Part I.
Robert Wexler is a Congressman from the 19th District in Florida who recently introduced what could be a very important piece of legislation for poker players. The Skill Game Protection Act seeks create a ‘carve out’ in the current legislative environment such that poker could be classified as a game of skill, and in turn citizens would be permitted to play poker on the Internet. Carve outs currently exist for things like horse racing, and lotteries on the internet, and the Skill Game Protection Act seeks to add poker to that list. We sat down with Congressman Wexler recently to get his views on the state of the union of poker on the hill.
John Caldwell (Pokernews): Congressman Wexler, thanks for joining us, I appreciate you taking the time. You recently introduced the Skill Game Protection Act into the Congress. I know this is a piece of legislation you have very high hopes for. What motivated you to take on this cause?
Congressman Robert Wexler: In the last Congress when Republicans controlled the Congress, we passed a very bad piece of legislation. I voted against it as did most democrats. In essence, it’s the newest form of prohibition. The prohibition is consenting adults cannot play poker over the Internet. Ironically, the Congress, the last Congress, said you can gamble on horses over the Internet, you can play State lotteries over the Internet but you can’t play games of skill over the Internet. I thought as really a matter of personal freedom more than anything else, Congress should not be telling consenting adults in America what games they can play on the Internet. I was motivated to file legislation once the Democrats got control of the Congress; I knew there would be a more amenable environment to do this type of thing. What I’ve learned is that poker is even far more popular than I ever dreamed it was. Apparently, more Americans watch poker on television that watch college football or NBA basketball, which is an extraordinary statement. Presidents have played poker in the White House, members of Congress played poker in the capital, and obviously millions of Americans played poker at their kitchen tables and dining room tables and have played poker on the Internet. It’s the 21st century – there is no reason in the world why people can’t play poker, play chess, play Mahjong, play bridge, any game of skill on the Internet as long as we have protections, which we do, to make sure teenagers, young people aren’t on there gambling, and that we prevent money laundering from happening, and we have the technology to do that.
Pokernews: That’s an interesting question, an interesting point. You’ve obviously taken the skill based approach. Your piece of legislation is essentially an attempt to exempt skill based games from a prior piece of legislation. Why did you feel that was the best approach to accomplish the in goal of allowing these personal freedoms take place?
Wexler: Politics is the art of trying to analyze what is possible. There are some people that have a moral or ethical issue with gambling of any sorts. I would respectfully suggest they were a bit hypocritical when they voted for this bill, because the bill that is currently in effect, allows gambling on the Internet for lottery and for horses. However, I thought it would be most palatable if we said, “games of skill such as poker are American institutions – poker is an American institution just like baseball.” When put in that context I thought it would be a more palatable political issue for many people. I happen to also think that the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, has a bill that would apply to credit card transactions of all type of wagering on the Internet. I think that’s a great bill too. I’m a sponsor of that bill. I think that should pass and that would be a very important legislation to pass.
Pokernews: That was actually my next question. There are two other pieces of legislation in addition to your legislation that are currently out there. Can these pieces of legislation co-exist? Do they actually help each other? Or is there is sort of a mitigating effect involved with them being in play at the same time?
Wexler: There is the Barney Frank’s legislation, which I am a sponsor of, which would permit credit card transactions regarding wagering on the Internet. There’s Congresswoman Shelley Berkley’s bill, which would study the broader issue of Internet gaming, which I’m also very supportive of. And there is my bill, which would provide for, as you say, the added exemptions for games of skill. I think all three actually work well together. Because of what they have done and we need to do even more, is that we’ve raised the level of awareness as to how absurd the current law is and that we need to fix it. The fix I hope will be to ultimately permit adults, consenting adults, to play whatever games they wish, wherever they wish it, in a consenting fashion. Every American, whether they are Conservative Republican or Liberal Democrat, or anywhere in between should be asking themselves with all that is going wrong in the world, whether it’s Iraq, whether it’s Iran’s nuclear quest, whether it’s social security, not having enough money necessarily to make it through the next century, medicare short falls, education problems… Why would Congress invest itself so to create this extraordinary prohibition of preventing consenting adults from playing poker on the Internet when we know in past experience prohibition doesn’t work? The net result unfortunately will be, people will be forced to play the Internet, playing poker on the Internet on offshore sites where they’re not secure. They will be playing on Russian sites, or Caribbean sites. There will be no regulation by American governmental structures; there will be no revenue to American governmental structures. It’s counterproductive and also in my mind it violates the very personal freedoms that we cherish as Americans.
Pokernews: That leads me to another question I find interesting. Why now? What do you think? Can you put your finger on one thing that has caused there to be so much interest on the Hill on this specific issue? If there is one thing you put your finger on what would it be?
Wexler: I’d say two things. One, poker is a national pastime in America. Congress has stepped over the line, threatening that national pastime. The second thing, which has to be said, is there is new leadership in Congress. Under the old leadership, under the Republican leadership, this would have never been reconsidered. But under the Democratic leadership, under the leadership of Barney Frank – is Chairman of the Financial Services Committee – there is an opportunity for Democrats to make a change and for Democrats, like me and Shelley Berkley, to have a bigger impact on the process.
Part II.
In part one of our interview with Congressman Robert Wexler yesterday, we discussed the piece of legislation that he recently introduced into Congress. In part two of the interview, Wexler talks about the process that must be undertaken to get bills like his ‘Skill Game Protection Act’ passed.
