Poker & Politics
Poker players never asked to be involved in politics. They were perfectly content patronizing brick-and-mortar card rooms or playing online in the privacy of their homes. But politics came to them like a thief in the night. Senator Bill Frist was the criminal, and online poker was the loot. The victim of the attack was the American poker player.
Politics invaded the poker world and took advantage of sleeping poker players. The poker community had no choice but to stand up for their rights and get involved. From the moment that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed by Congress – attached to Port Authority legislation at a late hour, eliminating the opportunity for a fi ght – poker was involved in politics, whether its players, fans, and enthusiasts wanted to be or not.
Livelihoods were at stake, and more importantly, the right and ability to spend or make money in the privacy of our own homes via the all-American game of poker was on the verge of being ripped from our computers. The ripple effect was felt throughout the poker industry, as poker websites like PartyPoker quickly withdrew from the American market for fear of being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. With the void left by the numerous online gaming sites no longer willing to service U.S. customers, poker magazines lost advertising revenue, writers lost income, live poker tournament hosts lost internet-qualifi ed players, and the poker community as a whole took a fi nancial hit. That is when it became personal.
Be that as it may, poker players were not so anxious to become involved in politics. Whereas politicians are of, by, and for the people, therefore guaranteeing a life in front of and accountable to the public, most poker players simply want to play their games and be left alone. In many ways, the makeup of politics goes against the predominantly solitary and private nature of poker players. They may go to poker rooms, tournaments, or home games to socialize, but at its most basic level, poker is a game in which each person looks out for their own livelihood. It is a player’s thought process, observation, strategy, and decision-making alone that will determine success or failure at the tables.
Online poker players are typically an even more introverted breed. The nature of the game as it is played on the internet is one of isolation, as heavy concentration is useful and communication tends to be limited to comments like “nh” and “ty” in the chat box on the computer screen. However, poker players do have a number of qualities in common with politicians. Both have a penchant for bluffi ng, are skilled at developing well-thought-out strategies and implementing them to achieve a goal, and possess a deep-seated desire to win and to achieve success in the game at hand. Poker players and politicians are challenge-driven people, and the UIGEA did the one thing that could bring them together – present a challenge in a way that could not be ignored.
Getting to Know Each Other
The poker boom is generally considered a bright spot in the history of poker. The “Moneymaker Effect” and all of the factors that led to poker’s international recognition as an undeniably popular game of skill allowed it to make the public transition from a backroom game to a socially acceptable one. The growth of the World Series of Poker and the inception of other event series like the World Poker Tour and European Poker Tour have put the game on primetime television and in mainstream media.
While much of the world, even if not participating in or benefi ting from the poker boom, thought it was interesting, others saw it as the growth of the social acceptance of gambling – something they viewed as a dangerous trend. That societal niché looks upon poker as a degenerate game that tempts people to waste money and engage in generally sinful behavior. Behind closed doors, they were planning to put a halt to the poker boom with the help of politicians like Representatives Jim Leach and Robert Goodlatte, Senator Jon Kyl, and the then U.S. Senate Majority Leader Frist, who knew how to help their cause in the most underhanded of ways. So as poker players continued to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the expansion of their game, organizations like Focus on the Family were padding the pockets of members of Congress in the hopes of attacking the poker community where it would hurt the most – the ever-growing online poker industry.
The shock of it all came in the late evening hours of Sept. 30, 2006, when the SAFE Port Act was up for a vote in Congress just as it was clearing up business in preparation for adjournment before the 2006 elections. The UIGEA was attached to the SAFE Port Act, a piece of legislation intended to protect U.S. ports from terrorists, and in the rush of Congress to recess and not be accused of voting against a bill to protect U.S. soil, the SAFE Port Act and UIGEA package were passed by the House of Representatives with a 409-2 vote. The subsequent Senate vote was unanimous, and the bill was signed into law on Oct. 13, 2006.
