[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Translation: I disagree with you, but can't substantively refute what you're saying, so I really just wish you'd shut up.
If you disagree with my assessment, please explain exactly how and why you think I'm wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Done. Still waiting for you to share with us how you'd go about fighting this issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first and most important thing is not to make the situation any worse. As it is, practically anyody who want to play poker online can do so, even if it is inconvenient. The situation is stupid and awkward, but it's not fatal. Any proposal that invites federal licensing, taxation, and or regulation of online gambling would, in my view, be ultimately destructive. (I'm reminded of Mulder's line in "X-Files": "Did you think you could summon the devil and then ask him to behave?")
A clean poker carve-out would be a nice start. A simple, one-sentence repeal of the UIGEA portions of the final bill would be great. No, I don't expect this to happen, but then again, I don't expect any of the other "cures" to go anywhere, either.
Far from being "naive," as you and others have surmised, I'm deeply cynical. I simply don't believe that the congress and president who enacted this monstrosity nearly unanimously is going to be in any hurry to substantially fix the mess it created. There simply isn't enough political benefit to these people.
I'd like to see the online poker sites band together and institute a declarative judgment action, asking a federal court to find that their operations are not threatened by the UIGEA, using arguments as outlined in this article:
http://www.firstamendment.com/breaki...the_UIGEA.html (i.e., that because poker players bet against each other rather than the house, the sites are not "in the business" as required for prosecution; that nothing in the law prohibits use of an intermediary e-wallet type service; that the web-blocking provisions are unconstitutional, etc).
I'd like to see Congress pre-empt state bans or regulations of online gaming (except purely intrastate transactions) under the interstate commerce clause.
But like I said, I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon. Sure, there will be token gestures like this week's hearing, but it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.