Pokernews: Do you actually feel a sense of movement among your colleagues? Do you feel people gravitating towards this issue, and people becoming interested? Even people who were opposed, or people that voted for the legislation that was passed last year, do you feel sort of a tide, a ground swell if you will, of real interest that can enact real change?
Wexler: It’s hard to feel a ground swell in Washington over few issues or many issues, it’s hard, but the bottom line is there are thousands of poker players in every Congressional district in America. If people who are interested and enjoy playing poker, if one one-hundredth of those people take a small amount of time to contact in one way or another their member of Congress and say, “Hey, Mr. or Mrs. Member of Congress, why in God’s name would you vote to prohibit me, a adult, to choose to play whatever game I want to play on the Internet?” The more people engage in the political process in that fashion, the more compelling it will be, and Congress will react. What I think most Americans don’t appreciate, letters DO matter to members of Congress. Emails DO matter, form letters, personal letters DO matter, telephone calls do matter. There has been an article or two about this issue. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal, there have been articles on others, and it is just anecdotal. But I got a bigger response from just being in one line in an article about a poker issue than I have in just about any other issue I’ve been involved in, in my twelve years in Congress.
Pokernews: And that’s really what causes people in your position react, right?
Wexler: Yeah, absolutely.
Pokernews: And you as a member of Congress get this sense that these people really want this thing and you have to help make it happen.
Wexler: People enjoy playing poker. They enjoy playing whatever games they’re accustomed to playing, and when the Federal Government steps literally into your home and says “Were telling you from Washington you can’t play poker on the Internet!” People get offended, rightfully so.
Pokernews: What’s next? What’s going to push it over the top? Is it a revenue issue like figuring out a way to monetize and gain revenue or at least get the Federal Government involved from the revenue side? Is it simply a personal privacy issue? What’s the next step?
Wexler: Like most things in politics, it’s a combination of things. I think the issue of personal freedom and privacy is very important. I think the idea that we would in effect create another category of prohibition in this country in people think about it will say, “That’s insane!” When you boil it down to its very bottom line, which is “I can’t play poker on the Internet!” that it will have a big impact, and a whole host of things. There will be some people that say, “You know, the Internet is the venue of the 21st century for everything. So, the idea that we would prohibit poker and other games of skill, is not only just counterproductive, it’s antiquated! So I think there is a whole host of different things. And, yes there will be a question of regulation and revenue. There will be a question of …most people say “This isn’t going to stop it anyway, it will just force people into a different venue that is less safe, less secure and will cause more problems than we were designing to cure in the first place.”
Pokernews: One thing I’ve been fascinated with and I assume you talk to these people, what’s the position of big gaming on this issue? Have you talked to people from MGM/Mirage, from Harrah’s? Where do they stand and what are you feeling from them? Is this a business they want to enter? Do you get any sense of where they’re at on this issue?
Wexler: I’m not an expert on the gaming industry. What I do know is that the gaming industry is not monolithic by any means. There is a variety of opinions, but the one thing I think everyone in the gaming industry does believe is that the current law is hypocritical, because it exempts out state lotteries which, if I understand the statistics correctly, the poorest people are more likely to engage in gambling in the lottery than there are in poker or any other form of gambling. So the terrible irony is we permitted the one form of gambling that actually hurts the poorest people, that we made an exception for where the payout is the least and so forth. What the gaming industry also rightfully recognizes is the horses were given a special exemption. I think what the gaming industry, more than anything, wants there to be in Washington an understanding that the gaming industry is an industry like all other industries, and it should be treated like part of our economy, an important part of our economy, and it shouldn’t be treated in any specialised fashion, neither singled out for certain types of punitive regulations or otherwise. I think if that were to happen, the gaming industry in general would be satisfied. In the short term, I think what they would like to see is a very punitive, hypocritical counterproductive law overturned.
Pokernews: Okay, fair enough. As you may have learned in your time of being exposed to poker players. Poker players are not the most patient breed of people. The question I’m asked the most, actually when people come to me they assume I have more knowledge about this issue. Time line – is there any way to put any type of time line towards any decision in either direction, whether it’s real change on this issue, or status quo, or whatever?
Wexler: I wish there were, but in Washington it’s a very difficult thing to do. Right now we’re in the hearing process. We’re just energizing. It’s going to take a significant amount of effort, public awareness, and energy on behalf of the poker playing public to move Congress. Congress hasn’t set a date yet and much for us to get our troops out of Iraq. I hope we’re playing poker at the same time, before we’re getting out of Iraq. I think we should be out of Iraq yesterday.
Pokernews: Absolutely…I appreciate your time. You’ve already touched on this but I would like you to just reiterate it because I want people to listen to what you say. What can the average poker player do who lives in the 19th district or anywhere, with respect to getting some movement on this issue?
Wexler: The 19th district of Florida, they could just continue to vote for me and everything will be fine. {smiles} But in all the other 434 districts what they ought to do is let their opinions be known to their member of Congress. One – let them know that they’re aware of the current law that was passed by the last Congress, which hopefully they think is ludicrous. They don’t need to spell out in specifics everything that needs to be done. They just need to tell the member of Congress “We think the law that was passed last Congress is awful! You should support Wexler’s bill that creates the ability for people to play games of skill on the Internet. Support that bill, and support Barney Frank’s bill, and support Shelley Berkley’s bill. But most importantly, to give Americans their freedom back, their freedom of choice when it comes to playing games on the Internet.”
Pokernews: Great. Congressman, we really appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
Wexler: My pleasure.
