Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

It is quite obvious that behind the ban on online gaming in the United States is a strong lobby of casinos, most of which are based in Las Vegas, though quite a few more spread across the country.

This battle between land based casinos and online gambling sites has been going on since the early days of the Internet industry. The ban, passed in October 2006, was only the climax of this battle.

The current face-off in Massachusetts is an exemplary paradigm of this greater battle, which has been going on and escalating for ten whole years.

In the right corner stands governor Deval Patrick. In the left corner, Representative Barney Frank. Both are Massachusetts politicians. But they do take opposite corners. What are their stands and can they meet in the middle?

Playing Politics
Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we just sit down for a game of poker? Instead, as in so many cases in the past, we find that our representatives play politics.

Governor Patrick has been leading a program to license three resort casinos in his state. Patrick fears that this large scale plan will not be profitable would his state residents be allowed to gamble online.

The logic follows these lines: if Americans end up playing online, they will visit the new casinos less frequently, and the companies might decide not to build them in the first place, which will result in loss of income for the state. Online gambling, on the other hand, does not need to be based in Massachusetts; it can be operated from overseas. (Did anyone say 'Antigua'?)

Patrick has pursued his plan with a fine on online gamblers, to go along with his new casino construction plans. He has proposed jail terms of up to two years and $25,000 fines for his state residents who violate the ban.

Playing Poker
Meanwhile, US Representative Barney Frank (D.) of Massachusetts has sponsored federal legislation to license and regulate online gambling nationally. He is clearly at odds with his state's governor.

Frank criticized Patrick's politics and logic in a clear statement last week, when he said: "Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?"

The governor's actions should indeed be doubted. While the federal Wire Act, a 1961 law that was used by those supporting a ban on online gambling, allows penalizing the operators of such sites. Patrick proposes the same sanctions be placed on the gamblers - his state residents.

Patrick has not responded to Frank's comments, nor has he defended his rationale on the issue. "Clarifying the laws relating to gaming" in Massachusetts, as the state's secretary of economic development Daniel O'Connell described the proposed bill, seems to actually preventing competition and drawing casinos to start their businesses there.

David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas presented the cynical interpretation of the move, namely that it is "setting up a monopoly for the casinos."

Playing the Dollar Game
Whereas poker is a game of money, the licenses that the proposed bill will draw are worth a lot of money. Bidding on licenses is expected to attract 10-year licensing fees of $200 million to $300 million for each casino.

Meanwhile, the bill is facing not only the opposition of Congressman Frank and the Poker Players Alliance, the quarter million members strong organization, 16,000 of which are in Massachusetts. It is also being opposed by Casino Free Massachusetts, a coalition of anti-casino advocates. Its spokeswoman, Laura Everett, said "We think the whole bill is a problem," in line with her organization's overall opposition to gambling at large.

And that can serve as an example of two political antagonists meeting on common ground. Will Frank and Patrick follow suit?