Online Gambling's Post-Election Malaise (Opinion)

At first, I thought it was just me. Every time I saw another headline pop up, I kept telling myself that my fascination with gambling had just gone too far. When I realized, however, that it was really happening – and that talking to myself would probably land me in an asylum – I started telling others: “You know,” I’d say to some Armani-wearing blonde as she sipped a French martini in an Uptown lounge. “I work in the gambling.” And to my surprise, said blonde was usually intrigued.

At the same time, the media was trailing presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama like a pack of wolves. Every day, reporters and wonks debated, speculated and dissected. Economy, foreign policy, personal records, associates and friends, conduct, physical appearances, pets… no stone was left unturned. Naturally, I was expecting this sort of thing. But what I hadn’t expected – and what was upping my market value with Manhattan’s platinum dolls – was the increasing attention being paid to the candidates’ gambling habits.

Complex theories were built around McCain’s love of craps versus Obama’s command of low-stakes poker. In craps, the theory went, a good roll of the dice rewards every player at the table – meaning McCain was a true-blue social animal who liked winning for the team. Meanwhile, poker was used as an analogy for Obama’s canny understanding of strategy: As a seasoned player, Obama already knew his strengths and weaknesses and would be able use that knowledge to his advantage.

These metaphors became insanely mixed after both parties held their nominations and, as the election intensified in October, settled into stiff verbal cocktails meant to knock out any opponent within 1,000 miles. At one point, they reached such a fevered pitch that the candidates decided to address the matter personally. Obama drew first blood with his “Sen. McCain likes to gamble” speech, and with cards like those stacked against him, what else could McCain do but play up his craps-playing persona as grittier? Now, his life had always been about taking chances and playing against the odds, all in the service of his country….

Behind Obama's Poker Face...

As Shakespeare said, past is prologue. And, now that we’ve seen poker-player Obama strip shooter McCain of his chips, many in the online-gambling community have been left feeling that somehow the candidates’ talk of wagers was more than campaign window dressing. After all, since the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was passed in 2006 by the out-going Republican congress under a Republican president (Bush), why wouldn’t the incoming Dems – many in the pro-online gambling set reason – see the anti-online gambling law finally put to the torch?

But the problem is, while Obama has promised change in almost every aspect of government policy, he’s been playing his cards all-too-close to his chest. Under the Republicans, at least, it was easy to see where Internet gamblers stood in terms of political favor: We were simply hated and ignored. But with the rise of the Left, it’s become much harder to predict what the future holds. And, while I would like to join in a rousing round of Bob Dylan’s “The Times, They are A-Changin’,” I just can’t help but be a little skeptical.

The big problem in my eyes is that, while it’s true Obama voted for Sen. Shelley Berkley’s Internet Gambling Study Act and said that he sees advantages in regulating online gambling, the incoming administration has given no indication that overturning the UIGEA is a point on its agenda – much less a priority. No doubt, McCain – or any Republican president for that matter – would have had a difficult time overturning the UIGEA, if only because of pressure from the Right’s political base. And we can definitely say that Obama is better positioned to make a change with folks like “skill-game” Sen. Robert Menendez wearing the same color tie. But, then, we come to this week’s announcement that Eric Holder Jr. is Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, and our whole pro-gambling house of card comes crumbling down.

Of course, there is some solace in knowing that, much like Obama, Holder enjoys the occasional poker game with friends and colleagues – even earning himself the moniker “Holder’em” on one poker blog. But these playful – and often spurious – anecdotes can hardly reveal how Holder would prosecute his new duties (with the pun, in this case, very much intended). Sadly, the man who is to be the highest-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice remains an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in some very sparkly political tinsel. And all we have to go on in terms of his view of online gambling is the fact that his firm, Covington and Burlington, represented the NFL in lobbying for the UIGEA.

And yet it’s impossible to floor this side of the argument when milling about in the euphorically partisan pro-gambling crowd. Everyone – from Poker Players Alliance executive director John Pappas to the average U.S. punter pulling for a new online golden age – has been downright giddy with the idea that Internet poker is a shoe-in for regulation now. In fact, it’s hard to get this crowd to even consider the possibility that Obama might openly confirm his love for the game and still drive the final nail into its online variant’s barely beating heart. They are forever pointing out that, back when he was a state senator, Obama was a regular at Springfield, Illinois poker games where he made some of the connections that eventually propelled him to the presidency. And, from their standpoint, it’s unimaginable that a candidate, once he’s found his way to the Oval Office, could go back on a campaign… insinuation.

But here, my friends, are the facts: Obama is not the Messiah promised in time immemorial; he is a human being – and a human being, we might add, who has made his living as a politician. Does he like poker? Probably. But would he have much compunction cutting out its online eye if it proved politically offensive? Never. Moreover, there are two political arguments that would seem to set off an alarm if the Internet-gambling crowd cared to listen. The first and most logical of these is that, after Congress banned all transfers to online-gambling sites, most homegrown U.S. operators were replaced by offshore entities. These unregulated companies are not beholden to the feds and trying to tax them would be like attempting to catch rain in a colander. In normal times, this might not make much difference. But with an ever-mounting recessional tide racing through Wall Street and Washington already upside-down in bailouts, pro-regulation advocates would be hard-pressed to argue a pro-leakage agenda.

Meanwhile, the number of anti-online interest groups is staggering. For one thing, you have U.S. brick-and-mortar operators – folks like Donald Trump, the Vegas set and a wide swath of minor casino companies with resorts in newly casino-friendly states, as well as tribal casino owners (as a side note, consider the fact that Sen. McCain was close with this last group when the UIGEA passed through the Senate). Naturally, none of these people want to see online gambling – be it poker, roulette or bonk-a-mole – legalized in the U.S. because it would spell doom for their already-struggling businesses. Now, tack on the numerous holy-roller and bible-thumper organizations – who would outlaw orgasms if they had their druthers – and we think you’ll see that the anti-online movement brings an unignorable share of votes and money to the table – both of which are big on every politician’s wish list.

Now, this isn’t to say that all hope is lost. Obama, after all, has gone on the record saying that online gambling could be a successful economic model if it were “properly regulated.” And, of course, pro-onliners can cheer at the fact that we have the Dems’ own man in the gap, Barney Frank, on our side. Frank believes that the UIGEA regulations should be modified, delayed or even completely rejected by the Obama administration, and despite pressure from anti-onliners, he seems to be sticking to his guns. If we should be placing any of our hope in Washington’s new Democratic masters, then, it seems to me that it should be in the Boston Bulldog, not the Man Would Be (Like) King.

- Miles Hofex
miles.hofex@gmail.com

TO AVOID LEGAL REDRESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW, REPRINTERS MUST CITE THE AUTHOR’S NAME AND E-MAIL ADDRESS, AS WELL AS ALL LINKS PERTAINING TO THE PUBLISHING SITE (www.gamblingplanet.org).

This article is published as opinion content and does not reflect the views of Gamblingplanet.org, its owners or other vested interests.

28-Dec-2008, 03:01

Print Send to friend