Poker News

Online Gaming and Poker Politics Part 3

Part 3 in the politics of online poker continuing series from Gene Bromberg. Online US poker players are 30 million plus strong and over 21. Politicians can hear large voting blocks very clearly. Gene Bromberg is writing for everyone that wants online poker legalized, so read it, talk about it, pass it around…let them hear you!

The push to legalize online gaming took center stage in Washington back on November 14th as the House Judiciary Committee convened a hearing entitled “Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers.” Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) invited both proponents and opponents of online gambling to give testimony, and among the panelists was Tom McClusky, who is the Vice-President of Government Affairs for the Family Research Council. The FRC is a Christian, right-wing lobbying organization that, according to its website, “champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society”.

Annie Duke

So the FRC likes marriage and family. What the FRC doesn’t like is rather a longer list. The FRC anathematizes homosexuality, saying that “FRC does not consider homosexuality an alternative lifestyle or sexual ‘preference’; it is unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society”. The FRC claims that pornography is “closely linked to an increase in prostitution, child prostitution, and human trafficking” and urged the Department of Justice to prosecute people who view adult movies in hotel rooms, believing that this violates U.S. laws governing distribution of obscene materials. The FRC believes that the only manner of sex education that shouldbe taught is abstinence, and it also supports the teaching of intelligent design in schools and believes the Theory of Evolution is mere “dogma”.

And, of course, the FRC is staunchly opposed to gambling, In a statement sent out this week by one of their “prayer teams” the FRC, in addition to calling for it’s members to pray for “the Peace of Jerusalem” and to pray that a no-spanking law in Massachusetts is defeated, also asked members to pray that “sufficient numbers of Americans from every state will oppose these efforts to legalize internet gambling. May they be defeated with sufficient strength that this will not become an annual fight!”

So this is what we’re up against–an organization that supports families, marriage and parent-on-child spanking, but is vehemently opposed to single people, gay people, sex, gambling, and the scientific method. And a lot of other things that I don’t have the space or time to list at the moment.

Well, how about one more thing the FRC doesn’t like–honesty. I say this because, as I looked over the statement Mr. McClusky delivered to the Judiciary Committee, there are quite a few statements that are blatantly false, ludicrous on the face, or just plain churlish.

Let’s start with the churlishness–in his opening paragraph McClusky says that he was “hoping that former Senator Al D’Amato, the well-paid lobbyist for the Pokers Players Alliance would join us here today.” Isn’t it rather un-Christian of Mr. McClusky to describe Senator D’Amato as a “well-paid lobbyist”, inferring of course that Mr. D’Amato is motivated purely by money, and not because, oh, he thinks poker should be legal? Is not Mr. McClusky himself a lobbyist for a non-profit organization, and therefore a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I don’t happen to know how much the PPA pays D’Amato for his services, and I’d imagine McClusky doesn’t either, so maybe he launched this opening salvo hoping to improve his own bargaining position with the FRC. This is a totally baseless supposition on my part, which I guess makes me no better than McClusky. I resolve to do better.

Alas, McClusky didn’t make any such promise to his audience. In his next paragraph he says that if online poker is legalized through Rep. Barney Frank’s or Rep. Robert Wexler’s bills it would “open up a Pandora’s box of consequences”, leading to “anonymous corruption, the dissolution of families, and the disruption of today’s delicate negotiations between the United States and other countries, notably the United Kingdom and Antigua.”

First of all, millions of people in United States (and around the world) play online poker, and so far as I can tell this insidious card playing hasn’t brought about the end of the nuclear family. Indeed, my own brother and his wife recently had their first child, and at the party following my nephew’s baptism my brother and I chatted briefly about our recent online poker results. I would like to reassure all and sundry that my brother and his wife are still happily married, their son continues to thrive, and I feel no compunction to dissolve theirs or any other families.