Stunned, the poker community struggled with the meaning of it all. While the new law did not seem to prohibit the act of playing online, it did prohibit fi nancial institutions from allowing the funding of online accounts for online gaming, with the exception of horseracing, intrastate lotteries, and fantasy sports. And no matter the legalities, it was clear that many online gaming companies were not comfortable with possible prosecution under U.S. law, withdrawing from the U.S. market with alarming expediency. Similar reactions from offshore payment processing companies like Neteller left U.S. customers with few options.
All the while, politicians took notice of the UIGEA, not because they were worried about their PokerStars accounts, but because the passage of the UIGEA was underhanded and the motivation behind it was faulty. Members of Congress – Republican and Democrat alike – were taken aback by the attempt to dictate morality and trash the rights of privacy and personal responsibility.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was the fi rst to speak out. As the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he recognized the implications of the UIGEA on fi nancial institutions that would be legally bound to attempt to identify transactions to gaming companies and stop them. But moreover, he saw that the very essence of the UIGEA was wrong. “The existing legislation is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans and this interference should be undone,” he said. So the Congressman introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, to promote regulation of the industry rather than the attempted prohibition of it.
Other members of Congress made their own attempts to undo the UIGEA in various ways. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, to exempt poker from the UIGEA and the 1961 Wire Act. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) wrote H.R. 2140, the Internet Gambling Study Bill, to authorize a study of online gaming and determine the most appropriate ways for the U.S. government to approach the issue. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, in an attempt to regulate and tax the online game industry. Though all of these bills received a fair amount of support – Berkley’s fi nding the most co-sponsors – none of them have yet secured the backing of one of the committees in Congress that could push them through for a Congressional vote.
As Congress struggled with the UIGEA, a lobbying organization by the name of the Poker Players Alliance began to grow feet – feet big enough to have now garnered the support of over one million poker players. And as the poker community threw their support behind the PPA, an infl uential person in American politics took the reins of the organization as its Chairman. Former New York Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, a staunch Republican, accepted the position as head of the PPA, giving it legs to attach to those many feet.
The PPA took its lobbying efforts to Congress, meeting with senators and representatives about pending poker-related legislation, involving well-known poker players like Annie Duke, Howard Lederer, and Chris Ferguson in those discussions and formal Congressional hearings, and asking poker players to get involved by writing letters en masse to their political representatives. Congress has taken notice, and more of its members are signing on to co-sponsor various pieces of legislation and pledge their support to furthering the cause of recognizing poker a game of skill and internet gaming as something that could and should be regulated, monitored, and taxed rather than banned.
Frank, again at the forefront of the fi ght, decided to take a different approach. In April of 2008, he convened a Congressional hearing entitled, “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefi t?” where representatives of fi nancial institutions were invited to speak before the House Financial Services Committee. From banks to the Department of the Treasury to the Federal Reserve System, the testimony was the same – enforcement of the UIGEA would create an undue burden on those institutions, and more importantly, the wording of the UIGEA was too ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations, creating a stalemate in proceeding with any enforcement actions.
In light of the views expressed in the hearing, Frank proceeded with further legislation, the most recent of which was entitled the Payment Systems Protection Act of 2008 (H.R. 6870). The purpose of the bill is to consult with the U.S Attorney General, Department of the Treasury, and Federal Reserve System to create a process to defi ne what types of online gambling are unlawful, therefore enabling the UIGEA to be enforced in some way. In essence, this would provide an opportunity for poker to be examined as a game of skill and perhaps be exempted from UIGEA regulations. Just as this article goes to press, it was announced that the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 6870, which allows it to be passed to the fl oor of the House of Representatives for consideration and a possible vote.
The Unlikeliest of Partnerships
The Poker Players Alliance launched in 2005 in response to the poker boom and murmurs of efforts to outlaw online gaming such as was eventually attempted with the UIGEA. But in its inaugural stages, the PPA did not have the blanket support of the poker community. Telling poker players that there were political dangers ahead was akin to warning them that their aces might get cracked; they knew it was possible but didn’t want to believe it.
