HR 2046 and Poker

I heard recently that there was a new bill up in the House to try and save or protect online poker. So I went to the Poker Players Allliance website to get some info, and at this page they provide the following info about HR-2046 "The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007":

HR 2046 protects poker players. Applicants for a gaming license would be required to provide comprehensive financial statements and corporate structure documents, and to agree to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and all applicable laws related to Internet gambling. No license would be granted to any applicant convicted of a criminal violation of any law relating to gambling, money laundering, fraud or other financial laws.

HR 2046 protects consumers. The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes. Regulation combined with proven technology would establish a system of effective controls to block children and compulsive gamblers from gambling.

If HR 2046 becomes law, online poker will be safe, secure and regulated. The bill would create stringent licensing to ensure that poker operators are legitimate. HR 2046 protects poker players, and it protects consumers.

This might not be exactly what I'd like to see happen, and I'm against government regulating the economy and the actions of consenting adults. But passing this into law would be better than the current situation, because last year's legislation -- slipped into other legislation and passed under the cover darkness -- has made it far more difficult for Americans to play the great game of poker online. So given the choices of only regulation or prohibition, I'll of course go with regulation.

The PPA continues to provide great info on the issue of poker and the law, and I really wish them success in the fight with congress. Their homepage provides the following "Important Facts Congress Should Hear", with links to supporting info and argumentation:

• Poker is one of the great American pastimes. The game has been enjoyed by presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, Members of Congress and average Americans for more than 150 years.
• Poker is a game with a predominance of skill. Like chess, poker is a "thinking man's" game which relies on mathematics, psychology and money management.
• Poker is a source of charity. In 2006, millions of dollars were raised for local and national charities through poker tournaments. One event in D.C. featuring 15 Members of Congress raised more than $288,000 to fight cancer.
• Billions of tax revenue is being lost. According to an economic analysis, 3.3 billion in federal tax revenue and addition 1 billion in state tax revenue could be raised if the federal government were to regulate Internet poker.
• 75 percent of Americans oppose banning online poker. According to national polling, a vast majority of Americans oppose federal efforts to ban online poker.
• Supporting an online poker ban can cost you an election. Exit polling has shown and the national media has noted that a leading advocate to ban Internet poker in the 109th Congress was negatively impacted by his leadership on the issue.

Those are all fine points to make for the purposes of trying to win votes in Congress. Different legislators might be swayed by some or all of the above. I think the second point is particularly important, because it is relevant to the total hypocrisy in last year's legislation, and in the politician's attitudes towards gambling in general: they allow horse-racing and state-run lotteries, but not games like poker. And yet, the lottery is completely a game of chance, while poker is a game where skill plays a major role. So how is the lottery OK -- not just OK, but state-run! -- but poker is banned? That is just ridiculous, pure and simple.

But as valuable as the above bullet points might be to convincing this or that legislator, the real reason that online gambling -- indeed gambling as such -- should be legal is a matter of individual rights. It simply isn't the proper role of government to keep two or more free adult people from doing something that isn't violating the rights of anyone else. The arguments in favor of gambling prohibition have always been and will always be invalid. It is the role of government to protect people from mistakes they might voluntarily make. Nor is it acceptable for a particular morality to be imposed upon individuals by law -- and that quite clearly from the history of gambling prohibitions is a large part of the issue here: conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, imposing by force their view that gambling is somehow immoral.

We often talk about separation of church and state, because that is how it was worded in founding American documents. But what really matters, philosophically, is the underlying separation, the necessary separation between religion and law.