Congressional Impasse On Internet Poker
Those advocating the legalization of internet poker say that the debate should only be about poker. The debate about internet poker is rapidly turning into a debate about the federal government’s role in commercial regulation. The discussion is also about setting and respecting precedents. Earlier in the month there was a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce committee’s subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade supporters and opponents of online poker invoked the past failure of prohibition. Representative John Campbell, a Republican from California who supports internet poker, stated “You can look at drinking. We tried making that illegal, we tried prohibiting it, it didn’t work. We forced a lot of honest Americans, because they were going to do it anyway, into a dishonest and illegal practice…so Prohibition has ended. [But] we essentially have that kind of prohibition now.”
Campbell and Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank have co sponsored a bill to legalize and regulate internet poker. At the hearing Frank stated “A lot fewer people die from bad booze today than died from bad booze in the ‘20s when we had Prohibition.” Representative frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, said that internet poker should remain illegal. Wolf stated “Has this Congress forgotten the Abramoff scandal? Gambling was involved in the Abramoff scandal. Has the Congress learned anything from it or is it just like the Simon and Garfunkel song: ‘Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.’”
Passions were inflamed on both sites as the subcommittee discussed what legal precedent legalized internet poker could set for the future. Wolf made one of the most ridiculous statements heard at the hearings. Wolf stated “Internet gambling is the crack cocaine of gambling. Pathological gamblers will become easily addicted to online gambling because of the Internet’s easy access and instant result…It will result in an epidemic.” This is the very same argument used by the sponsors of the bill that made internet gambling in 2006. Barney Frank said that internet poker should be a matter of “principle that frankly I think there should be bipartisan support on. I hear people talk about the nanny state.” Frank was referring to Republicans who in recent months have objected to federal rules governing various industries and programs. Frank also said “If we don’t want to tell an 8-year-old what to eat for lunch, why are we telling the 8-year-old’s parents…’no you can’t gamble, that’s inappropriate? I had thought there was a consensus in this Congress, particularly strong among Republican colleagues — hands off the Internet.”
Legislators remain at odds over how much new revenue would be generated by legalized internet gambling. Unfortunately no one seemed interested in discussing the specifics of the proposed bills and instead focused on ideological discussions. Hopefully the impasse will go away and American players can make their own decisions on how to spend their disposable income.