I must also take issue with McClusky’s claim that adopting the Frank or Wexler bill would bring about the “disruption of today’s delicate negotiations between the United States and other countries, notably the United Kingdom and Antigua”. I didn’t know that there WERE any such “negotiations”–the WTO found in favor of Antigua in their suit against the United States’ policies toward foreign gambling operations. Antigua and the European Union want compensation, including the right to violate U.S. copyright and patent laws. If the United States is indeed trying to negotiate with Antigua and the EU, it’s doing so from a terrible bargaining position. Would it not make more sense to: legalize onlinegaming; regulate the industry; allow U.S. companies to enter the market; and collect tax revenues? Wouldn’t that be more beneficial for the country instead of paying out billions in damages? Perhaps that’s why McClusky used the word “delicate” to describe the situation–when you’re negotiating from a position where you’re wrong, you know you’re wrong, the other side knows your wrong, and everyone knows that you’re either going to have to pay through the nose or surrender a vast amount of international prestige, “delicate” is a far nicer way to describe those negotiations than “desperate” or “blinkered”.

McClusky is also quite delicate in his choice of words when discussing how the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) came to be passed. After the UIGEA was approved by the House of Representatives, McClusky says that the House “persuaded the Senate to include the bill in the SAFE Port Act”.

It’s a bit silly to state that the entire House of Representatives persuaded the whole of the Senate to do anything. It’s especially idiotic in this particular case because we know that’s not what happened. On the last day of the legislative session Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist managed, at 9:29pm, to attach the UIGEA onto a bill safeguarding U.S. ports from potential terrorist attacks. The original SAFE Port Act carried no anti-gambling provisions–indeed, Senator Frank Laufenberg called Frist’s actions a “sham” because no one even knew that Frist had attached a wholly-unrelated law to an important piece of legislation. If the FRC and it’s legislative allies were so confident of victory, why the need for such parliamentary three-card monte? Indeed, the reason Frist picked this particular bill to attach the UIGEA to was because it was GUARANTEED to pass. No one is going to vote AGAINST a bill designed to improve U.S. port security.

And if you think that Frist’s late addition was the height of hypocrisy, oh, you na?ve fool. See, other representatives were trying to add last-second amendments to the SAFE Port Act as well, but they weren’t as successful. From the Associated Press article:

“Democrats favored the (SAFE Port) bill, but said it failed to address rail and mass transit, other areas considered highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. “The terrorist attacks on rail and transit systems in Spain, London and Mumbai (Bombay) should be enough evidence to convince the Republican-led Congress that U.S. rails are dangerously vulnerable,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

The bill was slow in reaching the House and Senate floors because lawmakers from both sides sought to attach their own favorite pieces of legislation to the ports measure because of the certainty it would reach the president’s desk.

In the end, the only major add-on was legislation to restrict Internet gambling. Also attached was a measure, pushed by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to help communities lacking telecommunications infrastructure install sirens and other emergency alert systems…

Democrats, in a letter to House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., who headed House-Senate negotiations on the bill, complained they were denied the right to offer amendments to restore rail security language contained in the original Senate bill.”

In other words, Bill Frist considered a bill banning online gaming important enough to sneak in under the wire, but so far as even considering amendments that would help protect U.S. railroad lines from terrorist attack…no. Can’t be bothered. Just not enough time.

Oddly, one of the reasons why Republicans may have been so receptive to passing anti-gambling legislation was to distance themselves from the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In March of 2006 Abramoff was sentenced to nearly six years in prison for defrauding various American Indian tribes and SunCruz Casinos, who hired him to lobby on their behalf on Capitol Hill. As stories kept appearing about Abramoff’s ties to top Republican lawmakers (including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay) and as more and more Republicans were indicted and sentenced for various misdeeds, including bribary, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, voting against an issue that Abramoff was tied to (even if he defrauded his clients) must have seemed politically expedient–especially in an election year.

Phil Ivey

Stay tuned for the next installment in the Online Gaming and Politics Series from Gene Bromberg. The following articles will help you better understand the opposition to online poker.Its no different than playing poker…for success you must know you’re opponents and exploit their weaknesses.

? Family Research Council president Tony Perkins

? Can 1.1 Billion Catholics be wrong?

? Was Jesus tolerant?

? Church and State - Degrees of Separation…How many are enough?

See Also:

Opponents of Legal Online Poker - Part 2
By: Gene Bromberg (2007-11-09)

Opponents of Legal Online Poker Part 1
By: Gene Bromberg (2007-10-25)

More Lies About Poker
By: Gene Bromberg (2007-09-18)

photos by flipchip ? lasvegasvegas.com

Jesus

Article republished under the creative commons:

Source Article: Online Poker Legal and Political Opponents

Author’s Home Page: Gene Bromberg

Photos by flipchip / lasvegasvegas.com

Filed under: Poker News