Over time, players, poker enthusiasts, and fans of the game began to register as members of the PPA, the majority of them doing so after the UIGEA was passed and signed into law. But the PPA needed someone to grab their attention, someone who took the cause seriously and brought some credence to the link between the PPA and politics. That person was former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato.
A controversial fi gure, D’Amato was a recognizable face with a controversial reputation, but a reputation that included strong Congressional ties and standing up for what he believed in, regardless of political party lines, nonetheless. He joined the PPA as its Chairman in early 2007 when the organization had less than 200,000 members and brought national mainstream attention to the cause with his new affi liation. Within a year, with D’Amato championing poker issues at the head of the PPA, the organization grew and grew until its membership surpassed the one million mark.
D’Amato’s ties to poker are personal, as during his eighteen-year stint as a New York senator, he hosted a weekly poker game in his Capitol Hill offi ce. Since his retirement from the Senate, he attends a different weekly game on Long Island with friends. But his reason for coming to the aid of the PPA was much more substantial than defending the game that he loves. It is the long-standing conservative belief that the government should not legislate personal responsibility. Mention individual liberties to D’Amato, and the true reasons for his support of and work for the PPA will be clear.
Support From the White House?
When Illinois Sen. Barack Obama began to look like a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination 2007, CNN ran a story from the Associated Press about his love of poker with the intention of showing some of the qualities he possessed – careful, focused, serious, competitive – that he would bring to the campaign. The article caught the attention of the poker community who saw Obama as a potential “friend” of the game who could end up in the White House.
The AP article included comments from Obama’s poker buddies about games held with fellow members of the Illinois legislature, low stakes poker games ranging from Hold’em and Stud to split-pot games that were fun but intense. And no one latched onto the relationship between Obama and poker more fervently than members of the poker media. Add that story to one that emerged in early 2008 about Obama carrying a few good luck charms from supporters in his pocket including a poker chip, and the poker community found optimism that a presidential hopeful could protect the game that the UIGEA put in jeopardy.
Many in the poker community, especially recognizable professional players, have written publicly about their support for Obama. Lifelong Republican Doyle Brunson will cross party lines in 2008 to vote for Obama and Daniel Negreanu has not been shy about his support of the now-offi cial Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
During the 2008 WSOP, Raw Vegas TV picked up on a story that Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey left Las Vegas for a one-evening trip to Los Angeles to attend a celebrity studded, high-dollar fundraiser for Sen. Obama. Not only did they get to meet the possible future President, but he recognized them.
Negreanu told BLUFF, “We got in the line to get our picture taken with Obama, and I had no idea he would know who I was. So, I walk right up to him, and he looks at me and goes, ‘I know you!’ He grabs me by the arm and tells his buddy, who is also Canadian, ‘Look who we’ve got here!’ He comes over to me, and I say hello to him. Then Obama says, ‘We played poker last night.’ He grabs sixty bucks out of his pocket to show me, points to his friend and says to me, ‘And this guy’s not very good.’ So, I took a couple pictures with him… Then Phil Ivey went up, and Obama says to him, ‘Can you beat that guy?’ And Phil says, ‘I don’t know.’”
He continued, “For me, to think about the meaning of that from a poker player’s perspective, he recognized me and he recognized Phil Ivey. He played poker the night before. This is a busy guy with not very much time to watch TV, but the fact that he has not only watched poker but plays it is a very good sign for poker when he wins the election.”
Negreanu hoped to hold a fundraiser for Obama, though scheduling may not permit it with the national election approaching quickly. But he feels positive that Obama will support poker if the issue comes before him as America’s President. “He hasn’t made a public statement about online poker, but the meeting with him was very encouraging. Also, his view of censorship in general, when it comes to Hollywood, is positive… As far as personal freedoms, he’s more on the liberal side than the conservative side, so I feel very comfortable in saying that I think that our best chance would be Obama.”
