The GOP has historically been the party of limited government and personal responsibility. President Ronald Reagan said it best in his frequent citations of Thomas Paine’s famous axiom – “the government governs best that governs least.” Unfortunately, the party moved away from the limited government conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan during the George W. Bush Administration. In fact, the 2008 Republican Party Platform regrettably went so far as to advocate a federal prohibition of online poker.
Poker is not a crime, nor should it be. Millions of Americans – including the president and many in Congress – play the game at their kitchen tables, on the Internet, and at their local card rooms. It is a great American pastime. During that failed era of big government “conservatism”, however, some big government social conservative groups like Focus on the Family wished to use the power of the federal government to stop Americans from playing online poker in their own homes.
To bolster their position, some of these big government social conservative groups falsely reported the results of gaming studies, leading to Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) erroneously claiming on the floor of the House that one-third of college students who tried online gaming had attempted suicide. These groups also took studies on video slot machines that display jackpot near-misses in excess of the actual frequency of near-misses (the “crack cocaine of gambling,” according to Focus on the Family), falsely stated that the study results are applicable to all games on a video screen, then egregiously stated that even online peer-to-peer games of skill like poker are somehow included in the mix.
In a classic “be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it” scenario, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was passed into law in 2006 after being sneaked into the unrelated Safe Ports Act in the middle of the night by GOP leadership. The new law banned U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions with sites hosting Internet gaming unlawful under other laws. Fortunately, despite the best efforts of some anti-poker politicians, no federal law makes Internet poker unlawful, so poker is still not a crime. Some have suggested that the Wire Act includes poker, but the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2001 that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting. Unfortunately, the Justice Department does not accept that ruling and UIGEA does not define what is legal and what is not. This legal limbo comes into full effect in December of this year when enforcement is set to go into effect, and poker players have already been affected.
In June, right before the World Series of Poker and in the midst of a recession with bailout dollars pumping through the economy, the Southern District of New York authorized the seizure of more than $30 million that rightfully belonged to poker players. These were not just winnings, either. These were players’ own personal funds placed in U.S. accounts. The government simply seized it and refused to explain the reasons behind the seizure.
UIGEA opened a can of worms for the Republican Party. Many Americans, particularly younger swing voters, adamantly oppose Internet censorship. They developed a strongly negative view of the big government nanny-state instincts of the “new” GOP. Banks and other financial institutions were equally outraged at being deputized as the unpaid Internet poker police. Former Republican Congressman (and current pro-Obama turncoat) Jim Leach of Iowa, the sponsor of the legislation, was also its first casualty, losing his reelection bid to Democrat Dave Loebsack that same year.
Poker players responded to attacks on their liberty by forming the Poker Players Alliance, a one-million member strong grassroots organization that fights to protect the rights of poker players. The drafters of the 2008 Republican Party Platform got the message. After receiving many letters and online comments from poker enthusiasts, the draft committee kept online poker prohibition language out of the platform, stating a desire not to lose these voters in what was shaping up to be a difficult election year. Unfortunately, the full committee chose to restore it. Reaction was swift. Reason magazine ridiculed the party for inserting this advocacy of big government into their platform, and GOP presidential nominee John McCain received tens of thousands of letters and phone calls in protest of this platform plank. Many more protests were, as predicted, delivered via the voting booth on Election Day.
One wonders why a rather small but loud minority of the social conservative movement has this knee-jerk reaction against poker. It seems they see this as a special area that requires big government limitations of our liberties for our own good. Surely this is the type of area where truly principled conservatives would be expected simply to decline to participate in poker if they did not like the activity, much as we do with smoking and other activities of personal choice. And, in fact, many do oppose this. Former House Majority Leader D. Armey, George Will, Grover Norquist, Walter Williams, and other leading conservatives have come out in strong opposition to what Will calls “Prohibition II.”
Perhaps the inclusion of poker prohibition advocacy into some descriptions of conservatism is an anachronistic holdover from the beliefs of the Temperance Movement of the early 1900s, when too many social conservatives (unfortunately) started seeing value in using the power of the federal government. It is definitely an idea whose time has passed. Opponents of online poker should reconsider their desire to restrict liberty out of unfounded fear. We need less government in our lives, not more.
Attacks on online poker represent unnecessarily heavy-handed attempts to control legal activities, and go further than any other government action to censor the Internet. Fortunately, there are encouraging signs. The PPA participated at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year, and the Washington Times reported that reception was very positive. Far from believing Americans need the big federal government to protect them from themselves, the CPAC attendees overwhelmingly supported keeping the federal government out of our lives to the maximum degree possible. They were also very opposed to government censorship of the Internet. Additionally, many CPAC speakers loudly advocated small government principles.
Thankfully, a bipartisan group of freedom loving politicians in both the House and the Senate are fighting for legislation that will protect consumers and Internet freedom. Licensing and regulation will also bring poker sites to the U.S., bringing tax revenue and jobs with them.
The nation simply does not want a federal censorship board monitoring the Internet, and the GOP cannot afford to give away votes. It is time for conservatives to take over the party, adopt limited government values, and win some elections.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.