Congress votes no to poker, yes to ponies

Is Ebay to blame for online poker’s woes? The Cato Institute thinks so. Out of the loop at the Series or under a rock somewhere? Get caught up. (Watch out for terrorists and drug lords on Party Poker.) Get CardPlayer’s article. Now, get involved. At the very least, find out how to contact your rep. You do know who your rep is, don’t you?

Now we need to stop this from getting through the Senate. You can stop it.

Here’s the letter I wrote this morning to my rep:

Dear Congresswoman Velazquez,

Thank you for fighting against H.R. 4777, the internet gambling legislation which was unfortunately passed by the House despite your courageous vote against it.

I find it deeply concerning that your colleagues in the House think they know better how to spend my hard-earned money than I do. I see H.R. 4777 as a gateway to further limitations on my use of the internet, my online privacy, and my online banking. I find it condescending, outrageous, and insulting that the government can put any sort of restriction on my spending. The last people to do that were my parents, and I didn’t like it then and I especially don’t like it now as a grown woman.

Most curious to me is the fact that this legislation bans only certain kinds of online gambling. This leads me to believe that the government is not passing this bill in order to stop people from becoming addicted to gambling, but rather that the House believes it can pass judgment on which forms of gambling are acceptable and which are not. I know a few other countries in the world where the government limits its citizens’ choices of entertainment. I’m pretty sure most of them are among our current President’s “Axis of Evil.”

I appreciate your taking the time to read my letter. I hope you will continue to oppose legislation that treats American adults like children. I’m not sure if Congress recalls, but prohibition legislation doesn’t have such a great record of working in this country. Your colleagues on the Hill would do well to remember that.

Sincerely,

Jodi Neufeld

Some people might argue that cases like this one detract from our argument. Anyone who reads this article will realize that “online gambling debts” is a very deceptive phrase. Any money this moron lost was already on the poker site – likely borrowed from a flesh-and-blood, “real life” lender – and could have just as easily have been lended for brick and mortar gambling. The money was not owed to the poker site but to someone who lent the money to this student directly. So when the article claims that the student must pay off online gambling debts, the “online” part of it is really inconsequential. Let’s hope Congress understands that.
___________________________________
Everyone please write to your senator to make sure this doesn’t get through the Senate!