Reply from Randy Brogdon (R)
kind of a wash imo
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
Dear Randy Brogdon
I am writing to inquire about your position regarding online poker. I am a professional poker player, and I rely on online poker, a peer to peer skill game, for income. The reason I am inquiring is concerning HR 2267 The internet gambling regulation, consumer protection, and enforcement act. If passed, the bill will include provisions for states to opt out of offering regulated and licensed online poker, and though the bill has yet to go for markup and the final details are not yet known, the method for opting out may be as simple as state governors writing a letter.
I, as a voter and as a poker player, support candidates who support me and my civil liberties to do as I wish with my money, and this includes playing online poker. I am not alone. There is a huge community of poker players who follow poker related legislation closely, and they stand and vote with me, and we all have the support of the poker players alliance. Please inform me of your position regarding online poker and my freedom to play. Thank you.
I do not support state-sponsored gambling. Although, I do feel that what
ever you do in your home is your business and should not be controlled by
gov't.
Dedicated to Liberty,
RB
my reply:
Thank you for your reply, it is appreciated.
I share the same belief as you. Whatever people do in their own homes is no ones business but theirs, and the government shouldn't be trying to "protect" people from themselves, or legislate its version of morality.
Regarding HR2267, the internet gambling regulation, consumer protection and enforcement act, if passed, there will be a process where federal regulations are developed by the department of the treasury to implement the provisions of the law. Once regulations are completed, internet poker sites will be required to apply to the secretary of the treasury for a U.S. federal license to legally offer internet poker to players in the U.S. The licensed sites will be liable to U.S. jurisdiction and must follow all of the regulations.
The regulations will include protections against consumer fraud, underage participation and problem gambling. The licensed sites will be required to make regular reports on their activities to the government regulators, and appropriate individual taxpayer reports for the IRS. Fees for licensing and fees on player deposits will be paid by the sites and shared between the federal government and state governments who choose to not opt out.
Personally, I am still iffy about supporting this bill. It could potentially do more harm than good to online poker, and that hurts my bottom line as a professional poker player. The rake (poker site's cut) may increase, player pools may shrink if many states choose to opt out. I am waiting until after mark up to decide if I support the bill or not.
This brings me to why this federal legislation is being proposed. In 2006, the Unlawful internet gambling enforcement act (UIGEA) was attached to a completely unrelated bill, the safe port act, and passed at midnight the day congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. The UIGEA prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to unlawful internet gambling sites (but failed to define "unlawful internet gambling"), and specifically excluded fantasy sports betting, online lotteries, and horse racing.
As a result of the UIGEA, many online poker sites withdrew from the U.S. market, the largest being party poker, whose publicly traded stock dropped almost 60% in 24 hours. Credit cards could no longer be used to deposit or withdraw. Because the UIGEA limited deposit options, many casual players quit playing, and this has had a tremendous negative impact on the game. Marginal winners became losers. Large winners became marginal winners. The overall health of the online poker economy was weakened, the games got harder and harder, and the opportunity to make a living playing online poker was diminished, and only the best players were able to continue.
All of this happened because some in Washington felt they needed to "protect" Americans from themselves, and felt as though we Americans were not to be trusted to make our own responsible decisions with our money that we worked hard for. Many Americans like to play poker. They enjoy it. Why should the government try to keep them from an activity that they enjoy like that? It's absurd. People should be able to make their own choices, do as they wish with their money, and not have the government trying to restrict what activities they pursue for entertainment, or as a field of work.
As said, I'm unsure if I support HR2267, but what I do know is this. I support the repeal of the UIGEA. It's a poorly written law which doesn't even define "unlawful internet gambling", it placed unnecessary burden on banks, and it was a slap in the face of American's liberties.
I appreciate your reply, and I ask that you continue to uphold your belief, and oppose legislation that impedes upon it. Americans should be able to do as they wish from the comfort of their own homes, with their own money, without having the government try to control what they can and cannot do.
Thank you for again your reply.
Last edited by LirvA; 07-24-2010 at 09:17 AM.