Nolan Dalla recently wrote an interesting article that I think is worth a look for Americans. In the article Dalla points out that one of the biggest obstacles for legalized gaming in the US is no longer the Republicans but nanny Democrats. Even though we have a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and White House bills like Frank’s anti-UIGEA bill are making no more swift progress than they did with Republicans in charge.
But that was to be expected . . . unless you’re one of those folks who likes to live with their head buried in the sand. Back in Feb of 2007 I addressed various myths about the UIGEA. One of those myths was:
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.
Dalla points out the same saying:
Consider the positions of many powerful Democrats. The fact is that many national Democratic leaders happen to be women from western states. Virtually all of these influential Democratic women are opposed to overturning the UIEGA. In other words, these proud liberals march lock and step with the most repulsive elements of the religious right. These same Democratic women champion countless progressive causes and wouldn’t agree with the likes of Kyl, Goodlatte, or Wolfe on anything except, peculiarly enough, smothering the freedoms of millions of American citizens who want to play online poker. These Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
He then goes on to name the following Democrat senators as some of the biggest opponents to online gambling.
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Governor Christine Gregoire (D-WA)
Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer are Democratic party heavyweights. Those gals have a lot of power and they are all staunchly opposed to online gambling.
Dalla then goes on to suggest that the PPA stop trying to win this battle on logical arguments.
For far too long, groups like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) believe they can win the political debate with simple logic. Sure, our argument is better than their argument and most rational people would agree after listing to a five-minute exchange, but this isn’t a high school debate class. It’s a political street fight versus powerful forces camped out on both the right and the left. Until the PPA rolls up its sleeves and dives into the trenches with an all-out media bombardment aimed directly at the oblivious mainstream voter, nothing is going to change.
And Dalla is 100% correct. These are people who for whatever reason are opposed to online gambling. They might have their re-election campaigns partially financed by opponents of online gambling or they might just have dogmatic viewpoint that can’t be changed. But the one thing every politician responds to is votes.
The current hot item, health care reform, is a perfect example of how logic gets thrown out the window in a political debate. Trying to put some academic out there proving that poker is a game of skill is pointless if your opponents are showing pictures of babies being slaughtered and telling people that that is a result of online gambling.
I’m not picking political sides here but I just happened to run across this video today and it demonstrates perfectly how you can remove all logic and reason from an argument for political gain.
My favorite part is when the interviewer is talking to one guy who says that fascism, socialism, and communism are all the same (starts right around 5:59). As the reporter walks away he comments “Fascism, socialism, communism. These things are apparently interchangeable. If you don’t know what they mean.”
Or the people out there protesting the appointment of czars (starts around 6:22). Of course, upon further questioning they reveal they have no idea that Reagan was the first president to appoint a “czar” and Bush expanded the calling of certain position “czars.” It also seems to show that they actually believe that these czars are given great plots of land and untold amounts of money and nobody knows what they do. They seem to think:
a) Czars began with the Romans
b) Czars have something to do with Russia and that American czars are like kings
Again, I’m not trying to pick sides in the debate. I could have just as easily searched around and found some anti-Bush or anti-war rallies and posted a good collection of completely batshit crazy people from the other side. The point is, the anti-gambling folks know that the best way to fire up the intellectually challenged is not with logic or reason but with absurdity.
And not that I would suggest the PPA go to that extreme, they do need to recognize that this isn’t going to be a war that is won by having the best argument. This is a fight that will be won using the most heavy-handed political pressuring and whoever is able to frame their argument in the best emotionally charged language.
Whip ’em up on the right and run campaigns with great Americans who were/are fond of the game. Slap slogans about self responsibility and how poker is a game designed for the ballsy, independent American spirit. Whip ’em up on the left by equating this to our personal freedoms being stripped of us. Make outlandish claims about how much revenue has been shipped overseas because of the ban on gambling. Show workers out of jobs when those dirty, stinking Europeans steal work from US workers (apologies in advance to my European friends. . . in America we always have to have a demon).
Dalla says we’ll never win this battle unless we change our tactics and he’s right. Perhaps my above suggestions are a tad over the top but they’re meant to be. They’re meant to illustrate the radical shift the debate needs to take. As Dalla says, “No Congressman or Senator is swayed one way or the other on any legislation without either coercion or compromise.” As a lobbyist, the PPA has one hand on the money lever but they shouldn’t be afraid to flip the switch on coercion either. You can certainly bet that all of these wacky anti-gambling groups aren’t going to be afraid to use both switches.
Go check out Dalla’s comments. Over and over in this debate since the UIGEA was passed he’s been a very pragmatic and intelligent voice . . . unlike myself. Maybe Dalla should have a much more prominent role in the PPA.
photocred to College Humor
It’s hysterical to me the opinions that people have on this about our government, left v right, and why either side oppose or support this bill. And it’s just plain lazyness to spout off what may seem obvious. The main problem with this country as a whole are its citizens not taking an active role to produce change. At least not taking an intellectual role. They’d rather have tea parties, and anti war gatherings. But I digress.
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.
@greylocks: I think one could take what you said and swap Democrat with Republican because neither party actually holds to its ideals. Both parties often take positions on issues that run completely counter to the party’s core principles.
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.
I don’t see how any rational person can conclude that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on this issue.
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.
If you take a look at the Dems opposed, its mostly from California. I think this has more to do with these folks representing the brick and mortar card rooms in their state than any political leanings. I would assume that if there were Dems from Nevada, they would also be staunchly against. As well, GOPs from CA.
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.