Desiring Machine

I must say that I am mad about the current political climate around online poker. The ban on poker represents a slide towards the worst kind of prohibition that does worse than nothing for our citizens, and pushes these activities into the shadows putting individuals at unnecessary risk against unscrupulous enablers of gambling (risky offshore banks, untrustworthy underground casinos, and violent loan sharks).

Both this Washington and the other Washington have decided to take an active role against online gambling and poker in particular. This state decided to make playing online poker a felony offense with up to 7 years in prison. The federal government decided to put on the hook the financial institutions that allow online gambling transactions with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). This piece of legistlation was attached as a rider to the port security bill by now retired senator Bill Frist.

There are many valid arguments to made about controlling online gambling, the addictive potential, the threat of money laundering, the inability to tax it. All important points but none that warrant outright prohibition. In my mind these call for sensible regulation. Bring the online casinos onshore, regulate and monitor the operations and hold the card rooms accountable for any financial skullduggery such as money laundering that they might encounter. Criminalizing the activities of ordinary citizens is not how a healthy democracy should operate.

The real issue is not the gambling itself, I fully understand the tension between the moralists and the libertines. But really at the heart of this issue is how society and the state is failing to keep up with the realities of virtual online life. In the “real” brick and morter world we have a well established precedent for gamlbing. You can drive to an Indian casino or play poker at one of your neighborhood card rooms. The laws and regulations around them are well understood and for the most part there is a delicate balance that is struck between all the interests involved. Why should things be different in the online world? Why should the way society operates be any different because it is not place bound? Can’t the same regulatory framework be put in place to contructively deal with the important issues around a particular activity? It strikes me that legislators don’t want to do the extra footwork to address the real issues in virtual life. Prohibition is a default response to the perceived problem rather than a thoughtful legal framework that bridges real and virtual life into a seemless social reality. The primary reason online virtual life is so hard to deal with is because it transcends traditional territories and legal jurisdictions. The law has no defacto standard for this scenario so it must prohibit explicitly everything that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Washington state’s ban on internet poker seems routed in this very dilemma. They claim that they wanted to make the laws consistent with the federal government and ultimately unify the jurisdictional domain of online gambling. However, the actual approach seems ham handed and inelegant. What happens when the activity is international? Which it clearly is in the case of online poker. The easy answer is prohibition, the hard work comes in building the alliances, political, financial, and legal that allow an effective regulatory framework to exist that is not place bound or state bound. The notion of soveriegnty is so yesterday. As more and more of society moves online and becomes virtual we need to develop virtual legal frameworks that have a corresponding virtual jurisdiction and enforcement mechanism. But this requires developing institutions that are not whetted to notions of autonomy and sovereignty. Coalitions and cooperative institutions between states, countries and citizens across the virtual world will need to be developed, and fostered. Prohibition represents lazy thinking and an unwillingness to address the tough problems of virtual society. By no means is it easy to build the coalitions required for this virtual framework and there will be tensions along the way, false starts, and failed initiatives. But the work needs to be done now because more and more of our life is online and by default deterritorialized. Prohbition is such a provincial attitude and it is far time we started thinking beyond our physical boundaries and embrace all that a virtual world has to offer.

Back to poker. Before the UIGEA was passed as a sneaky rider to an unapposable port security bill, there was a direct proposal to place prohibition on online poker. In July 2006 HR 4411 was proposed in the House of Representatives.

Here is the breakdown of Washington State congress members and how they voted.

Voted to make Online Poker Illegal

Brian Baird Washington District 3 Democratic
Norman Dicks Washington District 6 Democratic
Rick Larsen Washington District 2 Democratic
Cathy McMorris Washington District 5 Republican
David Reichert Washington District 8 Republican
Adam Smith Washington District 9 Democratic

Voted AGAINST the Internet Poker Ban

Doc Hastings Washington District 4 Republican
Jay Inslee Washington District 1 Democratic
Jim McDermott Washington District 7 Democratic

Baird, Dicks, Larsen, and Smith you are all cowards and a disgrace to the Democratic party. I don’t expect much from Republicans who get caught up in the moralist agenda of the right wing but you Democrats who voted for this ban on internet poker have all let down the citizens of Washington state and this country.

Hastings, even though I don’t agree with you on most issues I have to commend you for making the right vote here.

And Inslee, McDermott your vote here confirms why you are rock stars in the Washington state Democratic party and my two favorite congressmen. I proudly voted for McDermott this time around. And your opposition to the War in Iraq and this silly Poker ban make you winners in my book. Keep up the good work.