding Online gambling accounts. But U.S. laws don't apply to offshore financial institutions. So the online casinos can either setup an offshore version of PayPal (as a seperate company that is not a casino), or partner with an offshore bank. So instead of funding an account with a casino you fund an account with an offshore bank and the casino has authorization to debit and credit your offshore account -- this could be done with no more hassle than how you currently fund an account with an online casino.

[GrannyMae]

you make good points daithi

however, your argument is flawed in your notion that players will have no problems setting up overseas accounts. i'm here to tell you that most will NOT.

NETeller, as it currently operates, could no longer be linked to a US bank account under this new law. joe homegame will NOT make the effort to open an offshore account, and we will once again be a bunch of sharks in a shark tank because only the most diehard will do this.

you are correct that it is likely to pass, but saying that sending an email can't help, doesn't help.

jmho

[Ted Geisel]

I wish you were right, but you are not, there is no simple solution except to stop this legislation NOW:

You write: "if the bill passes and I own an online Casino/Poker room there is a simple solution. This U.S. law will prevent U.S. financial institutions from funding Online gambling accounts. But U.S. laws don't apply to offshore financial institutions. So the online casinos can either setup an offshore version of PayPal (as a seperate company that is not a casino), or partner with an offshore bank."

Please read this bill, it is guaranteed to inhibit any US financial institution from dealing with any offshore bank/provider which handles gaming. The focus is on disrupting the funds flow whenever it hits the US system, in or out ...no bank will accept a check, wire or electronic transfer to/from an "identified" gaming processor, online gaming co. or affiliated offshore bank. The reach WOULD go as far down as you cashing depositing check from "Foreign Paypal".

The Prohibitionist effort is to choke off US customers access to deposit methods or cashout methods.

Ask yourselves, how many fish will jump through how many hoops to lose at online poker, risking a blacklist from their bank in the process ? People play online poker becaue it is convenient, among other things.

The effect will be in inhibiting the players by making it impossibly incovenient to play at best ... Poker is WAY more vulnerable to player flight than sports books or online casinos because of the need for concurrent numbers of players.

Additionally, look at that check you in the US get from an "offshore" bank ... it is certainly drawn against a US financial institution.... that is why you can deposit it into YOUR bank.

If you doubt the inhibiting effect on your bank, remember how Paypal threw away a multi-million dollar, profitable business because of a threat of prosecution in New York.

VISA has made "gaming blocking" optional for US and Canadian Banks, its effects are already being felt.

Sorry, I wish you were right, but there is no easy solution ... only the direct, difficult one of stopping the enactment of this New Prohibition.

That the Titanic crew wasn't "worried" did not make that iceberg less real.

[Luke]

After reading the posts on this subject, I went ahead and wrote my state's Senators incorporating some of the ideas/arguments cited by other posters as well as some my own. I figured it couldn't hurt... Luke

[eMarkM]

What exactly are the prospects for this bill in the Senate? Anyone have a clue?

[Ted Geisel]

No one, except maybe Lyndon johnson, could ever tell you the exact prospects of a contested bill passing the Senate.

UNFORTUNATELY, the first task is to make this a contested bill, and to make the issue Poker, Entertainment and the Internet ... not Money Laundering.

The second task is to start a fire under your Senators NOW, before they are approached by professional lobbyists on a specific vote or Committee hearing.

If each of those tasks is done, then the prospects are lessened for passage ... there will be no exact answer until votes are counted ... a 3 vote swing in the House would have defeated the House Bill

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What we really need to do is get the people who use sites like NETeller for non-gaming transaction involved. They're going to get screwed, too. I wonder what the folks at eBay think about this bill, or if they even know that it's going to throw a monkey wrench in their works.

[MtSmalls]

I have been following the passage of the bill in the house for the past few weeks (Cardplayer.com has links to gaming stories from a wide network of sources), and am appalled at the usual window dressing they are using to push these types of bills through. Its not about money laundering, that is just the smoke screen they use to justify their conservatist thinking that all gambling is bad and has to be restricted.

I plan to fight them on their own turf: In addition to making many of the same salient points about poker in this issue, I will make two more:
1) If you are TRULY worried about laundering and OC rigging the deck in favor of the house/shills/props, then LEGALIZE and REGULATE it the same way you do for Atlantic City, Las Vegas and the thousands of Indian casinos in the country! Its that simple. MGM closed their online casino, based on the Isle of Man, because they couldn't access the US market legally.
2) Are they going to show up next April at the WSOP or any other major tournament and take all the players, like Mr. Moneymaker, in to custody for "illegal gaming'?? I think not.

write now. write often. Legalize it, regulate it, PROFIT from it (of course once legalized the taxes get paid onshore. HMMM $6 Billion wagered online annually.....sounds like a not insignificant revenue increase for the US)

[Parmenides]

Another traitor to the USA shows himself. The money laundering, mob ruled world of internet poker will eventually be shut down unless you bribe enough Republicans.

Writing your congessman will do nothing.
Having the sites contribute a few million to his or her PAC will do more.

[fnurt]

I thought I would post a copy of the email I sent to my senator. As someone else pointed out, you can very easily obtain email addresses for your senators from www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov), or just go to www.profreedom.com (http://www.profreedom.com) to have your name added to the list of those opposing this bill.

Dear Senator Clinton:

I am an attorney from New York City. I write to you in hopes you will oppose S.627, the misleadingly-titled "Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act."

