Poker
players fight online gambling ban
As Reported by San Francisco Chronicle
WASHINGTON
DC - America's 70 million poker players say they aren't bluffing
in their resistance to the latest congressional efforts to ban online
casino gambling.
To dramatize
that determination, their leader, San Franciscan Michael Bolcerek
-- president of the national Poker Players Alliance -- staged some
of the most unusual events on Capitol Hill. He brought three big-name
professional poker stars to court the press, lobby with members
of Congress and attend an evening reception for members and their
staffs at which a few hands of Texas Hold 'Em were probably played.
Not for money, of course.
Congress is
considering legislation that seeks either to get banks to block
customers' transactions with overseas Internet gambling sites or
force Internet service providers to block access to poker Web sites.
Poker players say the proposed bans attack nothing less than the
American way of life.
"I'd hate
for 70 million poker players to wake up one day and learn that their
game has been made illegal," said pro Howard Lederer, who with
his sister Annie Duke forms a sister-brother pro duo in a sport
that has become a TV staple the last few years.
Bolcerek, a
Cow Hollow resident who says he plays in a weekly game with friends,
portrayed poker as a game of skill that's as American as apple pie
and motherhood.
"Poker
is an American tradition. It has its roots in New Orleans, just
like jazz. Many presidents played, including Gen. Grant, Harry Truman
and Richard Nixon. So did Chief Justice William Rehnquist,"
said Bolcerek, a longtime high-tech executive who took up his post
as paid president of the 20,000-member alliance just a few months
ago.
His group estimates
that of the 70 million Americans who play various forms of poker,
23 million do so online. Of that figure, 3 million actually play
for money via the Internet, said Bolcerek, whose group has opened
an office in Washington, and plans a presence in Las Vegas and San
Francisco.
While Bolcerek
said the alliance doesn't have direct financial ties to any of the
online casinos, he won't disclose the names of the few wealthy individuals
he said provided the organization's seed money.
Instead of banning
online gaming, the alliance says Congress should regulate and tax
it, turning it into a profitable domestic business that can create
jobs.
There are at
least three bills pending in Congress that seek to ban Americans'
from playing poker or other casino games online for money. It is
already illegal for online casinos to operate domestically, so the
multi-billion-dollar business has moved overseas. Credit card companies
have also been ordered not to allow customers to use their accounts
for the offshore gambling, so players have switched to online payment
services that are also based overseas and pay with checks, debit
cards and electronic funds transfers.
Sponsors of
the legislation cite several reasons for their proposed crackdown,
an idea that has been approved by both houses in Congress in the
past, but not in the identical form required for sending legislation
to the president. They say the lure of games that people can play
at home on their computers is addictive and could be financially
ruinous.
The bills' supporters
also say the games present unfair competition for the regulated,
taxed and legal bricks-and-mortar casinos and card clubs. And they
say prosecutors have tied online gambling to money laundering and
even potentially to terrorist financing. They also say the ease
of online betting makes it all too easy for underage players to
get deep into debt.
"This is
the most addictive form of gambling that's even been invented,"
said David Robertson, former chairman of the National Coalition
Against Legalized Gambling.
"You've
got a casino in your home now," added Robertson, of Cody, Wyo.
"You don't have to get in your car or go somewhere."
Nothing in Congress
is ever straightforward, and the poker proposals are no exception.
The bills, while
trying to ban games like poker and blackjack, carve out exemptions
for some online betting on horse races and state-run lotteries.
The poker backers call those exemptions hypocritical and say they
show that powerful lobbies have managed to protect some forms of
gambling at their expense.
That brings
in Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist whose influence-peddling
schemes are at the heart of scandals that have already nabbed several
congressional aides and threaten several lawmakers.
Among Abramoff's
clients was eLottery, a company that opposed earlier versions of
the bills that made online lotteries illegal. Abramoff helped block
those bills. Although Abramoff is gone, the bills moving forward
allow some use of the Internet by state lotteries.
The advocates
of the bills now paint their bills as part of lobbying reform efforts,
and say the Abramoff affair has boosted prospects for their legislation
to finally become law in 2006.
"Chances
are very good this year,'' said Robertson, of the bills moving through
committees now.
"The Abramoff
scandal proves that gambling corrupts. It wasn't anything other
than gambling money that funded Abramoff," Robertson said.
But the poker
fans say Abramoff is a smokescreen for proposals that would lead
to new government intrusions into Americans' private lives.
"Monitoring
what American citizens do in their own homes on their own time with
their own money is not the federal government's business,"
said Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Balko said Congress
was putting itself in the position of reacting to the Abramoff scandal
"by limiting the civil liberties of Americans. ... This is
insane."
|