Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Reader poll
Beyond the Sun
Slipped into the 92-page Republican Party platform are two sentences that drive poker players nuts.
In those slim lines, approved in 2004, the party spells out its opposition to Internet gambling — that $15 billion industry that in just a few short years has turned half the guys (and a number of women) you know into poker-playing geniuses.
This year, as Republicans prepare to draft the 2008 party platform, poker players are fighting back.
Go to the Republican Party’s Web site and start scrolling through the responses to the platform. You will see an army of poker players arguing it is time for Republicans to end their opposition to gambling online.
“Being a lifelong Republican, I was both dumb-founded and dismayed that the Republican Platform includes a specific directive against Internet gaming,” Steve from Georgia writes.
“Whoever decided this was a good idea should’ve thought twice because this does nothing but take away every American’s right to spend their own money in their own home as they see fit.”
Jack in Texas writes: “The GOP stands for Freedom from Government Oppression. Stating in our platform that we are against Internet gambling or any other form of government controlled gambling (Casinos) just puts more restrictions on Freedom of the People.”
And so it goes.
The 1 million-member Poker Players Alliance is waging the write-in campaign as it tries to encourage Republicans to reconsider.
At a minimum, the group wants the Republican Party to remove the language from the platform. In a perfect world, the poker players would persuade the party to support what the group wants — regulating and licensing online gambling.
That’s a long shot. Even the most ambitious gamblers know getting Republicans to publicly support them is not a safe bet. The party has been led by social conservatives for 25 years, and “values voters” and religious groups have pushed Republicans to take a harder line against gambling as a social ill.
Even Democrats, who have been friendlier to gambling interests, have no pro-gambling language in their platform. (The Poker Players Alliance is trying to nudge them in that direction this year, too.)
Poker players and Republicans have been dueling since 2000, when the Republican Party first included its opposition to online gambling.
By 2004, the platform read: “Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.”
Then came 2006, with a Republican-backed bill to ban gambling online. In one of the final acts of the Republican-controlled Congress, lawmakers in the middle of the night tucked the Internet gambling bill into must-pass port security legislation. The bill passed, and poker players have been skirting the law to continue playing online ever since.
After longtime Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa lost his reelection bid that fall, some observers mused that his authorship of anti-Internet gambling legislation did him in.
Nevada Republican Rep. Jon Porter said that before any policy decisions are made, Congress should pass the bill he co-authored with Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada to study the effects of online gambling. Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign could not immediately respond to questions from the Sun on Wednesday. Republican Rep. Dean Heller failed to respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, also supports the study bill, but doesn’t envision a pro-gambling plank coming this year in the Democratic Party platform.
Even Berkley gave the poker players slim odds. “While I would support a nod to Internet gaming in the platform, I cannot imagine that such language would be added at this late date,” she said in a statement.
John Pappas, spokesman for the Poker Players Alliance, said that although online poker players tend to be Republican, the group’s aim is not partisan.
But he said his group will remind members where the parties stand on the issue.
“Come election time we’re going to have to let our people know.”
Yes. Support Internet gambling and further reduce the number of visitors that support this state. Why do we follow any chance to survive. How does Sen. Harry feel about this. He has done everything he can to bankrupt this state with his energy policies, or the ones Nancy Pelosi tells him are his.
You just have to spin everything into an anti-Democrat position, right?
I MOVED to LV to play poker and I play online almost every day, too. Online gaming SUPPORTS the growth of Las Vegas casinos! Many people's first exposure is on the Internet, then they want to come out to the real casinos to play.
I play poker and I vote! I would not vote for any Republican on the face of the Earth. They want to take away my rights and have done a fine job of it.
ps--Thanks, LV Sun, for publicizing the issue.
Neiman,
You are completely wrong. Internet poker drove a huge poker boom that brought a huge number of people to Vegas who never went there before. Many of the people who play on line decide they want to try live poker, and see Vegas as the place to do it.
Supporting internet gambling will not reduce the visitors here - if anything it will probably spark their interest in playing live at a table with other live people. My husband played for awhile online and once he stopped feeling like a poker 'dummy' was then willing to step inside a casino and do it 'for real'. Beside all that - this is supposed to be a FREE country - so why should people not have the FREEDOM to spend their money any way they want. They just need to understand that if they go broke the government is NOT going to support them via the welfare or any other freebie system.
I should clarify (before someone else jumps all over it) that when I say a person should have the right to spend their money any way they want I should have said as long as what their spending it on is legal - like cigarettes may be bad for your health but they are still LEGAL so anyone who chooses to spend their money on them has that right - and gambling is LEGAL - it's not a crime against society, like Kiddie Porn (which people do NOT have the right to spend money on because it's hurting children and it's illegal. There would be no reason to make online gaming illegal because it's not an affront on society like kiddie porn (where kids are getting abused) so leave it alone. Once we let the government control how we spend our money we are doomed - it's bad enough they force taxes down our throats.
It had been eighteen years since my last visit to Las Vegas. Then I started playing poker on-line. The last two summers I've spend a week and a half in Las Vegas playing poker (and obviously spending money on food, gas, lodging, and so on). Chances are good that if my ability to play poker on-line is taken away I'll go another eighteen years before my next visit.
There are players who play both. And Vegas will definetely survive. With or without the online gambling ban. That's 2 pairs of shoes, folks. I wouldn't be too worried.
Fact is, however, there's still a whole bunch of US players playing poker online, with or without that ridiculous ban. And that's something that can be proven and is a stone cold fact. Therefore, this online poker ban is just a joke and hit only a few rare companies, such as Partypoker and Neteller. Lots of other companies are laughing to death because of those silly rules.....
The whole unlawful internet gaming law is joke, even forgetting about the sneaky way it was made into a law.
People who want to play online poker will do so regardless of the law. It just makes it less convenient.
If our legislators had any brains, they would legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. Oh that's right, they're politicians.
THERE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE DEM. REP, PARTY WE GOT TO FIND THEM AND VOTE THEM IN IF THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR US OR OUR COUNTRY,
IF WE WHAT A BETTER GOV. WE GOT TO CHANGE OUR LEADERS EVERY 8 YEARS OR IN SOME CASES MORE THEN THAT