Politics of Poker
August 8, 2008
Newsflash ... A recent independent study has determined that government (i.e. US Congress) funded studies serve no useful purpose other than to create even more confusion and results are generally ignored. Studies are great tools that allow politician to put off any commitment that could affect re-electability - "We'll study this issue until the elections are over." So, what does Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-NV, want to do? A study, of course. We'll do a one year study of Internet Poker, after all, it starts with a "P" and that rhymes with "T" and that stands for trouble!
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-TX, introduced a bill, H.R. 6663, just before the summer recess that would provide an exemption for on-line poker from the poorly defined Internet Gambling Ban (UIEGA) rammed through by former Senator Frist, R-TN. Now all the poker friends and foes are squaring off against this simple Sessions solution. Even the Poker Player Alliance (PPA) has publicly come out against the Session's bill because it would be the same as admitting that on-line poker was illegal. Right, the "same as" but not exactly the same. The basis of this PPA rejection is the bill would not clear up the confusion about the definition of unlawful Internet gambling. Perhaps we need another study to define "definitions."
The American Gaming Association, Nevada casino lobbyist, stated they are neutral on the Session's bill but would oppose any move to add it to their legislation of choice, the Shelley Berkley study. Please note, the Sessions bill would keep on-line sports betting as an illegal activity and Nevada casinos are really big on sports betting. I can open an account at a Las Vegas sports book then pick up my phone and wager on the sporting events of my choice; but, I can't fire up my computer and do the same thing. Which end of the egg is the right end to crack? Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?
You have to look far and wide to find anyone (other than the millions of US poker players that want to play on-line poker and bet on sporting events around the world without fear of arrest) that would support this legislation; but, one such person does exist. Jay Lakin, owner of Poker Source Online, has come out in favor of the bill. He said, since Nevada is the only state that allows sports betting the impact of the ban under the bill would be minimal.
And finally, why do the learned [sic] D.C. powers insist that poker and sports betting on-line be considered an evil entity. Because the Frist bill defined it as such? The truly simple answer here would be the repeal of the Frist bill and the legalization of online poker and sports wagering. Is there a sane person in the house? Paging Barney Frank, (D-MA), your seat is open in the poker room located right next to the sports book.
Wendeen H. Eolis has posted the first installment of "Inside Scoop on Poker Player Activism, Part 1" For those that don't know Wendeen just consider her to be one of the major poker industry powers and a poker player's best friend. Click on over to Poker Player Newspaper Online and read the real story.
Comments
Got something to say?