May 29th, 2008
transcript:
In September of 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed. Poker players strongly opposed it because the law made it illegal for banks, credit card companies, and other payment processing companies to allow transactions to illegal online gambling sites. The law didn’t specify that online poker was illegal, but instead left it as a grey area and backed it up with threats that were sufficiently severe so that these financial institutions have done whatever is necessary to avoid possible violations.
Surprisingly, these threats were caused by actions that had nothing to do with the text of the UIGEA, but instead came from harassment of individuals and actions against companies that allowed transactions for sports betting. The result was that it became very difficult for American poker players to put money into their accounts on online poker sites.
When I first heard that a new law was passed which could have a negative effect on online poker, I didn’t respond in the same way that most poker players did. These players condemned the law simply because it was a step towards restricting the game they enjoy. I took time to think about who would benefit by making it more difficult to play poker online.
Possibly some college students would benefit because it would prevent them from neglecting their studies. I also assumed there would be some people who would be protected from losing too much money playing poker online.
I imagined that politicians had been influenced by campaign contributions from other gambling interests such as the lottery, horse racing, live casinos, and even from the stock market. Playing poker is more fun and more intellectually stimulating that these other forms of gambling and those businesses might worry that online poker would cut into their profits.
Now that we have had this law for almost two years, we see that the diehard poker players still play. Online poker has held pretty steady in numbers, although it surely would have grown in the last two years if the law hadn’t been passed. The banking industry has been inconvenienced and has openly complained about the burden of having to enforce the law. However, the people who have been most inconvenienced are the recreational players who have had trouble putting money onto a poker website.
Proponents for continuing restrictions of online poker often mention that they are concerned about the immorality of gambling and the protection of consumers. I have even heard scare tactics with fabricated accusations linking poker to money laundering and terrorism.
The Internet is a powerful invention. Wherever there is power, there is potential for abuse. Many of us see this in the form of scams sent to us via email. Whenever we go to a website where we provide our identity and credit card information, there’s always a chance that some financial harm will result. On the Internet, thousands of people are defrauded everyday on their shopping purchases, identities are stolen, and other scams are pulled off. When money is involved, someone is going to come up with a dishonest scheme to get some of it. It’s surprising that we don’t have more problems in the unregulated world of online poker than we do in other sectors on the Internet. But there have been scandals in online poker, even some where company insiders have preyed on innocent customers. We need these online poker companies to be accountable to the court systems in the countries where they are based, so obviously most American players would feel safer if the companies had their base in the United States.
For those who believe that gambling at poker is a vice, it may be helpful to make some analogies to the prohibition we once had against alcohol in the 1920’s. If I had been around then, I probably would have initially been in favor of outlawing alcohol sales and consumption.
It wouldn’t have been a hardship for me, since I don’t drink. I had some mixed drinks when I was in college and I went through a stage where my wife and I occasionally had wine with our meals when we went out to dinner. However, I didn’t get into the habit when I was young because I played a lot of sports and poker, and drinking didn’t fit with my lifestyle. Believe it or not, I’ve never even had a can of beer in my life. I only took a sip once when I was a teenager and didn’t like it. I was told that you have to acquire a taste for it, but I never saw why I should.
During prohibition, we found out that people still drank, but organized crime took over as the supplier. We now have a better solution with restrictions against underage drinking and against driving after drinking. Violators are prosecuted, and we also have stringent penalties against establishments that sell alcoholic beverages to underage drinkers or to people who are intoxicated. And, of course, we tax liquor companies and monitor their products to make sure they meet certain guidelines. While I’m certainly unhappy with the effects on the families of problem drinkers and the deaths that occur from drunk driving, I realize that if we pass laws that seek to eliminate common behavior by a large segment of our population, it doesn’t work.
To continue the analogy, the UIGEA has basically punished the typical poker player who is the equivalent of the guy who likes to have a beer with his friends or the couple who likes to have a glass of wine with their dinner. This law should be repealed and replaced with one that proposes tax and regulation on this multi-billion dollar industry.
Just as drinking laws would have no direct affect on me, the proponents of the UIGEA are usually people who have little knowledge about poker. To help them at least know what they’re discussing, they should talk to people around them who like to play poker or watch it on television. As a matter of fact, it might even be helpful for them if they participated in a small-stakes game to get a better understanding of poker. If this crosses your line of morality, then I suggest you go to a church and play some bingo. Then you may see why it wouldn’t be any fun if there were no stakes involved. If you tried to organize a free bingo night with no prizes for winning, no one would show up. And the church would lose out on one of their better fundraising activities also.
With all this discussion about what is right and wrong, it still boils down to politics. When I went to Washington DC with a group of poker players and lobbyists, I only heard one congressperson show resistance to voting in support of online poker. She said she didn’t think gambling was popular with her constituents.
But the others said they would vote for the Frank and Wexler bills that we were pushing, even though some politicians were hesitant because they feared it might not be politically advisable to pass a pro-gambling bill. That is where we as voters have to make a difference. We need to make it painfully clear that it will be politically damaging to be against legalizing and regulating online poker.
To sum things up, I don’t think our representatives in Congress are doing a good job on the Internet poker issue. They should allow us to play poker in the privacy of our own homes by removing the ambiguity regarding online poker in the laws that currently exist. They should be protecting us from potential fraudulent activity and should be taxing Internet poker companies which will lessen the tax burden on the rest of us.
Author Contact Info: Barry Greenstein
