A Short History of The Poker Boom, The UIGEA, and the Death of Online Poker Imposed by the Recent DoJ Actions

In 2003 an accountant named Chris Moneymaker won a $10,000 seat into the Main Event of the World Series of Poker by winning a $39 satellite on the online poker site PokerStars. As most of you know, Moneymaker went on to win the Main Event that year, parlaying his $39 in a $2.5 Million payday.

Moneymaker at the 2003 WSOP Main Event Final Table

Moneymaker's win, along with the introduction of hole card cameras, sparked a poker boom that was greater than anyone could have ever imagined.  The year Moneymaker won there were 839 entrants to the Main Event.  The next year there were 2,576.  The year after that there were 5,619, followed by an absolutely incredible 8,773.  Love him or hate him, The Moneymaker Effect (as it came to be affectionately called) was indisputable.

Poker, one of America's greatest pastimes, regained its place at the forefront of our culture. A position it has not relinquished...until now.

In 2006, on the last day Congress was in session before it adjourned, a very important port security act designed to keep Dubai from gaining control of a US port was brought up for discussion.  At 9:29 PM an amendment was added, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, or UIGEA. The UIGEA did nothing to criminalize playing online poker, or offering online poker to be played.  The UIGEA simply made it illegal for banks to process transactions within gaming sites...no more deposits or withdrawals.

Because of the importance of the bill it was being added to, the "last day of school" fever Congress had, and the late hour, no one objected to the fact that reading of the bill was waived.  Practically no one in Congress knew what else they were voting for, and the important Port Security act passed by a vote of 421-2, bringing the UIGEA along with it.

 The immediate reaction to the UIGEA depended on the online poker company.  Some of the poker sites, such as Paradise Poker and the enormous Party Poker, were publicly traded companies on the London Stock Exchange.  Because of Exchange regulations, these companies pulled out of the US market immediately.  Party Gaming, the parent of Party Poker, saw their stock plummet 60% in 24 hours.  They were moved from the FTSE 100 to the FTSE 250 within 2 weeks.

The non-publicly traded poker sites saw little threat from the UIGEA and continued business as usual.  With fewer places to play in the US market, Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker, and especially PokerStars saw huge growth.  Transactions were a little bumpy for a short time based on a Department of Justice action against online transaction warehouse Neteller, but shortly resumed to normal.

All that came to a screeching halt on Friday.  The Department of Justice seized control of the websites of the three biggest remaining players in the US online poker market, Full Tilt, PokerStars, and Absolute.  The government also blocked the game to all US players.  The poker sites have, in turn, agreed to cease offering real money games to US players while the dispute is being resolved.

According to the DoJ press release on the matter, the sites are guilty of bank fraud, illegal gambling and money laundering.  Let me be clear, I believe the poker sites probably pushed the boundaries of what is legal to their full extent.  On the other hand, these are very serious charges, and the DoJ is returning fire by pushing the limits of the law in the charges it is pressing against the sites and their leaders.

While I think the DoJ is taking the laws to the extreme, my problem here is less with their actions than with the laws to begin with.  As I stated, there is no federal law against playing online poker.  There is no federal law against a foreign company offering online games to US players.  The only law is a banking transaction law that blocks players from engaging in a perfectly legal activity.  It is perfectly legal to go there, but they blew up the bridge.

Congressman Barney Frank and others have been involved in a highly bipartisan push to repeal the UIGEA, and regulate and license online poker sites.  It has never been more important than now to support this legislation.  The bills proposed to accomplish this are not perfect, but they are an important first step to protect one of America's greatest pastimes.  There is nothing wrong with an adult choosing  to play a game of poker in the comfort of their own home, and the laws should clearly reflect that.  Underhanded attempts to block a legal activity to take place, such as the UIGEA does, need to be stopped.

