joetheinformed   September 15th, 2009 at 1:24 am

Believe me, I know about Washington State. But the only reason she passed the law was to cater to her indian buddies. I find it completely offensive and have spoken my mind about it but it all falls upon deaf(and dumb) ears. What a country we live in where playing poker for a few dollars online is akin to child molestation. And nobody will challenge the law. How it even passed is a mystery to me.

Russ Scott   September 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Well said, Nolan! As you know, some recent court decisions have been encouraging, but it seems like just as many have gone the other way. Our battle appears to be spinning its wheels in the ensuing turmoil. That’s largely because misguided/self-centered politicians — including all of those you mention — think they know what’s best for the rest of us and are unwilling to do the right thing because of potential political fallout. Hopefully the PPA and other organizations will prevail. Meanwhile, keep up the fight, partner!

Poker Shrink   September 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

I carried on a three year written conversation with Senator Feinstein (or at least her staffers). Their final decision was to stop responding because their logic did not fit the realities of the legislation.

History Major   September 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Women waved the flag for prohibition as well, and it was because they were mostly barred from drinking. When they were finally invited into the bars and clubs, the Amendment was soon overturned. Poker advertising (with some execptions) continues to portray players as dumb, sexist males. Sites are always showing buxom blondes carrying chips suggestively to young male players – not exactly the image a respectable female member of Congress is clamoring to associate herself with. If they would grow up and cater to women, they’d gain instant credibility. A lot of respectable people, men and women, play at these sites, but you’d never know it by the advertising. If we want support, we need to give them something that looks politically worthy of support.

Fifth Street Journal   September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 am

You talk about a flawed popular perception in this article. I believe “online poker is not going to be legalized and regulated in the United States until…” reflects another flawed popular perception: that regulation is the solution. Regulation would almost certainly result in a protectionist system with just one or a few competitors; perhaps a market divided by state where there would be inadequate volume; and reduced or eliminated access to the current US-friendly sites like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Regulation could very easily be worse than the current situation. Certainly that’s the case under regulation in in Italy. Government is the problem, not the solution.

TheEngineer   September 18th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Fifth Street Journal,

The bills in Congress now would absolutely not take Full Tilt Poker or PokerStars out of the market. Also, the federal government is after us. This idea that we can maintain what we have now is false, so comparing a licensed and regulated market to that is a fallacy.

TheEngineer   September 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

The article is good on listing nanny-state Democrats who oppose us, but it’s not new news.

PPA has a guide at http://www.congressionalpoker.com. I did the ratings, and I rated both Sen. Feinstein and Gov. Gregoire F- (and have been since long before that article). Gov. Beshear (D-KY) is F- as well. Sen. Boxer is rated F and Rep. Pelosi is rated D.

Rep. Maxine Waters was upgraded to B some time ago for siding with us on some issues.

The article misses here:

“For far too long, groups like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) believe they can win the political debate with simple logic. Sure, our argument is better than their argument and most rational people would agree after listing to a five-minute exchange, but this isn’t a high school debate class.”

Huh???

No one at PPA thinks this is a debate. We are good at presenting solid talking points, but no one thinks Kyl will switch his vote if we beat him in an argument. We’re fighting this politically.

Mike   September 19th, 2009 at 4:43 am

Geeze, Individual freedoms that don’t include getting shot are generally trampled on by the right??? What gives??

Lottery Larry   September 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am

“Regulation could very easily be worse than the current situation.”

Fifth Street Journal, I’m looking forward to your feelings on this in Dec 09 or Jan ’10. Then we’ll know for sure…