Democrats and Online Gambling

[Kurn]

Well, I actually found something of interest linked to from 2+2. It's from Bill Rini's blog.

Myth: Democrats in office are good for online poker

Fact: Just because Republicans passed the UIGEA doesn’t mean that Democrats love gaming. Some of the biggest opponents to online gaming are powerful Democrats like Sen Dianne Feinstein of California who had this to say:

While the advent of the Internet has clearly been beneficial to American society, the same cannot be said for Internet-based gambling activity. Internet gambling is too easily accessible to minors, too subject to fraud and criminal misuse, and too evasive of state gambling laws. For these reasons, I have supported legislation aimed at curbing Internet gambling during my tenure in the Senate. For example, in the 108th Congress I co-sponsored the “Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act” (S. 627), which was introduced by Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). Unfortunately, this bill was not signed into law, however, I plan to continue to support limits on Internet gambling should any legislation be considered by the Senate in the 109th Congress.

This isn’t going to be a Democrat vs. Republican debate. Each legislator needs to be vetted individually.



Can't trust any of 'em. Vote Libertarian.

[Dodoubled]

First off, I had a nice, semi-coherent, thoughtful reply to this, but the site booted me off and made me log back in, and I lost it all. Anyhow, you'll all have to wait until later (like 20 years) before I unleash my incredible intellect again.

However, ...

Kurn, do you ever wonder why the government doesn't just focus its power on making the Internet safer and more secure as opposed to pigeonholing things like Internet gambling? I mean, if they actually gave a shit, don't you think they'd have done something with porn now, too? Especially if the two biggest bullet points they shoot, at least in terms of poker, are, 1.) it's unregulated, and 2.) because it's unregulated, kids can access it easily.

[Talking Poker]

See, here's the thing about internet gambling vs. internet porn.

Not ALL congressmen gamble online.

Nuff said.

[Dodoubled]

Brilliant. You know, you haven't lost it after all these years.

[Kurn]

The long and short of it is, as long as we the people buy into the argument that the purpose of government is to proactively guide "society" and protect us from all risk, we are going to be faced with this type legislation. It is not limited to gambling.

The solution is NOT "vote in the other guy" for the simple fact that while you and I may like the other guy, a large portion of our fellow citizens may not, and the cycle continues.

The ONLY way to effectively control the action of government is to control the money. The power to tax INCOME is a blank check on anything they want to do. We the People need a double-blind control system to regulate big government: The democratic process, and control over the funding process. Use taxes (like tolls on roads), maybe a national sales tax on non-essential items, tariffs, etc. Step number one to true democratic libertarian reform is to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Won't happen, but I had to get that rant off my chest.

Another point about the whole NETeller issue. Being poker players, we look at this through the lens of poker. Many of the legislators who support this legislation may only be vaguely aware of internet poker. The real thrust of the DOJ is and always has been, internet sports books. In facct, the place where the NETeller founders are in jeopardy relates to those sports books. If any US electronic assets were used to transfer funds to sports books, that may well fall under the umbrella of the Wire Act. I saw a link to an Allyn Jaffrey-Shulman artcle on that point, but I can't locate it now. Searching Carplayer archives will probably find it.