There is a million-member organization that is dedicated solely to the protection of poker players' rights.  The Poker Players Alliance.  Started after the implementation of the UIGEA, the PPA is fighting now to save online poker from its government enemies.  They have issued a press release on the matter.  Also, PPA Executive Director John Pappas has put up a video statement on the matter.

Now is the time to contact your senators, congressperson, and the Obama administration and let them know that you want the UIGEA repealed.  Tell them you want adults to have the right to choose to play a card game without government interference.  Let them know you are tired of government interference in online poker.  You can easily contact them through this link.  Thank you.



The Impending Death of the Tea Party

According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research survey, more than half of Americans now have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party.  I must admit, I am not surprised.  Truthfully, I am shocked that it took this long.

The Tea Party started with the best of intentions, and the greatest of goals.  LOWER TAXES.  REDUCE SPENDING.  That got our country's attention. Our citizens are sick of the spending, and they are sick of the taxing.  The Tea Party got really popular, really fast.  Like most boom towns, you could expect some of that initial surge to wane.  This is more than just a standard settling, though...opinions of the Tea party have actually reversed.

Why would this happen?  Did our public suddenly change their mind on wanting spending reduced?  Did people spontaneously realize they wanted more taxes?  Of course not.  The change wasn't our attitude towards these things, the change was within the Tea Party itself.

You see, the Tea Party lost its focus.  It was originally an independent organization with its own set of ideals.  It became nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party.  People didn't lose their interest in lower taxes and reduced spending, they only maintained their existing disappointment with the GOP.

Once Tea Party supporters began to make the realization that their support was, more or less, Republican support, they lost their desire to stand with the group.  The Tea Party supporters are aware that the Republicans don't stand for real spending cuts, only for small and insignificant cuts that they use as political ploys to claim victory.

Those who no longer support the Tea Party changed their mind on the group because they feel we deserve more.  If all they wanted was to support the Republicans pathetic attempts at lowering the budget, then they would have supported the Republican plan from the word "Go."  That wasn't what they wanted, though...Tea Partiers wanted greater cuts than the Republicans would be willing to offer.

Now the Tea Party's infiltration from Republicans is nearly complete.  The Tea Party itself now is just another group out there saying "Please vote GOP!"  Our citizens have caught on.  The original Tea Party is gone.  What remains is a masquerade.  That's not what yesterday's Tea Party supporters signed up for.

Indiana One Step Closer to Discrimination in Our Constitution

The Indiana State Senate passed the gay marriage amendment by the disgustingly wide margin of 40-10.  Since the House has already passed the same bill, the first of three steps required to add discrimination to the Indiana Constitution is now complete.

Changing the constitution in Indiana requires two consecutive, separately elected legislatures to pass the bill.  If that occurs, the amendment must then be passed by the voters.  Should that happen, the amendment then becomes part of our state's defining document.  I talk more about this in my first blog on this issue, Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!

There is already a state law banning gay marriage in Indiana.  Adding a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and redundant.  (Those two words describe so much of what government does...unnecessary and redundant.)  Proponents of the amendment love to say that the amendment is necessary to prevent activist judges from changing the law as it currently is.  The truth, though, is that attitude towards gay marriage is changing at an exponential rate.  Lawmakers know that within a very short number of years there will to be plenty of support to pass legislation making gay marriage legal and recognized in Indiana.  If they can pass an amendment now, then public approval of gay marriage will mean it will still take several years before it can be legal.

If this amendment passes another legislature and the voters, then our only hope to eliminate this discrimination will be...*gulp*...the federal government.  That's right, the feds.  If this amendment becomes a reality then the only way it could ever get removed from our constitution in a short period of time is if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional on the federal level.  That process could take even longer than the process of re-changing our amendment.

This is what our legislators are banking on.  They are begging for this to get passed now so that it will take years and years for it to ever get changed again.  They know that public opinion will soon demand recognition of gay marriage, so they take steps now to smack down that public opinion.  And that's what they consider a victory.

