The Commerce Casino in California, the largest poker room in the U.S., and a mecca for west coast poker enthusiasts, recently stated its opposition to H.R. 2267, Rep. Barney Frank’s legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker.  I have two main reactions to this stance.  First, a business has every right to, in fact is designed to, do what is in its best economic interest.  Second, opposing the legislation is short-sighted.

I’m assuming that the Commerce Casino stance is premised on a belief that more people playing online will mean fewer people in its establishment.  Which translates to less rake and concessions.  In other words, less revenue.  If this was true, the Commerce’s position would be correct.  But I do not believe it to be true.  Legalizing online poker will expand the pie.  Its tide will rise all boats.  Or whatever metaphor you prefer.  Legalization likely will result in more people interested in and playing poker than are now.  Initially, most of these new players will be online — that is the intention of the law after all.  But as we all know, even the staunchest of online poker advocates dabble in live poker from time to time.  So, if more people are playing poker online, it stands to reason that eventually (and probably soon) there should be an increase in live players as well.  Being the largest poker room in the country, and in California to boot, the Commerce should receive a significant portion of the increased action.  To vote against legalizing online poker is myopic. 

It is myopic for another reason.  Commerce regulars are revolting against the casino’s stance and threatening to boycott the poker room.  Apparently, live poker players enjoy online poker as well (who knew!).  Or at least commiserate with their online compatriots.  The Commerce’s stance is costing it business even before online poker is legalized.

Poker is one community.  Regardless of whether you prefer online or live.  It’s similar to how Democrats and Republicans are all Americans.  Our similarities are greater than our differences.  Poker has been under attack for some time.  All poker players should stand united.  Doing so will help all.  (I mean, can you just imagine the influx of fresh meat for the Commerce Casino sharks?  It might be like 2003-05 –the Golden Age — all over again.)

**FYI — I will be on vacation next week.  I’ll try to post while away, but do not yet know if I will have internet access.  If I don’t, I will post soon after my return as I know you will be chomping at the bit.  Have a great Labor Day!

Mark down July 21 in your poker calendars.  (How many poker players actually keep calendars?)  That’s the day the House Financial Services Committee will hear testimony on Barney Frank’s (Rep.-MA) bill that would legalize and regulate online poker.  Needless to say, it’s  big day.  So if you’re in DC, stop by Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building at 1 pm.  For more information on the hearing/bill, check this article out.

Full Tilt Poker became the first major U.S. site to officially and publicly push for legaliztion of online poker in the U.S.  Just recently, the site began to encourage its players to petition their Congresspeople to vote for legislation which would legalize online poker.  The site’s effort comes just ahead of what is supposed to be the week in which the House Financial Services Committee hears Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) bill.

The river card is about to be dealt for the enforcement of the UIGEA.  Because December 1st is the deadline for the law’s implementation, a number of congressmen, the Poker Players Alliance, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, and the American Greyhound Track Operators, are making last minute attempts to get the UIGEA delayed. It still remains to be seen whether the river will be lucky for poker players before the deadline.

Congressmen in favor of delaying the law’s enforcement and supportive organizations have been petitioning the government bodies that have say over the UIGEA’s implementation, the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board. This is not your standard letter citing the reasons why Internet gaming should be allowed; the petition focuses on a major flaw in the enforcement of the UIGEA, “overblocking,” which has already occurred despite the law not being fully in effect. It is felt that the burden being placed on financial institutions to police gambling transactions is too great and as a result the banks will just start blanket blocking as the only way they can ensure compliance. A particular incident involving transactions within the horse racing industry being blocked, despite their exception, has brought some heavyweight congressmen from Kentucky into the ring to support the UIGEA delay. This incident is featured in the letter and points out that the law has already been misapplied.

It is hoped that a delay in the UIGEA will open up more doors for discussions about the legalization and regulation of online poker, throwing more attention on Representative Barney Frank’s legislation. The next few days will be crucial. Poker Law Bulletin, online poker players and gambling supporters will be closely watching events unfold as the December 1 deadline looms. The Treasury and Reserve Board is yet to respond to the petition.

Poker players love to disagree. But one topic on which we all agree is that poker, even when the house profits, should be legal. Yet, even in this area of agreement, there appears to be an important difference in how, or more accurately, where, we attempt to accomplish that goal.

Much of the effort to legalize poker is focused at the federal level. This includes the recent legislation introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), and others, and the efforts taken and support given by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). The weight toward a federal-directed approach likely is warranted given the imminent threat of the UIGEA, the broad-reaching effect federal laws have on states, and the volume of money at stake with online poker. But a focus on federal action should not be at the expense of state action. More needs to be done on a state-by-state basis to legalize poker, particularly the live variant. After all, legalizing poker in each state would not only be a boon to the daily lives of poker players but would symbiotically aid the movement to legalize poker federally.

Similar to what is being done at the federal level, lobbies could be established – with or without PPA aid or affiliation – to petition states to amend their laws. Mass letter-writing campaigns could be undertaken to voice support to state representatives. Advertisements depicting the financial benefits of poker revenue (and even perhaps the hypocrisy of differentiating between lotteries and horse racing on the one hand and poker on the other) could be launched. These tactics actually might prove more successful on the state level than they have at the federal level given the acute revenue shortages many states are experiencing and that fewer people (and, at least theoretically, a less diverse group of people) need to be convinced of their merit.

Some states, to varying degrees, permit poker even when the house profits. California, Washington, and Florida are examples. However, little exists akin to the coordinated federal attack launched by the PPA. There is hope that at least certain states may be willing to listen to such a campaign.

A ballot question has been filed in Massachusetts that would legalize Internet poker in that state with winnings being taxed. Its inclusion on the ballot awaits approval by the state Attorney General and then needs 66,000 signatures. Providing hope that it may succeed, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo each support in varying degrees some version of expanded gambling, potentially including poker.

Pennsylvania also may be fertile ground. The Pennsylvania legislature is considering legalizing table games. Governor Ed Rendell already publicly supports legalizing video poker with the revenue being used for college education or other state needs.

Other states considering legalization of table games, including poker, are New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Even Kentucky, despite its unsuccessful attempt to shutter Internet poker sites, is considering expanding electronic gaming at its racetracks. New York also has intimated an interest in permitting electronic table games.

Legalization of state poker may have tangential benefits as well. For example, the federal prosecution of Douglas Rennick by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for money laundering, bank fraud, and illegal gambling offenses is based, in part, on New York penal law. The U.S. Attorney’s case does not even reference the UIGEA. If New York penal law is altered as a result of lobbying efforts, the legal basis on which the Federal Government pursues certain actions could be invalidated, though granted it would not likely affect actions already commenced. And, if multiple states legalize poker, it may have a persuasive affect on the U.S. Congress’ stance on the UIGEA and poker-related laws. It could not hurt.

Resources being used currently to legalize poker on the federal level should not be shifted to a state level use. Rather, the pie of resources needs to be expanded, with those new resources (time, money, expertise, etc…) directed at state governments in a coordinated approach. People should become involved at a grassroots level to organize within their states to provide a coordinated and unified lobby. Perhaps existing lobbies and organizations, or even social networking sites such as Facebook, could be of assistance. It will take time, and may not succeed, but the importance of uniting to legalize the individual game we love is something on which all poker players can agree.