Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is offering legislation would legalize online poker, but allow only certain current brick-and-mortar establishments to host the sites for the first two years.  Regulation would be done by current agencies, such as the Nevada Gaming Commission, and not by the federal government.  Two predictable things have occurred so far:  (1) the legislation is supported by major Nevada casinos (who, ahem, donated significantly to Senator Reid’s hotly contested recent re-election campaign), and (2) Republican legislators, led by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), oppose the bill — they claim that important legislation that affects “the young, the weak, and the vulnerable in the name of new revenues to cover more government spending” should not be passed during the lame duck session of Congress. 

Normally I’m against cramming legislation in to beat a deadline and in a manner that prays on weakness.  But given how the UIGEA was passed, turnabout seems like fair play.  Still, I do have serious concerns that prevent me from automatically supporting the legislation.  They center around who supports this bill.  Internet poker should be legal.  But to do it as a means to expand brick-and-mortar casino profits, and not as part of an overarching national framework, seems short-sighted and ultimately counter-productive to the game’s acceptance.  The UIGEA should be repealed.  But it should not be supplanted by a special interest bill designed for corporate gain.   Two wrongs do not make a right.