The bright side to all this is that there are still two more steps that must be taken to change the constitution.  After the 2012 elections, another State House and State Senate must pass the amendment, and then the voters must give it the green light.  We have time to make our opinions known, but we must be loud and we must start now.  Start talking to people and start calling and emailing legislators today to prevent an embarrassing horror from happening tomorrow.

What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?

The folks at reason.tv want to know what happened to the anti-war movement. Especially relevant now that Obama's dropping bombs of his own.

I love the stat that, despite being nearly identical, Obama's foreign policy has a 78% approval rating where W's had a 22%. As the video says, war is bipartisan. With things going the way they are in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will probably see these Republican wars that turned into Democrat wars last plenty long enough to turn into Republican wars again.

Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!

Get ready, gay Hoosiers! It's already illegal in Indiana for you to get married. But that's just not enough for the religious right. They want a constitutional amendment that says marriage is between one man and one woman.

Why do they want a constitutional amendment? Because it's so much harder to change. See, if they just run with the current law on the books, then gay marriage rights can be provided by any upcoming legislature. Amending the state constitution, though, means it would take years and years to ever allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in Indiana.

That's because changing the constitution in Indiana isn't easy (nor should it be.) To change the constitution in Indiana, the amendment must pass through two separately elected legislatures and then also pass a vote by the citizens. The amendment currently being discussed would have to be approved by the current legislature, then re-approved by the legislature in 2013 or 2014, then approved by voters in 2014.

So what happens if this amendment gets passed (you're kidding yourself if you don't think this is on the path to get passed.) Immediately, nothing will change for the gay community; they can't marry now and they won't be able to marry then. The change is in the number of hurdles they'll have to jump to finally get the same rights as everyone else. You see, today gay marriage could be allowed at any time. If this amendment gets through, though, gays wouldn't be able to gain marriage rights in Indiana until 2018...at the EARLIEST. And to get them by 2018, the legislative stars would have to align in a very specific way.

Why are they even trying to pass this amendment? To protect marriage, so they say. What supporters of the amendment fail to discuss, though, is that homosexual marriage is not the problem with marriage today. Divorce rates are through the roof, number of people married multiple times is through the roof, custody battles are increasing in both frequency and ferocity. The problem with marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals or with gay marriage. Today's problems with marriage have only to do with marriage between one man and one woman. The fight to "save marriage" should be focused there.

(Because so little data is currently available it's not worth showing statistics, but early information from the states that allow gay marriage indicate incredibly low divorce rates among gays.)

The government should stay out of the business of who can or cannot get married. The government should view marriage the same as they do a contract; government should recognize the contract and help to settle disputes over it. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they should be allowed to marry.

Government should stay out of the religious side of marriage, too, though. When gay marriage is legalized (an inevitability, even if far off) then no requirement to conduct gay marriages should be made of churches. If a church does not wish to conduct gay marriage ceremonies, then there should be no legal requirement for them to do so.

Government & the NFL 2011 Lockout Labor Mess

The folks at reason.tv always put out some really good videos. They are always smart and well-produced, and often funny.

Recently, they tackled (get it?) the current problems with the NFL and its players. It is a short video that does a great job of showing why the government should stay out of the affairs of private business.

Smoking Bans in Bars Simply Not Necessary

I'm having lunch at Manly's Irish Mutt. It's a little pub on the east side of Indianapolis. Nice place. Traditional bar/pub menu, but with a little bit of an Irish twist. Over 21 only. No smoking allowed.

No smoking because they want to be no smoking. Not no smoking because a law mandated it.

Great crowd at lunch. I got here about 1:00 and the bar rail was packed and several tables sat, as well.

A lot of people will tell you that smoking bans for bars are necessary in part because bars can't realistically go smoke free and keep their business if the bar next door allows its patrons to light up.  Bull.

This is my second visit to Manly's. It's been packed both times. Evidence, I submit, that there is sufficient demand to have both smoking and non-smoking adult establishments.

Let the business choose their environment, don't mandate it with laws that only strip our liberties.