The first commenter suggested that the dems were mostly from California and were probably “protecting” the card rooms in their home state. That has zero logic as the new law would allow US based companies to operate in the arena hence giving those rooms the opportunity to INCREASE rev. Probably a much needed increase. Online poker has also been the most influential piece of the industry for bringing new players into the game. It’s not moneymaker, and it’s not ESPN, WPT, or any other TV show. It was (and is) online poker.

The second commenter suggested that Republicans voted for this because of a moral issue with biblical semiotics. The fact is, that when the bill was originally passed it was done so under the Port Security act. I can tell you that the issue wasn’t about online poker. It was about the moving of money via wire that produced several issues. 1) It was an easy way for the unsavory to move money without being identified. Yes, I am talking about terrorists. And no, this wasn’t the only measure passed to protect against that. There were numerous other laws passed along with this bill that made life harder for other industries as well. No one noticed them however because it had nothing to do with poker. 2) Regulation (reads a way to produce a tax revenuefor the US) for the industry. At that point in time the industry had gotten so large in terms of market dollars, the US Government had no foreseeable way of seeing any revenue from it. If you know even the smallest bit about how are government works and it’s laws, making it illegal first, is the surest way of gaining the max out its revenue base. You just can’t pass legislation on revenue without first regulating it and then taxing it. By doing so without banning it first, you risk law suits that could last for decades by those in the industry. I am being very broad here for sake of length, but I think you see my point. I can (and probably should) find examples of this but am short on time. I will (and have) written about this on my own blog several times.

The moral issue and sound bytes by some in office are nothing more than political savvy, pandering (yes, pandering) to whom they think their constituents are. As you said (Nolla stated) Bill, it’s all about the votes.

I mean, in theory, the Republicans should love online gambling. That’s the party of big business, right? Aren’t they always talking about getting the government out of your life? But they also have their Bible thumpers who come in handy at the polls so . . . no online gambling.

There’s certainly nothing in progressive or liberal ideology that is inherently opposed to online gambling. We’re pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, remember? Those positions are based on the argument that government has no business intruding on those kinds of decisions. Logically, that extends to what you do with your money.

I’m sorry, I just don’t know a whole lot of rank-and-file Democrats who think online gambling should be illegal because it’s sinful or against the Bible or whatever. In fact, I don’t know any. There is simply no “powerful force” on the left that is opposed to online gambling. There is certainly nothing on the left that corresponds to the pantysniffing Bible-thumpers on the right.

Alas, Democratic politicians don’t always represent the rank-and-file (see also Health Care Reform). A lot of them think it’s still 1992 and that they have to run to the right to get elected. Others are corrupt and/or stupid. When Dem politicians voice opposition to online gambling, they’re either pandering to the right or repeating talking points handed to them by on-land gaming lobbyists. They are not speaking to or for the Democratic base. It’s infuriating, but there’s been a lot of progress in recent years in cleaning up the Democratic Party establishment, and I expect things to get better.

As for the PPA, don’t get me started. We’d probably be better off without them.

I don’t even hold it against legislators from those states trying to protect their state’s revenue interests, but its unfortunate, as you say, that these legislators have particularly strong voices nationally.