Rich Muny
June 4, 2009
It
is odd that Bachus would champion a new, unpopular prohibition, given
that his party is out of power and needs every vote it can get. It's
equally odd that Bachus would champion big government on this issue, as
this undercuts his limited government arguments on other issues
important to his fellow conservatives. Surely conservatives will rise
up and tell him to stop driving voters away, right?
TAKE ACTION
Please call Congressman Bachus at (202) 225-4921 and tell him to support Internet freedom and poker rights.
Ante Up for Your Rights
The Conservative Case for Protecting Poker
Ante Up for…Limited government
- Many
conservatives believe the federal government should not be in the
business of preventing adults from playing a game of poker at a time
and place of their choosing. These include former House Majority Leader
Dick Armey, George Will, Walter Williams, and Grover Norquist, all of
whom have written in opposition to prohibitions on poker.
- Conservatives
believe “the government that governs best governs least.” Poker is a
great American pastime that has been enjoyed by U.S. soldiers,
presidents, world leaders, and everyday Americans. It is simply wrong
that Americans are being told they are criminals for enjoying the great
game of poker.
- The new law unfairly discriminates against poker
giving special protections to activities such as intrastate gaming,
on-line lotteries, betting on horse racing, and fantasy sports for cash.
- The
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) requires banks and
credit card companies to police the Internet and the financial system
to stop Americans from participating in “unlawful Internet gambling” –
a requirement the government could not even define. U.S. licensing and
regulation removes this burden from America’s financial services
industry. It’s time to stop treating banks and credit card companies
like agencies of the federal government.
Ante Up for…Personal Responsibility
- Only
through meaningful regulation, not prohibition, can we ensure fairness
of the game, provide protections for children, and provide services for
problem gamblers. And if taxed, significant revenue could be raised for
federal and state governments without increasing taxes on citizens.
- U.S.
licensing and regulation will mandate verification of the ages of the
participants. Sites comply voluntarily now, but regulation will give
U.S. laws the teeth needed for enforcement. It will also provide
protections for those with excessive gaming habits, including mandated
use of self-exclusion lists.
- Licensing and regulation will
provide for consumer protections while stimulating the American economy
and generating tax revenue and licensing fees.
Ante Up for…Internet Freedom
- Internet
censorship and an unenforceable, unpopular prohibition provide no
benefits to anyone. All censorship and prohibition can do is drive
players underground or overseas while bringing the power of the federal
government into America’s homes, where it doesn’t belong.
- Many
voters – free speech advocates, young voters, and conservatives in
particular – are suspicious of arguments contending that Internet
freedom is dangerous and banning certain online activities or
confiscating virtual property.
- U.S. licensing and regulation of
online poker will allow American companies to participate in the
world’s Internet gaming market, bringing needed business and jobs to
America. All a prohibition can do is send U.S. jobs and money abroad.
- Regulators,
legislators and financial institutions are all warning that UIGEA is
unenforceable. With banks now needing to rebuild themselves, it is
difficult to imagine the banking system being used to police the
Internet to stop a legitimate game of skill like poker.
The Legal Community Agrees:
Poker is a Game of Skill, Not Chance
Poker’s Recent Key Legal Victories
Colorado –
in late January a Colorado jury found an organizer of a poker league,
Kevin P. Raley, not guilty of unlawful gaming. Under Colorado law,
gambling is defined as wagering on a game of chance. With help of
expert testimony from the PPA, the jury found the poker league was
playing a game of skill, not chance, and was not participating in
unlawful gaming.
Pennsylvania – Earlier this year Judge
Thomas James, Jr. ruled that poker is predominantly a game of skill.
The Pennsylvania court took the next step and threw out 20 charges
against the defendants, who held a poker game in their home.
Kentucky –
a judge in Kentucky, with the support of the Commonwealth’s Democratic
Governor, Steve Beshear, ordered the seizure of numerous Internet
domain names related to Internet gaming. Of the over 141 websites
ordered for seizure, not one was located in the state of Kentucky. This
action would result in a precedent allowing any government to capture
and shut down perfectly legal Internet sites that are based outside of
their jurisdiction. The Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned the lower
court’s ruling to seize the domain names. However, the governor has
appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
South Carolina –
A South Carolina judge found that poker is indeed a game of skill, not
chance, during a trial where defendants were charged with playing cards
in a “house used as a place of gaming”. PPA argued that the Court
should adopt the rulings of other courts that gambling refers to a game
in which the outcome is determined predominantly by chance, not by
skill. The judge agreed and kicked it to a higher court.
PPA’s
Litigation Support Network has been involved in each of these cases. We
provided expert witnesses, prepared arguments for trial, and filed
amicus briefs with the courts.
The Problem with “Midnight Rulemaking”
- The
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was included on a port
security bill that was rushed through Congress before the 2006
election. In the waning days of the Bush Administration, the rule
pertaining to this law was implemented in a way that many consider an
unlawful power play.
- The regulation deputizes banks and payment
systems to block “unlawful Internet gambling” but does not define what
that term means. Rather, the general counsel of every bank in the
country must research what “unlawful Internet gambling” means in each
state and on the federal level.
- The Office of Management and
Budget has estimated that the rule will cost more than $100 million for
banks and payment systems to implement, and take more than one million
man-hours.
- The rule is not set to go into effect until December
of this year. Congress is currently looking at whether this rule, and
others like it, should be overturned.
*****
Please visit the full blog at
http://poker.townhall.com