In two days, I've read through a Republican Governor's request for Congress to ban online gaming and a Democratic Governors Association letter asking for Congress to not ban online gaming. Their reasoning behind both are a rhetorical abomination.
The Republican Letter from Rick Perry
The 10th amendment crusader Rick Perry....oh wait. If it involves technology that can easily cross borders, the federal government needs to be in charge. So in 2014, basically all e-commerce and pretty much everything else should cede power to our omnipotent Federal government. Burn the 10th straight from the bill of rights at this point. What's more offensive? We are still throwing terrorism in there as an excuse and the government protecting us from ourselves. Oh yeah, kids aren't in dorm rooms. When you are 18 years old, you are an adult who can still find a myriad of other ways to blow your money. Trust me, if you can sign up for a brokerage account and get options approval, you are having the most dangerous casino piped into your computer 5 days a week.
Just for the record, the Wire Act was made to combat mafia activity in sports betting. Don't mess up the intention of a law to how liberal judges and others with agendas have applied it. It was a large basis for the shutdown of online poker rooms operating offshore serving US customers. The DOJ has since said it doesn't apply to online poker.
Democratic Governors Association Letter
Yay! Finally, an entire party standing up for poker players!! Wrong. While I respect someone finally standing up for the 10th amendment, this letter is about protecting the revenues from online state lotteries. Since our governments are bad at budgeting and funding very mediocre education plans, they need to tax the mathematically challenged by letting them bet on 3 numbers in a row or scratch off tickets. I'm all about anyone being able to do whatever they want with their money, but the Democratic Governors appear to only want you to bet your money when it benefits their ability to fund their programs.
If you want to think about online gambling, you have to divide it into two categories. Player vs House and Player vs Player or Peer to Peer
My proposal:
Regarding all online gambling where it is player vs the house (corporate entity):
Let states decide how to regulate. This includes all games like roulette, craps, blackjack, slots, sports betting where the house is the book, etc. New Jersey has already decide they will let you pretty much bet on anything you want from the comfort of your own home. Allow states to tax revenues. There is no benefit to a network of people. This is like any casino. They make money when you lose money. They should be taxed at a higher rate if policy dictates you want to decrease gambling or use funds to treat gambling addicts.
Regarding Player vs Player games where money is bet and the corporate entity takes fees to host (these include fantasy sports, poker games and tournament, player vs player blackjack elimination tournaments, etc.) We need federal regulation that creates a framework of laws to punish cheaters, track money trails to prevent money laundering, hold corporations accountable, and prevent & treat underage and problem gambling. Poker is a large industry in the world and peer to peer games will only continue to grow in the future. Peer to peer games benefit from the network effect. The more states and countries involved in the networks, the better the prize pools, variety, and liquidity.
Unfortunately, the entire poker world is being lumped into the "online gambling" category because politicians on both sides are either promoting their "new" Presidential agenda (Perry) or trying to protect their economically unviable government programs.