Millions of people enjoy recreational online gambling, the same way they might enjoy the occasional trip to Atlantic City, but from the comfort of their own homes. These are regular people who enjoy putting a few dollars in a slot machine every once in a while or meeting people from around the world by participating in games such as Internet poker.

The bill before the Senate, which I understand passed the House by only 3 votes, would prohibit an individual from using various forms of payment such as credit cards or bank transfers to fund their hobby of wagering online.

This is a bad idea for two main reasons. First, it does not actually prohibit the gambling activity these legislators seek to reach, in fact that activity typically takes place offshore beyond the regulatory reach of the U.S. Instead, it merely forces individuals to take their transactions "underground"; instead of using easily traced methods of transferring funds, such as credit cards, the preferred method will become blind transfers of electronic cash. All that will be accomplished is that the flow of funds in and out of the U.S. will become less transparent and harder to trace. The bottom line is that Prohibition did not work for alcohol and it will not work for gambling; it will simply force these activities to take place in a shadier manner which is no good for anyone.

This ties in closely with the second reason to oppose this bill, which is that the legislation misses a golden opportunity to regulate the field and create a lucrative source of tax revenues. The U.S.-based gambling industry - including the same respected entities who operate casinos in Las Vegas and nationwide - would love to become involved in operating Internet gambling, but current law prevents them. Instead, the industry is driven offshore, where the U.S. government cannot regulate OR tax them.

The current state of the law exists because certain self-appointed moral arbiters feel it is their duty to stamp out Internet gambling. Not only are they unfairly making a moral choice that belongs to individuals, but more importantly, they are not really preventing anything. They are merely driving the activity further and further underground, missing an opportunity to accrue significant tax revenues and regulate the industry to ensure appropriate consumer protections. A vote against this bill is not a vote on a moral issue; it is a vote for common sense and it's right for America.

As a three-time Clinton voter I hope my vote counts with you. I appreciate you taking the time to consider this issue.

[zooey]

Dear Senator Clinton,

I enjoy playing poker, it is a fun and social skill game. Unfortunately, I'm not one of the elite who can fly off to Atlantic City, like the stalwart defender of public decency Mr. Bennet. But I do play on the internet, a few hours a week. I've been playing internet poker since 1999, at reputable sites, and have never been defrauded or check-raised by a terrorist money launderer.

I'm writing to ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 627. If you have concerns and feel it should be better regulated, I would love to see experienced American firms have a shot at this fast growing market. But it will be a sad day when my government takes away my freedom to enjoy poker with citizens around the world.

[XlgJoe]

Just as a reference how many states do not have there own form of legalized gambling in the form of lottery/scratchoffs. I thought I read that there are only three. Is that correct?

[RollaJ]

I have written to my NY Senators, even the bitch /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[Ted Geisel]

LOL, good checkraising line

[Ted Geisel]

eBay bought Paypal, shut down its gaming business and THEN endorsed a prohibition. They're the reformed sinner I guess, but funny, they have never offered ANY evidence of laundering, despite being neck deep in the business.

(They want to crush their gaming dependent competition.)

[Ted Geisel]

No, on S627.

Rollaj, .....just curious how you addressed the Letter .... LOL

[Choven]

I've done a search on the internet concerning this issue. The only coverage I found was on gambling information websites, not exactly the sites most people visit everyday. Couple this with the number of online players who only play for the excitement and never read through forums, I don't think writing the senators will have much of an impact because this issue is not in the national spotlight (regardless, I have sent letters to senators from my state and my parents' state). IMO, we should attempt to flood the major media networks with emails requesting coverage of this issue. No only will more people become aware of what the government is trying to do, but there might be more incentive for the senators to stop the bill in committee IF a large public debate ensues. This is just a suggestion, but it might be worth it...

[Hung]

Wow,
I've never seen such a serious thread before.
This is bad for everyone. If there's no more online gaming... I'll have to start some sports and become a young healthy man.
Every single American should send a letter. Make a standard letter and post it here. Ask everyone to print it and pass it on to friends and family.
Or make a chainmail. It goes arround the world.

[RollaJ]

I wrote the following:
Dear Icey Lesbian Power Hungry Arafat Kissing Do Nothing For NY Bitch,
It has come to my attention.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your loyal constituant,
RollaJ

[bentlyman]

Just as a reference how many states do not have there own form of legalized gambling in the form of lottery/scratchoffs. I thought I read that there are only three. Is that correct?]

I only know of one.......Tennessee. That is a flat, long state. Sheesh.

[bentlyman]

Re: Hunger's suggestion...

"Just do it" - SchNike ad (pls buy their shoes)

Tiger Woods might use SchNike irons next year. nah.

[RollaJ]

Tenn, Hawaii, Utah

[eMarkM]

From Steve Badger's site (http://www.playwinningpoker.com/news1.html) . The June 11th story - "House passes version of Leach bill..."

[Ted Geisel]

.... well, okay. Did you sign it Eliot Spitzer ?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The government is not opposed to gambling any more than it is opposed to drugs. It is just opposed to forms of gambling (or drugs)from which it cannot take a piece of the action. Since the US government cannot tax offshore gaming sites, it has decided to restrict the freedom of its citizens.

[HUSKER'66]

add North Carolina to the list of no lottery scratch offs

[jek187]

I'm not sure about this, but I believe our neighbors to the south, Nebraska, have zero gambling.