When the first signs of our poker apocalypse rang out a few months back in the form of bills sponsored by Reps. Jim Leach and Bob Goodlatte, I did what all Americans have been taught to do when legislation we don't like is up for consideration. I contacted my senators and representatives to express my opposition to any Washingtonian designs to take my favorite pastime away from me. When I say take it away, you see, I'm not being over-reactive or dramatic; unlike many of my poker-playing friends, the only games within a stone's throw of me are those on the internet. I cannot be even a part-time serious poker player living where I do. In my rural area of middle Tennessee we're a minimum of four hours by car from any casino with a sizable poker room. Online games, then, are important to my development as a player - and communicating that to those holding online poker's (American) fate in their hands was likewise important. I expected at least a token response from the elected officials representing me; what I received was an education in the way things are done in the New Washington.
For the record, before we go any further I should note who my elected officials are. Marsha Blackburn (R) is my single representative in Congress. Lamar Alexander (R), former governor of Tennessee and Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush, is my junior senator. And the esteemed Majority Leader of the United States Senate (not to mention 2008 US presidential hopeful) is my senior senator - a Republican by the name of William Harrison Frist.
While I might be isolated at home, I do get to see the poker world at large on a frequent basis. As a tournament reporter for a major poker magazine, I've been fortunate enough to get to know plenty of the major figures in the game today. For the last year I've been on hand for the biggest stories in tournament poker, watching them through my camera's lens and passing the word on to the legions of fans following their favorite players' progress over the internet. I count myself lucky to be in close proximity to the larger-than-life characters who inhabit the poker world today, not only because the people themselves are colorful and interesting, but also because I get to see first-hand what the rest of the world sees only through the heavily-edited lens of a television camera. From the pitch of the first card to the winner holding up wads of cash, I'm there as a witness to everything that transpires.
Drawing on my experiences with poker, I decided that the best argument I could make for poker was a very simple one: this game brings people together. (I ought to know - I've met so many people I would never have otherwise known that I couldn't begin to count them...all my fellow Pokerblog.com contributors included.) The most remarkable thing to me about these big tournaments isn't that no-names win their way to millions through cheap online satellites, or that record prizes are given away seemingly every time we turn around. The most telling trait of poker is that people who wouldn't get along outside of the game do so when they're mucking cards and slinging chips. Jews and Arabs, Democrats and Republicans, the French and, well, just about everybody - groups who can't stand one another away from the table are perfectly content to hang out together for upwards of 12 hours a day when they're playing poker. And when you consider that their main goal is to take each other's money, it becomes even more remarkable that so many diverse people can get along when in other arenas of life they might be at each other's throats. In my letter, I pointed this out - and then compared the world of poker to the world at large, which is more tumultuous than at any other point in my 30 years. Surely any game that can unite people is worth considering useful - right?
Marsha Blackburn eventually wrote back to me and never mentioned any consideration of my points. She described to that she supported a ban on online gambling because terrorists might use it to launder their money, and also because she wanted to protect American children. While her concerns are genuine, I think she chose the wrong method to address those concerns. At least someone in her office took the time to send me a form letter with her position, though. I can't say as much for the two men who supposedly represent me in the U.S. Senate. As of today, I've never received any response from either of them. What my congresswoman has told me is that rather than providing a safer environment for all Americans to pursue an activity of their own choosing, prohibition - an approach that American history has shown never works - will solve our problems. What my senators have told me through their silence is that my voice doesn't register on their landscape.
Because of his silence, I can't claim to know Mr. Alexander's reasons for opposing online gambling. However, despite his silence, I can venture a guess with Mr. Frist. A look at his entire career in politics shows that he is willing to take shots at the easiest targets in order to take a step forward for himself - shots like circumventing the normal debate on an issue like banning online gambling in order to curry favor with a representative from the state that holds the first caucus in the presidential primary cycle. The power he holds as Senate majority leader, combined with his obvious lack of professional ethics, equaled an easy decision when the normal methods of putting a bill up for consideration had failed him. He simply squashed debate through a political trick. He got his way because he decided that's what was going to happen.
The lesson for me in this instance was that trying to reason with an enemy like Bill Frist is pointless. Writing letters (or even making phone calls) doesn't matter when the guy in charge has his mind made up - especially when you aren't offering anything other than long-distance common sense. If we're ever to change this situation we find ourselves in, we're going to have to change our tactics. What that means in real-world terms is that we've got to start lobbying to get what we want. We need someone with access to Capitol Hill to make our arguments for us. If common sense won't change Mr. Frist's mind, perhaps a well-paid, skilled lobbyist will. And even if the lobbyist won't change his mind, there's nothing that says he won't change the minds of enough others in Washington that what Mr. Frist wants won't matter in the end.
