For those of you who enjoy playing poker online, or who just think it is outrageous for the government to tell you that you may not and attempt to enlist the entire financial community to act as the poker police, my colleague, Professor Bainbridge, describes a way you can take action today:
The Poker Players Association has an urgent action item:Tuesday, the House Financial Services Committee will review a bill, H.R. 5767, that would block the implementation of UIGEA regulations. In order to get this bill out of Committee on onto the House Floor, we need your help. We need you to contact the committee and express your support for H.R. 5767, as well as the King amendment which will refine the bill language. PPA strongly supports H.R. 5767 and the King amendment, but this important bill and amendment won’t pass without your help!
Call or Fax the House Financial Services Committee* Democrats’ Committee Office:* Ph: (202) 225-4247 - FAX: (202) 225-6952 Republicans’ Committee Office:* Ph: (202) 225-7502 - FAX: (202) 226-4301
Click Here To Contact Via E-mail
The UIGEA regulations will demand that banks block “unlawful internet gambling” but there is no definition of this vague term. Banks will be forced to block millions of transactions that are not in fact illegal. As a result, you may not be able to play poker or any other game of skill online. HR 5767 will prevent this regulatory nightmare. The King amendment will force the regulatory agencies to define “unlawful internet gambling” through a formal rulemaking, with due process and opportunity for input from affected parties.
Groups that oppose your right to play poker are working to defeat this important bill. Don’t count on someone else to take action for you – call today, there’s no time to waste!
HR 5767 is sponsored by Barney Frank and Ron Paul:
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and senior Financial Services Committee member Ron Paul (R-TX) have introduced legislation to prohibit the federal government from issuing regulations called for in the called for in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The legislation, H.R. 5767, will forbid the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.
“These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” said Rep. Frank.
“The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet. The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own,” said Rep. Paul.
Attempts to weaken or encumber them are counterproductive.
Attempts to weaken or encumber them are counterproductive.
And here I was thinking Ron Paul epitomized "the perfect as the enemy of the good"!
Start with banning Scrabulous, I say.
LOL @ "addictions people can't get out of." So many fallacies bundled up into one redundant cliche. Heart.
I spend way too much time at work reading volokh.com, and it's costing my company serious money. I can't help it though, it's simply an addiction.
Ban Volokh (for the children) !
I wonder what the basis for the second sentence is. Given that the regulations are limited to "unlawful" gambling, you would think that by definition they do not involve gambling that is not illegal. (In any event, my understanding is that the ban is comprehensive and includes all internet gambling by U.S. citizens in the U.S.
My suggested law? A federal statute making internet gambling credit card debt uncollectable. That would solve internet gambling hysteria pretty quickly.
I'll call this the "reverse slippery slope" argument -- half-measures are to be opposed because they will remove the incentive to actually fix the problem.
Preventing enforcement of a foolish law = the good.
IMO.
The government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, doesn't it? Seems regulating internet gambling is well within its powers.
Well, at least he didn't call them rights.
If it was a letter then we were required to enter that into the system so we could mail a form letter in response.
This is why I have become cynical and this is why I'm leaving DC very soon.
the state of WA makes internet gambl1ng a C felony. seriously.
play a $2 game - you're a felon.
unless you play in a state sanctioned place
Ditto. Come to think of it, maybe I'll just put the whole $600 from my "stimulus" check onto one of the sites I play on. In terms of mocking recent ineffectual and stupid federal gov't actions, that's killing two birds with one stone.
i didn't play p0ker for the atmosphere of a casin0 (which i dislike fwiw) for free drinks, or anything but THE MONEY. i was quite profitable.
the WA law is ridiculous in that even the gambl1ng commission ADMITTED that they did not intend to enforce the law against any individuals playing p0ker from their homes. yet, they still supported it being made a C felony, and the legislature still passed it. it's a scare tactic. the state didn't want to lose REVENUE.
p0ker is a zero sum game, with a slight negative bias (the rake). the advantage of playing online was the rake was low enough such that my edge could easily outweigh the drag of rake and one could be very profitable.
i also enjoyed keeping statistics on the players i competed with, using various programs to keep very detailed data on their betting patterns, etc.
to my knowledge, nobody has been prosecuted for playing p0ker online, and i am certain nobody will UNTIL AND UNLESS somebody makes a big public stink about how they are ignoring the law. then they will make an example of him.
this isn't an idiosyncratic prohibition. the passage was quite public and this isn't some esoteric law held over from the "bad old days". it was passed specifically AFTER online playing was seen to be a problem by the leftists in our legislature.
i am not aware of any other state that makes it a serious crime (like WA).
I take your word for what happened in Washington, but you can't believe that the moving force behind most gambling prohibitions comes from the left.
i don't believe that. i believe that in general the moving force behind most liberty-encroaching prohibitions comes from the left. in the case of WA state and gambling (which is certainly liberty encroaching) it comes from the left, though.
again, i am not aware that any other legislature (right or left) actually makes online gambling a serious felony. that kind of colossal idiocy/hypocrisy/nannystatism is singular!
i should also note that as sucky as kelo is, WA has an even worse (imo) property-rights encroaching piece of legislation called the critical areas ordinance (king county iirc).
and it takes liberal mayor's like seattle's, to attempt to violate by executive order, the constitutional rights to carry firearms guaranteed by our state constitution.
but on the subject of gambling, i;m not aware of any state legislature that has trumped (no pun intended) WA state. i do not think it's a coincidence that an overwhelmingly democratic legislature passed this legislation
i am also aware there are many on the right who are against gambling. that's entirely different. *if* gambling was otherwise illegal in WA then this law would not be as odious. it's the fact that the legislature is pretending this is about 'protecting people' (from themselves ) vs. the real reason - protecting their power and revenue base. i can respect a state legislature that outlaws gambling. i don't agree with it, but it's not the same as one that allows it when the state is getting its tax cut (and i'm sure all the lobbyist money from tribes helps too), but needs to "protect us" from those evil online sites.
Congress has a perfect right to prohibit gambling if it wishes.
They have the ability to do so. But on what grounds are they basing the decision to make it illegal? Why do they get to determine whether or not I can decide how to spend my own money? It's not the government's job to be a nanny and interfere with an activity that does not harm anyone - unless you believe the government knows better than mere citizens, and should be able to protect us from ourselves. I do not believe that. Is there anything more nuanced in their position than, "Gambling is BAD, mmmmmkay?"
P0ker is available to be played legally in brick and mortar casinos in my state and several states around me. Why is it only "evil" when played online, where it is much, MUCH less expensive than in brick and mortar casinos (both in terms of buy-in and in terms of rake)?