California

Ten years ago we could have gone a year or more without finding any legislation or regulation that pertained to how we entertain ourselves in our spare time with our money by playing poker. Now you can't go a day without some governmental agency cranking up a new regulation to restrict what free people do with their lives.

Whether fueled by greed (taxes) or political morality (getting elected by imagined "morals" voters), the various governmental regulators continue to act as only out-of-touch bureaucrats can by proposing extreme regulations that address fictional issues around gaming in general and poker in specific.

Here is the latest on the "Poker as Political Punching Bag" watch.

United Kingdom: The UK Office of Communication has announced plans to reclassify gambling channels to the category of teleshopping and advertising.The proposed changes are said to be in the interest of protecting consumers.

The gambling channels would be covered by an advertising code, which is designed to protect consumers against misleading practices. The new proposed rules should have very little to no impact on what the channels are currently broadcasting; regulators will just be making sure they are offered in a socially responsible fashion.

California: The long rumored bill to make online poker legal in California has been introduced in the State Legislature. While the bill would not officially overturn the provisions of either UIGEA nor the much older Wire Act. The measure would provide cover for banks and other financial institutions by giving them another argument that the vague federal regulations are unenforceable and uninterpretatble.

Back in the UK: The Super Casino issue is still hot on the poltical agenda. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his government are likely to be sued by Manchester, the city who a year ago was awarded the super casino site, when ministers this week confirm that neither Manchester nor Blackpool will be allowed to open a Las Vegas-style gambling resort. Manchester will seek to recover over 250 million pounds spent on the Super Casino previously approve my the UK authorities.

Back in the U.S.: The Poker Players Alliance spent $900,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government on online gambling legislation.

The PPA, with 800,000 members, lobbied on a bill that would exempt poker from a law that restricts online gambling, and for legislation that would regulate or re-regualte the Internet gaming industry. Since all funds for PPA activities come from members, who we must assume are poker players; this means that $900,000 was taken out of the poker economy to lobby the U.S. government to leave law abiding citizens alone. Land of the free and home of the over-regulated.

For all the poker players in California, who want to know what they can do to support online poker freedom. Here is the latest letter I received from Senator Feinstein of California. After reading this if you would like to contact the Senator (whether you live in California or not) here is her email contact information.

Dear Poker Shrink,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

The last two WSOP champions have come from the state of California.

California has more card rooms than any other state in the USA, including Nevada.

California has had legalized poker longer than anywhere else in the USA and has sustained the game when even the Las Vegas casinos had little interest in spreading a poker game.

You might say Texas Hold'em came out of the backrooms of the Southwest but it has been California that has sustained poker during all of the dark times when the government sought to limit our ability to play our favorite game.

So it should come as a shock to all Californians, all Americans and all poker players around the world that one of California's liberal United States Senators is opposed to poker and online poker in particular.

For those not familiar with California politics. The state of California is the first state in the history of the United States to send two women to the U.S. Senate at the same time and these two Senators are both very liberal democrats.

One would assume that such politicians would be for personal freedom and personal responsibility but in the case of Senator Dianne Feinstein this is not the case. Take a look at this form letter that she sends to anyone who writes her about the online poker ban: