The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Secretary Paulson:
I understand that some who wish to prohibit law-abiding Americans from choosing to play online poker in the privacy of their own homes have been lobbying your department for UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) regulations that would, in essence, create an Internet gaming prohibition. This concerns me greatly as a freedom-loving American and as a recreational poker player, as Congress did not ban any gaming with UIGEA. It seems anti-poker interest groups would have you disregard this fact and would use your department as a back door means of creating the prohibition they were unable to win legislatively.
As you know, UIGEA does not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists like Senator Kyl and Congressman Bachus are fond of saying this. However, what they neglect to mention is that Internet poker is not illegal under federal law (including the Wire Act of 1961, which covers only sports betting). As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. Given this, I believe the UIGEA regulations should either exempt or simply neglect to mention Internet poker – if not nationwide, certainly for play in states where Internet poker is not explicitly illegal. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet poker, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it.
As for other Internet gaming, Goldman Sachs held large positions in BetOnSports, SportingBet, and other offshore Internet gaming sites while you were CEO. Certainly they would have not held these positions during your tenure as CEO had you felt they either violated U.S. laws or were immoral. I believe you were correct to have authorized these positions and I commend you for it; Americans should have the freedom to make their own decisions with regards to online gaming.
Also, as you are undoubtedly aware, UIGEA has erected a trade barrier around the United States that purports to protect our land-based casinos, horse racing interests, and state lotteries from international competition. In fact, the WTO just ruled against the United States, again, regarding our closed gaming markets. Now your department is being asked by some to increase the height of this trade barrier even further. In fact, the controls some in Congress are suggesting, including having banks snoop through Americans’ financial transactions and having Internet service providers snoop through Americans’ Internet usage history, are more fitting for China or Iran than for America. As you are a well regarded and principled free trade advocate, I strongly urge you to support free trade in this matter by disregarding those who would have you exceed the specific UIGEA requirements.
Unfortunately, while these anti-gaming interest groups list various reasons to justify an online poker prohibition, these groups oppose effective regulations to address those concerns. On June 8, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing, entitled Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System? (available on the committee website, at
www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ). The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the feasibility of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. The hearing conclusively showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, operator integrity, homeland security concerns, integrity of sporting, tax collection, and other issues. However, rather than working toward regulation that addresses their stated concerns, the opponents of Internet gambling prefer you to restrict the freedoms of Americans well beyond what was passed by Congress with UIGEA. It seems they simply dislike gambling and wish to impose their personal opinions on others. I trust you will not allow your department to further this unworkable system, especially when effective regulation is being eschewed.
While your department is clearly compelled to enforce the Act, I ask that you enforce only that which is specifically mandated by the bill. Again, UIGEA is not an online gaming prohibition, regardless of what the anti-gaming interest groups say.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
TheEngineer