The Washington law and the commerce clause

[catlover]

At least one attorney seems to think that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution would present a serious barrier to enforcement of the Washington law.

http://www.firstamendment.com/comerceclause.php#_ftn7

I think it would be really interesting to try to put together a challenge on these grounds. I, for one, am willing to help out. But I'm not going to spring 5-6 figures on my own to do this.

What would be the best way to go about this?

[Copernicus]

At least one attorney seems to think that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution would present a serious barrier to enforcement of the Washington law.

http://www.firstamendment.com/comerceclause.php#_ftn7

I think it would be really interesting to try to put together a challenge on these grounds. I, for one, am willing to help out. But I'm not going to spring 5-6 figures on my own to do this.

What would be the best way to go about this?

The PPA (or some other organization representing us) should mount the challenge utilizing membership funds and substantial donations from the sites.

[catlover]

And from us . . .

I commend Party on it's program to support the PPA. I think it's a great start.

But let's face it, we are losing, at least in Washington. We need to do more.

[brendanb438]

Do you guys actually think anything will get through the Federal end of this before the change over in the house and senate? Seems like this is gonna just drag on for another 8 months and then go away.

Brendan

[ColossalFlop]

After how completely amateurish the PPA looked on that MSN video I've lost all hope in them. The mistakes made there were beyond elementary, and if they can't stand up to an idiot like that guy, there's no way they're winning over the hearts and minds of smarter, reasonably concerned people. With the right argument (one that obviously seperates poker from forms of gambling like slots) people could probably be convinced on the narrow case of poker, but that's not being done. If this is going to get fixed in washington, it's not going to be through the fledgling and bumbling PPA. It's going to be done through proper legal channels with someone that has the resources to get the law challenged.

[Wake up CALL]

At least one attorney thinks you should be able to sue McDonalds when you eat their fries and become a fat slob. Just because an attorney wants to make a profit it doesn't mean the case has any merit whatsoever.

[BillJames]

The Commerce Clause argument is plausible, though I don't think it would work. This is simply because if courts accept that state regulation of the Internet is a Commerce Clause violation, then it will (by implication) throw the hundreds of already existing state Internet regulations (on other subjects) in legal flux. Maybe this is a good thing, but courts are generally very reluctant to do this sort of thing. And don't forget that this Commerce Clause argument would be inapplicable to any federal ban of Internet gaming.

I think the best approach, practically speaking, is not the libertarian argument of "let me do what I want on the Internet!" because even though this may be true, it clearly is not convincing people. I think the only thing that will work is something along the lines of "we NEED to regulate it and get tax dollars from it -- but not ban it" and then counter arguments that Internet gaming is as harmful as people who want the ban say it is.

It would be great if someone (an elected official) actually introduced a counter-bill that provided for the legalization (and regulation for taxes, etc.) of Internet gaming. Then we'd have something to point to instead of being on the defensive, as we are now.

[Sarge85]

Well Said Bill.

It would be political suicide for someone to come in and say that Internet Gambling should be legal but taking the side of regulating it, and taxing it would certainly work. Frankly I think the poker sites and/or casino sites should step up and say – hey lets get this all above board. The last thing we need is friction between the industry and the policy makers.

Hopefully the industry players realize that what is happening in Washington, could very well happen in the other 49 states. It is in their interests to have this regulated. Of course the downsize for the players probably will be a higher rake --- but isn’t that better than the alternative

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[MrGladstone]

We haven't heard much from Tim Eyeman recently. Seems like online poker would make for a good Initiative?

[AAAA]

someone tired to regulate and organize online poker in North Dakota, and people stayed away in droves!

Rep. Kasper from ND got no support when he tried to legalize poker from the state of north dakota. i wonder if the sites and players will change their tunes if this law gets through?