Who's In Charge Here?
2008-03-20 12:29:32
By:
Gene Bromberg
One of the most frustrating aspects of the push to ban online gaming is the rank hypocrisy of those leading the movement. Federal lawmakers tried in vain to get anti-online-gaming legislation passed for nearly a decade before Bill Frist tacked the UIGEA onto the 2006 Port Security Bill at (almost literally) the last minute. Frist didn't want any open debate on the issue and so he attached it to an anti-terrorism bill that was guaranteed to pass. Not really the way a democracy is supposed to make laws.
But politicians showing a lack of interest in debating this subject is not merely a Republican sin. In Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) introduced a bill to allow casinos to be built in that state. Fine...except that Patrick's bill includes a section that makes it illegal to play online poker. With penalties that include large fines and potential jail terms up to two years.
This last part bears repeating:
two years in prison for playing online poker. To say that this is absurd or draconian does not seem adequate. The United States already incarcerates a higher percentage of it's population than any other developed country thanks to our ludicrous drug laws--do we really want our fastest-growing economic sector to be prisons?
This provision has drawn considerable criticism, including a scathing Op-Ed in the Boston
Herald written by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson. Prof. Nesson is the founder of the
Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, which describes itself thusly:
The Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society views poker as an exceptional game of skill that can be used as a powerful teaching tool at all levels of academia and in secondary education. We use poker to teach strategic thinking, geopolitical analysis, risk assessment and money management. We see poker as a metaphor for skills of life, business, politics and international relations.
Prof. Nesson tried to find out who, exactly, wrote the Massachusetts casino bill and included that disgraceful section that would make criminals out of honest poker players. At first Nesson suspected that casino executives were behind it, wanting to force poker players away from their computers and into their casinos. But no--he spoke to the chairman of the Sands corporation who not only denied any involvement but promised to work to remove this section from the bill.
Nesson then went to the source--he asked the Governor's office directly. The governor's spokesperson said he was "completely unaware" that this bill criminalized online poker. Odd that the governor's spokerperson would have no knowledge of a bill that would turn tens of thousands of his constituants into criminals worthy of long prison terms. Shouldn't the governor be on top of something like that?
A bit later on the governor's press secretary, Kyle Sullivan, accused Prof. Nesson of being "ill-informed" about the bill. Here's how Nesson described his response.
So I wrote (Sullivan) and said, "As one who is well informed, would you please clarify who wrote the bill and how the criminalization provision got in there?"
There has been no reply as yet.
I keep sending letters to Daniel O'Connell in the Office of Economic Development, to John Hall the president of Suffolk Downs, the state's largest race track, to George Carney, who owns the dog track in Raynham. I will keep writing letters and pressing the issue until I get an answer.
Who wrote the bill's strange provision to criminalize online games? The governor's people say it wasn't him (even though it's nominally his bill). The Las Vegas casino interests say it's not them. So who put it in there? Who stands behind it now? Perhaps both questions will be put to the governor today, at the Legislature's public hearing. Inquiring minds want to know.
It seems like there are powerful forces that want to ban online gaming. But they want to make sure there's no open debate of the issue. No one wants to take responsibilty for legislating against an activity enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. These people want to stay in the shadows and certainly don't feel the need to answer to those they allegedly represent. Unless people keep asking questions, and using the ballot box to make sure their voices are heard.
UPDATE: The Patrick bill
received the thumbs down from the Massachusetts House Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies (whew). Prof. Neeson was there at the standing-room-only hearing and had this to say:
"I don't think filling our expensive jail cells with poker players is what Massachusetts voters had in mind when they elected Deval Patrick," Harvard Professor and GPSTS founder Charles Nesson said.
Well, one hopes not, anyway. The bill still goes to the full House but the committee's vote of non-support is a good sign, and good news.
Permalink:
http://www.ultimatebet.com/poker-blog-post/Whos-In-Charge-Here/2522
