Money, money

I've been trying to figure out a place to park a fairly substantial sum of money that I can't risk but also don't like the sub-2% interest rates I'm getting on. By the by, I remembered Premium Bonds, a UK government bond I used to invest in when I was a college kid (invest in = put 20 pounds I had saved over the week into). I called National Savings & Investments, who administer the Premium Bonds program, and was told that Americans living in America were not really eligible. Why not? Because the US Post Office won't deliver mail sent about Premium Bonds due to US law.

A little puzzled, I emailed the Post Office about it, not really expecting an answer. Yet, this morning, here it is:

"Thank you for contacting us about investing in "premium bonds" run by the United Kingdom government.Lottery and raffle tickets are not permitted mailings within our Postal Service. This prohibition is based on a Federal law (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302) passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. "Lottery or raffle is a scheme or promotion, whether lawful under the laws of any state, which, on paying a consideration, offers a prize dependent in whole or in part on lot or chance."We have no authority to grant exemptions to this law, and are specifically mandated by Congress to enforce it.If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please don't hesitate to contact me.Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®."

A bond run by a foreign sovereign in which the person investing can't lose any money is a violation of US gambling laws? Really? And what of free speech?

* UPDATE: A big thumbs up to USPS service, by the way. I'm very surprised they had something cogent to say.

UPDATE 2: The relevant case turns out to be Horner v. United States, 147 U.S. 449 (1893), in which a very similar bond issued by the imperial government of Austria was ruled to be a lottery within the statute's remit. As for what I think is one of the main reasons why a premium bond is not a lottery, the Supreme Court had this to say, citing an earlier case with yet another premium or bonus bond:


The court further remarked that it had been vigorously argued, that because the money ventured must all come back, with interest, so that there could be no final loss,
it could not be a lottery, and added: "At some uncertain period determined by the revolution of a wheel of fortune, the purchaser of a bond does get his money repaid; but we do not think this
deprives the thing of its evil tendency, or robs it of its lottery semblance and features. The inducement for investing in such bonds is offered of getting some `bonus,' large and small,
in the future, soon or late, according to the chances of the wheel's disclosures. The investment may run one year or it may run thirty years, according to the decision of the wheel. It
cannot be said this is not a species of gambling, and that it does not tend in any degree to promote a gambling spirit and a love of making gain through the chance of dice, cards, wheel or
other method of settling a contingency . . .