On the heels of the Republican convention that wrapped last week in Tampa, Florida, the Democratic Party has come together for its convention this week in Charlotte, North Carolina. While the GOP caused a ruckus by calling for the prohibition of internet gambling in its platform, the Democratic platform passed on Tuesday nary brushed the contentious issue.Over its 40-page platform, the Democratic Party spells out measures that look to get its candidates elected to office. On the subject of online poker and gaming, however, the Democrats do not even touch the subject. It isn’t until the 39th page of its platform that the Democrats even broach the issue of “internet freedom” and, in that two-paragraph statement, the ongoing battle over whether the Federal Government should regulate online poker and/or gaming is not mentioned.
The platform simply says, “To preserve the internet as a platform for commerce, debate, learning, and innovation in the 21st century, we… oppose the extension of intergovernmental controls over the internet.”
This is in stark contrast to the stance taken last week by the GOP in its platform. Under the title of “Making the Internet Family-Friendly,” the Republican Party clearly spelled out its intentions by saying, “Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to internet betting.”The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), which has been monitoring the parties’ stances on the online poker question, doesn’t believe that the omission of any language on the subject by the Democrats is intentional. “Countless Democratic members of Congress have expressed their support of a licensed and regulated online poker market in the United States,” John Pappas, the Executive Director of the PPA, stated. “With so many issues drawing hard lines in the sand between Democrats and Republicans this year, this is one issue that is naturally bipartisan.”
Following the passage of the GOP platform last week, top Republican officials in Nevada, which is primed to open its intrastate online poker operation later this year, distanced themselves from the Republican Party's stance regarding online poker and gaming. Moreover, leading Nevada Democrats Shelley Berkley and Harry Reid firmly back passage of Federal regulation.
Neither side, Republican or Democrat, has “clean hands” when it comes to supporting regulation of online poker or the alternative, prohibition. Many members of the Republican Party have long advocated for an online gaming ban dating back to the 1990s. Those efforts came to fruition in 2006 when, led by former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (pictured) of Tennessee, a bill was tacked onto a “must pass” piece of legislation.When then-Republican President George Bush signed that bill, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) became the law of the land.
The Democratic Party hasn’t been successful in pushing the agenda forward regarding regulation of the online poker industry. Although Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, who will retire with the close of the current Congress, introduced measures in 2008 to overturn the UIGEA and regulate the industry, his bills never made it out of committee and died when the current Congress was seated in 2010.
The Obama administration pushed the UIGEA into action last year with the Black Friday indictments. Last year’s actions by the Department of Justice, led by Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, knocked off the three largest rake-based online poker rooms servicing American players and crippled the ability of U.S. citizens to play poker online.
Of late, it has been the Republicans pushing for online poker regulation. Texas Representative Joe Barton’s bill, HR 2366, has stalled in committee. Republican Senator Jon Kyl (not running for reelection) and Reid have allegedly reached an agreement on the issue, but that bill hasn’t reached committee, as it appears there might not be enough support for it to pass through the Senate.