Freedom of Speech: Use Your Voice
On July 3rd, the WSOP Main Event began at the Rio in Las Vegas, Nevada. Over the course of four starting days of the largest live poker tournament in the world, a total of 6,844 players would descend upon the Amazon Room at the Rio to plunk down $10,000 for the chance to win millions. On the fourth starting day, one of poker’s staunchest allies, Rep. Robert Wexler, appeared with PPA Executive Director John Pappas and WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack center stage. Wexler took the microphone and urged the room full of poker players, media, and fans to join the PPA and fi ght for their right to play poker. He issued the order of the day with the famous “Shuffl e up and deal!” and proceeded to walk around, taking in the sights and sounds of the World Series.
Later, in the VIP lounge across the hall from the Amazon Room, Pappas hosted Wexler and Alfonse D’Amato, both of whom had come to see the WSOP and discuss the PPA’s cause with members of the media in one-on-one interviews. Wexler and D’Amato were focused on the topic at hand. The passionate D’Amato had no problem articulating his feelings, starting by saying, “I think it’s an incredible intrusion to come into a person’s house and say you can’t use the internet to play poker, a great American pastime.
Suddenly, we’re worried about people’s morality, that they’re going to become addicted, etc… If you want to regulate it, you should regulate to keep control, and that’s the way you do it instead of trying to prohibit it. Now we’re in violation of the World Trade Organization; we look silly… And it is a game of skill. It really comes down to a matter of the government intruding on individual liberties.”
D’Amato continued, “And I must say that Congressman Wexler has been a true champion. He doesn’t have a natural constituency of poker players, but he has a natural constituency of people who say, ‘Hey, don’t trample on my rights.’ He has been steadfast in standing up and saying there should be a carve-out, and people should be permitted to use the internet to play poker. I commend him for his leadership in this area, and he has earned the respect of many, many people who understand that this is a matter of individual rights.”
The very focused and business-like Wexler chimed in, “The internet has thrived because it has largely been allowed to grow and prosper without governmental regulation. The moment the government intrudes on the internet, you’re going to limit the ability of the internet to thrive. Poker, I believe, presents the most compelling case because it is a game of skill rather than a game where there is a house, where it is a game of chance. Poker is a game of skill. To take Senator D’Amato’s logic a step further, the idea that the federal government, in the midst of all that we need to do to protect the American people from real threats, is going to focus on and invade people’s liberties, invade their homes, to prevent them from engaging in a game of skill on the medium of the 21st century, is nuts… Poker’s been played in the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and continues to be played in all of these venues. So, why shouldn’t I be able to play it on the internet?”
With regard to the UIGEA, Wexler added, “This is why we’re all engaged in trying to undo something that was irrational from the beginning, and as Senator D’Amato said, it was done in the most inappropriate of ways. If it had been a straight up vote on poker, it never would have happened, but it was attached to a port security bill. Most everybody had no clue what was happening; it was the last bill passed in the Congress that the Republicans had control of, so we’re trying to undo it.”
When both gentlemen were asked about the importance of the poker community’s involvement, D’Amato and Wexler were emphatic with their answers. Wexler began, “What people need to know is that their voices are heard, particularly when they do it in concert with others and with the Poker Players Alliance. There has been an organized effort in Congress that the PPA has done, and it’s had a big impact.”
D’Amato interjected, “We’re really very hopeful that citizens will not just sign a form letter and send it in but will call the district offi ces of various members of Congress.”
“Poker is not a Democratic or Republican game,” Wexler added. “People of all political persuasions play the game, and I can tell you my experience is that you do many things in politics and get a thousand reactions. When I fi rst fi led the bill to undo the prohibition for poker, I heard from people that had never contacted me. I had friends who had never talked to me about politics before in fi fteen years say, ‘Yeah, goddamn it, why the hell is the federal government doing that?’ It just doesn’t make sense to people, and many of them are conservative Republicans. They’re as ticked off as our liberal Democrats.”
And with that, D’Amato simply agreed. “It is a bipartisan issue.”
