The family & religious groups that pushed for UIGEA demanding a federal ban!

[5thStreetHog]

Originally Posted by Doc T River

...open minded Christian...

[tamiller866]

I guess this is long forgotten history, so I think both poker players and these 'family' groups need to be reminded that there may not have even been a poker boom if it wasn't for these anti-gambling advocates.

An amendment to the Wire Act that would have made offering any gambling on the internet illegal looked to have smooth sailing in 2000 until these religious groups intervened in protest of the 'carve-outs' included for horse racing and (state) lottery.

It was when Jack Abramhof emails were leaked that these groups learned they had been used as pawns - not to eliminate the exceptions but to derail the legislation - that these groups learned their lesson on pragmatism and rallied for the UIGEA and it's carve-outs.

What we should be telling these groups is not to allow themselves to be used again as pawns for the state lottery commissions, who want to hold monopoly power to offer unlimited gambling from bingo to roulette - with no federal oversight - rather than federally regulated poker, limited to the states that opt to allow it.

They need to be reminded that those of us pushing for the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Online Poker Consumer Protection, and UIGEA Strengthening bill may be strange bedfellows, but we are not their real enemy, and sending them hate mail isn't going to win hearts and minds.

[Doc T River]

Originally Posted by VP$IP

This thread is The family & religious groups that pushed for UIGEA demanding a federal ban!

It is not How to endear yourself to your Christian brothers.

Let's leave your capitulation out of the equation.

What I mean is when you write to someone about this issue, leave your feelings about religion out of the equation and focus on why these groups are wrong in their views on online poker. Anything else isn't germaine.

[Doc T River]

I've given this more thought and think any non-believers in this thread should keep their views to themselves as this is a thread about poker in the poker legislation forum and not a thread about religous beliefs.

We need to discuss opposition inaccuracies about poker, online and live, and how to combat them. Veering off into whether religion is an inaccuracy will simply derail this thread and our mission.

[Gaddy]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I wrote to one of my congressman's staffers:

Hi *****,

I don't think calling the staffer a cuss word right off the bat will help get your letter the desired consideration.

[VP$IP]

Originally Posted by Doc T River

I've given this more thought and think any non-believers in this thread should keep their views to themselves as this is a thread about poker in the poker legislation forum and not a thread about religous beliefs.

We need to discuss opposition inaccuracies about poker, online and live, and how to combat them. Veering off into whether religion is an inaccuracy will simply derail this thread and our mission.

You may proceed with your carefully thought-out plan of unilateral disarmament.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by Gaddy

I don't think calling the staffer a cuss word right off the bat will help get your letter the desired consideration.

[SaltyPickles]

I am confused. A federally ban would mean that states would not be allowed to legalize it? Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? What happens when something is illegal under a federal law but not under a state law?

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by SaltyPickles

I am confused. A federally ban would mean that states would not be allowed to legalize it? Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? What happens when something is illegal under a federal law but not under a state law?

Federal law takes precedent.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by SaltyPickles

I am confused. A federally ban would mean that states would not be allowed to legalize it? Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? What happens when something is illegal under a federal law but not under a state law?

Hypothetically it would be like the medical marijuana situation, where states license people but the feds still raid them, but in reality a ban would only get through congress (given the power of the b&m casino lobbies) if it included a Reid/Barton/Frank type carve-out for online poker.

Conservative groups will either need to play ball on poker or sit back and watch as states legalize any form of online betting they think might generate the most revenue.