Poker Players Alliance ForumsPoker Is Not A Crime: Discuss The Fight

-- Choose a Forum -- Poker Players Alliance PPA Online Site Updates Ask Skallagrim State - AL State - AK State - AZ State - AR State - CA State - CO State - CT State - DE State - DC State - FL State - GA State - HI State - ID State - IL State - IN State - IA State - KS State - KY State - LA State - ME State - MD State - MA State - MI State - MN State - MS State - MO State - MT State - NE State - NV State - NH State - NJ State - NM State - NY State - NC State - ND State - OH State - OK State - OR State - PA State - RI State - SC State - SD State - TN State - TX State - UT State - VT State - VA State - WA State - WV State - WI State - WY

Poker Players Alliance Forums » State - CA

1. Elyse Davis
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet gambling. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me on this important topic and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

   There is no doubt that the Internet and related technologies have had a remarkable effect on the U.S. economy in recent years. The flow of commerce on the Internet has enhanced American industry's ability to distribute goods economically and efficiently. The continuing development of this industry in California has provided hundreds of thousands of new, well-paying jobs, and I am committed to strengthening online commerce and preserving and expanding this vital job base.

   While the advent of the Internet has been beneficial to American society, I believe the same cannot be said for Internet-based gambling. Internet gambling has become too easily accessible to minors, subject to fraud and criminal misuse, and too easily used as a tool to evade State gambling laws.

   I understand your thoughts on internet gambling, and as you may be aware, I have supported legislation aimed at curbing Internet gambling during my tenure in the Senate. For example, I supported the SAFE Port Act, passed into law as Public Law 109-347, which included (as Title VIII) the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

   Please know that I have read your letter with interest and value your thoughts. Additionally, I appreciate hearing your concerns that such restrictions are vague for poker players, and your support for legislation to exempt online poker from the Act. While we do not necessarily agree on this particular topic, be assured that I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should this issue come before me during the 110th Congress.

   Again, thank you for your letter. I hop you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. Best regards.

   Sincerely yours,

   Dianne Feinstein
   United States Senator

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. Mini Offield
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   MalibuSky, it may not have been the kind of response that we wanted to hear, but it is A RESPONSE. Not one of the four emails that I sent have even been acknowledged. What's your secret?? LOL

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. derringer007
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   I received a response from Pete Stark, The lowest of the four e-mails i sent. Your right (MalibuSky) that is a response. The response received was similar to yours from Sen. Feinstein Which i view as Total blow-off. I will not stop sending e-mails. Maybe if i send enough they will start to see the light. And then i woke up. lol

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. Peter Rothe
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   All I got from my emails to Kansas senators and reps was blather, yada yada, thanks for the email, and a summary of their activies on other issues. Jeeeez

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. Rod Candelori
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   Attn: Diane Feinstein Nov. 11, 2008

   As a voter in this State for over 36 years I was greatly disappointed to find out that YOU WERE AGAINTS PROP. 8! Also I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU NOW ARE AGANIST (INTERNET GAMEING, PLAYING POKER ON THE INTERNET) in contacting you in the past, YOUR office I think had written me that you would look at all the facts and keep an open mind on the ISSUES that you would make YOUR MIND on INTERNET POKER PLAYING in the future.

   MAY I ask why (YOU) the GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET INTO OUR PRIVATE BUSSINESS, CONDUCTED IN OUR OWN HOMES (UNREAL). IT IS OUR OWN HOME, WITH OUR MONEY; THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD WE PAID TAXES ON OVER AND OVER AGAIN ALLREADY FRANKLY IT IS NOT ANY BUSSINESS OF THE GOVERMENTS what we do with our money in our own homes!

   IT is this major ITEM that MY support for you in the past is now up in the AIR. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOU or BARBARA BOXER, in any more ELECTION unlees you both show ME that you will not support the any bills that will try to stop AMERICANS FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO PLAY POKER ON THE INTERNET! I used to think of you as a SENTOR WITH AN OPEN MIND BUT NOT NOW! I will raise money and support CITIZENS running for (YOUR) public OFFICE who believe in the rights and freedoms of the CITIZENS of U.S.A in there own homes.

   YOU and BARBARA BOXER will see in the next ELECTION that THIS ISSUE is VERY IMPORTANT TO THE VOTERS OF CALIFORINA.

   PLEASE GIVE US A REASON THAT WE SHOULD STILL VOTE FOR YOU TWO SENTORS IN THE FUTURE AS WE WANT TO BUT NOW WE NEED YOU TO GIVE US REAL REASON WHY WE SHOULD STILL THINK ABOUT SUPPORTING BOTH OF YOU IN THE FUTURE?

   Sincerely sorry,

   MY NAME

   P.S. NO RESONSE FROM BOTH AS OF YET (UNREAL), I say we vote for someone else next time in 2010 fore these two (SENTORS) PERIOD, they are NEVER GOING CHANGE PERIOD....

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. Win.by.TKo
   Member
   Visit User Profile

   RCHoldem...May I recommend utilizing spellcheck. Also, I do not think it is prudent to 'yell' at her. Such tactics inhibit the likelihood of a reply. It is best to communicate with our senators in a way that allows for public discussion and debate.

   One thing I would like our representatives to consider is an open forum, a 'town hall' meeting or something similar so that both sides can discuss their logic for supporting or not supporting online poker.

   One thing she made clear in her reply to MalabuSky is that she is still lumping online poker with online gambling. It would seem to me that the main goal here is to have her view the two separately. Only when that goal is accomplished will anybody be able to convince her that online poker should be exempted.

   Evidently, her opposition is not because of a desire to legislate morality. She would have supported Prop. 8 had that been the case. I do not recall her stating that, if her concerns were rectified, then she would support such legislation. If those are genuinely her only concerns, then she should be able to support SB3616. If she chooses to oppose this bill, then her motives for her opposition must lie elsewhere. We shall see.

   Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

Poker Players Alliance Home

Poker Players Alliance Forums is proudly powered by bbPress.