While Internet gambling is hardly a priority on Capitol Hill these days, the Poker Players Alliance, headed by former U.S. Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, continues its nationwide campaign for recognition of the rights of Americans who like to play poker online.  … Associate Editor James J. Hodl caught up with him recently to discuss UIGEA, the movement to have poker classified as a game of “skill,” and a controversial bid by the state of Kentucky to seize the domain names of scores of gambling Web sites. 

The Poker Players Alliance, as we know, has been a severe critic of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. What are the group’s main objections to this law?

D’Amato: Those who originally promoted UIGEA merely wanted to stop poker, saying it was immoral and the Devil’s game. So it’s no surprise the policy it sets is such a hodgepodge. What they didn’t realize is that poker is a national pastime with deep roots in American history, played by ordinary citizens and presidents alike. It is too late to put that genie back in the bottle. The law bars banks and credit card companies from processing money transfers from online gambling sites but provided no definition as to what an unlawful online gambling site is. Even so, the law as written was doomed to fail as there are fearless offshore Web site operators who are finding ways to circumvent the U.S. law and facilitating those financial transactions from willing players. … The whole situation involving UIGEA is like Prohibition, which attempted to ban alcoholic beverages. Those who wanted to drink found a way and were often helped by organized crime, which at times supplied bad liquor that made drinkers sick or caused them to go blind. We repealed Prohibition and regulated the liquor industry to make sure what people did drink was safe. The same applied to the campaign to ban poker. There will always be a demand to play poker, but players deserve a safe place to play. And PPA is campaigning to make this a reality.

How is the campaign progressing?

It took two tries but the House Financial Services Committee finally got together on legislation that will lead to rules that explicitly define what financial transactions are permissible concerning online poker under UIGEA that PPA can support. Unfortunately, the bill [HR 6870] was postponed until next year because Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae tanked and Congress had to deal with a severe financial crisis. But it was still a great win for PPA and poker players everywhere. We expect that in the next Congress the measure will be enacted. And it may be better that this measure goes into law then. In that this bill instructs the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to work with the [U.S.] Attorney General’s Office to draft regulations defining what unlawful Internet gaming is, whoever wins the White House in November is more likely to produce acceptable rules than the current crowd, who supported UIGEA.

What is PPA’s response to those who argue that the Internet makes poker and other forms gambling too accessible to those who shouldn’t gamble?

PPA is a broad-based citizen’s coalition that supports the right of adult citizens to use the Internet to play poker in their own homes rather than going out to a casino, club or even a friend’s house. We use this modern technology for many other activities. Why not poker? I thought conservatives wanted less government, so why are so many eager to send Big Brother into private homes to stop them from playing a card game? I hear some say a ban will keep children from gambling, but what about families and elderly couples with no children? Are they to be kept from playing nickel-and-dime poker over the Internet too?

So what should be done to overcome those arguments against online poker?

PPA believes that government is the right entity to set rules and provide oversight for Internet gambling. Nobody questions that states like Nevada have the right to license casinos and regulate their operation to assure that persons who gamble play good, honest games, and that those who shouldn’t gamble don’t. We need the same for online poker sites. Adequate federal regulation will assure adult poker players that the online games in which they participate also are good and honest. And with such regulation, government also can tax online gambling sites to raise revenues, not only to pay enforcement costs, but also pay for health insurance, infrastructure improvements and other crying needs of the public. In these tight economic times, the extra revenue can be very helpful.

Elsewhere in the world, poker player organizations are campaigning to have poker reclassified from a “gambling” to a “skill” game. A group in the Czech Republic even claims poker requires skills equal to those needed for archery or equestrian events. Do you agree?

I agree that poker is a skill game. A novice player might in a 10-game set win seven games against a more experienced player. But over time the players with the best skills — those who know how to best play their hands, bet on them and bluff — will be the biggest overall winners. The best poker players also are good at playing chess and excel at mathematics and engineering. So I have to agree that poker is a skill game rather than a game of chance.

What is the current status of the bills introduced by Rep. Robert Wexler [D-Fla.] and Sen. Robert Menendez [D-N.J.] that would license and regulate online poker and other “skill” games instead of banning them?

We’ve just lined up a co-sponsor for the Menendez bill [S3616]. As PPA sees it, current law infringes on the right of poker-playing adults to play poker over the Internet in their own homes, or even teach the game to their kids. The Wexler and Menendez bills would establish reasonable regulations aimed at keeping the online poker Web sites honest. There are a few improper poker sites out there that take advantage of players that need to be dealt with.

Does PPA have state organizations? And will they be endorsing political candidates?

PPA currently has affiliate organizations in most states that campaign against restrictions on poker to local officials. These groups are backing pro-poker candidates by letter and e-mail campaigns and through campaign contributions. They also out-shell groups that campaign against poker by claiming the moral high ground but actually are funded by organizations that fear competition from online poker.

How do you and PPA view the situation in Kentucky, where state officials recently sued to take over the domain names of 141 gambling Web sites?

The situation in Kentucky is absurd. We have no idea how legal authorities in the state will rule on Governor Beshear’s plan to seize those domain names. [Ed. Note: This interview occurred before a scheduled mid-October hearing on the plan.]. But PPA believes that no state should set national online poker policy. The right to regulate online gambling correctly belongs with the federal government. I also wonder: Why is it all right to wager on horse races in Kentucky but not on online poker games?