According to The Hill, at http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...services-panel, Rep. Ed Royce of California (D rated by PPA -- voted for HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA, but no other action for or against us) is challenging Rep. Spencer Bachus for the position of House Financial Services Committee chairman.

I live in the District that Ed Royce represents. Twice I have emailed him and got the same response below:

Thank you for taking time to contact me. Your contribution is very valuable in helping me represent the 40th District of California. I will review your correspondence and address your concerns accordingly.

Sincerely,
Rep. Ed Royce

If Royce wins, we'd replace a staunch yet incompetent (at least IMO) opponent with someone presumably capable of doing the job. I assume we're better with Royce, in that Bachus' bumbling incompetence probably does not outweigh his singular focus against our right to play.

Wow. He might be the only guy in Congress without a letter specifically on our issue. That's probably not a bad thing, honestly.

It seems Royce is an ally with Rep. John Campbell, so that's excellent for us. He'd also not be bringing an anti-poker staff to the job the way Bachus did. All in all, IMO we should all support Royce in his bid (but don't blame me if we get Besheared....this is one person vs another, not a case where I'm saying Royce will support us).

Can I trouble you with a request? Can you call his office today to share your beliefs on this issue and hear what they have to say? They'll probably just thank you for your input, but if they do say something beyond that it would be helpful. Thanks!

Yeah, lets find out his stance before we get too far behind him. Bachus is pretty low on the list of guys I want heading that committee, but he's also an incompetent. If his opponent hates us as much but is competent, that's not really an upgrade in my mind.

Any idea how real this is? Everything Ive read in the mainstream press still has Bachus as a pretty heavy favorite.

The "conventional wisdom" of the mainstream press is usually off target. It will be very interesting to see if we catch a break and have an opportunity with Ed Royce that we did not with that doofus from Alabama.

I am not so sure the MSM has caught onto the fact that a lot of Repubs were down on Bachus' performance his last term....I would assume that is also why he is being challenged as Royce is probably working off the same info.

Given that he doesn't even have a response letter tailored to poker players, I think we know about all we're going to know. Fortunately, poker players are accustomed to having incomplete facts when making decisions. Here, getting rid of Bachus really would be huge for us.

True. This is from a column I wrote on Bachus earlier this year:

Bachus' ignorance is just at unreal levels for someone of his power....good article.

LOL, sounds like he is "contribution" oriented. Maybe his email was too subtle.

Enclose a small contribution next time, see if you get a different response.

Disclaimer noted ..... If I ever get my contribution back, I will forward it to the PPA.

You and me both.

Post #11,000!

I apologize, I didn't see this message until late in the day. I will call Ed Royce's office Monday morning and report back what his office says.

Engineer, I don't think that was the only thing that was considered "anti-poker" that Royce did.

Royce voted no on HR 2267. I think this is why he shows as a grade D in congressionalpoker, and is marked down as voting against poker rights.

I live in his district, and he does meetings at Starbucks and w/e from time to time (he used to at least, I'm on his email list). Might be worth it to visit one of those.

imo, I think he's a good representative and he can't possibly be any worse for poker than Bachus.

A committee chairperson has a lot of clout in determining what legislation actually gets considered by the committee. This institutional power is not insurmountable, but it is substantial.

Given that fact, the choice is between an enemy leader who is uncompromising but inept versus a leader who is open to compromise but will be far more effective in any fight.

But even an inept Bachus would likely be able to block our advance, its just that our chances of out maneuvering him are much better than with Royce.

But Bachus would for certain do everything he could to block a vote, Royce might not, even if he personally voted against it ....

I will wait for our folks on the ground in DC to make the judgment call on this one.

Skallagrim

There was nothing specific about today, of course. Thanks for preparing to make the call. It's much appreciated.

+1

As you can tell from my previous post, any information we can gain in this situation is greatly needed as well as appreciated.

Skallagrim

I was wondering if any of you had any specific questions you would like to bring up while talking to Ed Royce's office.

Thanks for doing this.

I would suggest that you touch the topic of personal liability and responsibility: it is the government's job to protect me from others who would infringe on my rights, but it is not the government's job to protect me from myself. In my experience, most people who visit this forum would agree with that.

Sounds like a good question to me.

If the Republicans are not happy with Baccus, I have a feeling this is not going to help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_780558.html