[tangled]

“If we were that unpopular, we’d have been banned long ago…”

TE, we have been. Remember Bacchus’s “ I have letters from 49 State’s Attorneys General…”. In addition, many people believe that the Wire Act will ultimately be interpreted as applying to all, non-exempt internet gaming. We know they are wrong on both issues, but we also know that they think they are right. So why would they think they would have to pass redundant legislation to ban us?

Also, online gaming is a problem that doesn’t get a great deal of attention, and when it does, Kyl and all the other members of his merry ban of clowns have been right there trying to push a federal solution , and thereby, inadvertently, distracting States from focusing on the problem.

If IGREA somehow passes Congress, then all these situational protections dissolve. There will be no more confusion about what a state has to do to stop online gaming and no more ambiguity about whose job it is to do it.

In general, while gaming initiatives usually enjoy a popular majority, they do poorly in legislatures. The reason is because pro-gaming voters aren’t crazy enough to factor gaming issues heavily into decisions over who to vote for. Anti-gaming voters are crazy enough. These chicken littles see gaming with a “Reefer Madness” mentality, believing that society will descend into ungodly chaos if gambling flourishes. They will spend their votes to stop this from happening. There is little to gain for legislators to support gaming, but a lot to loose - like their jobs an any future electoral promotions.

In the specific, internet gaming is seen by State legislatures as unwelcome competition for State-pedaled gaming. Also anti-gaming zealots have managed to create powerful negative propaganda for online gaming: “the crack-cocaine of gambling”, ”click your mouse…” and images of five-year olds doubling down.

But, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. I am not aware of pro-internet gaming forces ever winning a single legislative vote. They have lost them all, and lost them big. If I am wrong, please educate me. But even if I have missed a vote, my overall point is still valid: pro-internet gaming issues do very poorly when legislatures put these issues to a legislative vote. The legislative success that online gaming has sometimes achieved is when they have managed to keep adverse legislation from coming to a vote. Why would anyone believe any of this would change if IGREA passes?

Of course, the Wexler bill is another matter since it is only -as I understand it- a tweaking of the UIGEA that does not openly provoke any action from the states. I am not saying we would be in the clear with the Wexler bill, but our chances would be significantly better.