A chat with a friend yesterday (gambling legislation content)

[johnp158]

So I was on Gmail chat at work yesterday and one of my friend’s busy messages read “JP, your poker might be gone soon.” She’s actually the press secretary for a House Representative. A very conservative Republican (I won’t say who to protect her identity since I’m posting a chat transcript. She’s moderate herself, and definitely not a religious conservative, and I often agree with her political views. Now, obviously I’m aware of Frist and what he’s trying to do, but I wondered if her position might have given her some inside info on something that was about to go down, so I asked her about it, not expecting or wanting to get into any kind of debate.


Keep in mind that I haven’t followed all this nearly as closely as I should have. Also, I was at work, so not really focused on having some big political argument over gmail.

Me: is there senate news on that or something?
3:13 PM Her: no, not yet. but frist has called it a legislative priority
Me: yeah he's a douche
Her: and (her boss) is having an interview about it today
Me: :-)
hmm
i'm sure he's all for it
Her: its illegal jp
3:16 PM Me: well it's not so cut-and-dried, and it's a misguided crusade
especially when they exempt gambling on horse racing
5 minutes
3:21 PM Her: Its not so misguided. these companies are operated offshore
3:22 PM US sees no benefit whatsoever
they circumvent US gambling laws
and dont screen fo runderage kids
3:23 PM Me: the poker interest groups are in favor of every one of those things
with proper regulation this can all be taxed, people can be screened for age, and it can all be legit
3:25 PM Her: but its already illegal in the US
3:26 PM Me: I don't think internet poker is completely harmless, and I'm not sure how I feel about all the moral issues involved...
but I do think that poker is different than other forms of internet gambling
3:29 PM Her: you know that two CEO of sports betting websites have been arrested in the US
Me: yep
11 minutes
3:41 PM Me: And that seems like a logical fallacy to me. Justifying making something more clearly illegal because it's already somewhat illegal doesn't really hold up to me.
Her: why?
3:42 PM if its illegal and still persisting, there must be a flaw in the enforcement of the law
so the laws need to be revisted and revised to address new concerns, like minors using their parents credit cards to gamble
7 minutes
3:50 PM Me: A flaw in the enforcement of the law, sure. But flaws in enforcement of internet banking and gaming laws shouldn’t be justification for strengthening some blanket (but still inconsistent with regard to horse racing) law, when it would be easy to legally enforce. Of course minors shouldn’t be able to use parents’ credit cards to gamble online. Some sites are already requiring measures such as ID verification. They all should, and that’s what poker alliances want to see happening. Poker can be regulated just like any other form of online commerce.
29 minutes

8 minutes
4:27 PM Her:
to respond to your last statement
:
4:28 PM the dept of justice doesn't have jurisdiction in the other countries where the companies operate
so it can't very well go in and shut them down
4:29 PM after that avenue is off limits, you'd have a privacy issue-- the DoJ monitoring what people do online and who does it. there's already enough of that going on that's unwanted. some credit card companies stop payment to gambling sites, but overseas banks have no incentive to do so
8 minutes
4:38 PM Me: I don’t know as much about this stuff as I maybe should, but that seems to be a little convoluted again. Those companies operate overseas because they can’t do it here. If things were legally regulated, my assumption is that most people would be much more likely to put their money with US-based entities with which there is no legal ambiguity. I can’t talk for gambling executives, but if I were Pokerstars or PartyPoker, and the overwhelming majority of my customers were in the United States, I would want to be able to more effectively cater to them from here (Again, not my area of expertise).

That was it for the conversation. So much for having friends in positions close to power…

Comments?

[Kurn]

7 weeks from election day. That may stall anything in the Senate. Then a couple of weeks until the end of the session. I don't think a lame-duck Senate makes this a priority.

Back to square one next year.

[johnp158]

That's my gut feeling too. It's just interesting how hard Frist is pushing the whole thing. Not surprising, just interesting.

[melioris]

I actually wouldn’t be surprised if this comes up for a vote pre-election, as it would be a win win for the neocons. If the bill goes down, Frist and co can use it to drum up supported from the religious right (which is kind of quietly rebelling against the neocons) to ensure they turn out and vote in the midterms. If it passes they can use it to appease the RR with the hope of accomplishing the same. Something similar as the Gay Marriage brew-haha in ’04.

If the House or Senate falls to the dems, there is concern that the neocons might not be able to push through legistation that protects them from prosecution of war crimes. Impeachment is not an option, but future charges by the International Court are legitimate concerns for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al.

Not to get political, but starting a war under false pretenses is clearly defined as a war crime. And there is no question that happened. Granted, it doesn’t matter as a policy issue of what to do from here forward, but it does matter in terms of responsibility.

just my cynical $0.02

[Kurn]

He's stressing it because it plays to a key part of his constituency. It's an election-year feel-good issue.

Even though it has solid bi-partisan support (probably half the Senate Dems would go along) it isn't likely to gain any traction before the election for the simple fact that there's a reasonable potential for this election to shift control away from the GOP and the Dems will likely be very cautious about any legislation before the results of the election are in.

[Quint]

Is the gaming industry organized enough to have a lobbying group, or are they too busy competing with each other to realize what legalized and regulated online gaming could mean to their owners/shareholders?