Online Gambling Law Upheld by Washington Judge
Despite popular backing and a common sense appeal, a judge in the state of Washington ruled against a challenge to the state law making online gambling a felony. Attorney and former gubernatorial candidate Lee Rousso had brought the suit, alleging that the law was unconstitutional.
The 2006 law expanded the list of electronically transferred gambling activities considered illegal to include all online wagering, including poker.
Rousso claimed the law violates the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution, as online play invloves both companies and players around the world.
Rousso's cause was supported by a large group of poker players holding a rally on the courthouse steps.
Even though Washington allows poker at land-based locations within the state, Judge Mary Roberts said Rousso did not prove the law protected instate gambling interests at the expense of intrastate concerns.
The growing political entity that is the Poker Players' Alliance demanded the decision be reviewed and overruled. The Alliance, of which Rousso is Washington state director, has enlisted over a million members nationwide, and estimates there are 800,000 online poker players in the state.
PPA spokesman Taylor Gross said, "Subjecting poker players to criminal penalties that are on par with those for possessing child pornography or distributing heroin is unmerited and unfair."
The Washington law provides for penalties as steep as five years in jail and a 10,000 fine for any online gambling participation, although no cases have been prosecuted.
Rousso promised to continue to fight the law, and predicted the battle would eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Perhaps the absurdity of this confrontation could be avoided if Washington lawmakers would step up and repeal this foolish measure. Rather than force the state and its judicial representatives to defend an undesirable and unpopular law, legislators could withdraw the bill and please virtually everyone.
Recent Comments
| Posted by: Terry | When: 05/16/2008 09:55:23 PM EST |
| Good try! I applaud your efforts. Still, I can't help but think that everyone is on the wrong track about how to get this overturned. I am a retired poker room manager. I left my job in 1997 due to a disability. I think this law openly discriminates against me and anyone else who has a disability that prevents them from easily accessing a brick and mortar casino. It forces people to leave their homes, get into their cars, drive to the nearest casino, and make their way through crowded floor space, into small poker rooms that have passageways littered with chairs, and between seated players and tray tables, and then finally to sit in uncomfortable chairs, and play with oftentimes poor lighting, exposing themselves to human born illnesses, etc. etc. . . .you get the idea! . I assume that the law could be overturned on this basis alone . . . what more would one need to prove? | |
| Posted by: Terry | When: 05/16/2008 10:50:54 PM EST |
| One more relevant point: Washington state Gambling Commission spokeswoman Susan Arland stated that the law is meant to protect the public from the risk of playing on unregulated sites. "You don't know who's behind that screen. You don't know if the games are fair or honest. You don't know if you get paid your winnings." Although I somewhat agree with her negative assessment of online gaming sites, I don't believe that all of them are guilty to the extent indicated. More importantly, the implication is that, if you play at a brick and mortar casino in the State of Washington you will never get cheated. Without going into detail, I know this to be untrue! Further, if the dealer's toke is added to the jackpot drop and the the rake, the amount of money going off the tables in poker rooms across the state, is enough to render all but the highest stakes games, unbeatable over the long haul! Needless to say that because you are not really being protected by the State of Washington, it would be prudent to stay out of the highest stakes games! Even though they may appear to be beatable because of the lower percentage rake-off, they are the most likely to get scammed! All of this serves to make it virtually impossible to win in brick and mortar casinos over long run. The State of Washington is thereby forcing people to go where they can only lose, while making it illegal to play where they could conceivably win! If the State of Washington really wants to protect gamblers, while continuing to collect the derived revenue, they should quit the hypocritical fasaude and open online gaming themselves! | |
| Posted by: Joshua McCarthy | When: 05/17/2008 12:26:22 PM EST |
| Thanks for your response; i love your idea of revoking the law as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Isn't it strange that a defender of the law would be concerned with protecting the public from unregulated sites? First off, if that is the problem, regulate them! But more implausibly, she wants us to believe we are protected by a law that sends us to prison for 5 years! I think I'd rather be scammed than go to jail, thank you very much. Along the lines of Arland's reasoning, since penny stocks are a notoriously risky investment, anyone who buys a penny stock should go to prison for ten years. | |
| Posted by: Andrew | When: 05/17/2008 01:21:56 PM EST |
| I think it's funny how this law has brought so much awareness to those who would generally stay unaware of how ignorant most of the United States laws are, and also how ignorant most of those creating the laws are. At least there's that! | |
