Full Tilt report exonerates Alderney gambling regulator
A report into the Alderney gambling regulator’s handling of the besieged Full Tilt Poker website has found it was “appropriate, timely and fair”.

Its author, Peter Dean, said the episode was “an example of regulation working as it should”.

He said the Alderney Gambling Control Commission had “conducted the ‘fit and proper’ tests with appropriate rigour”.

The commission revoked the online firm’s licence in September after claims of financial fraud. Read the full story…

This report would have been about as independent as my left nut. You can’t call yourself independent when the entire economy of your country is dependent on a positive report. In the wake of revelations of years of dodgy loans to players, non-segregation of funds etc etc at Full Tilt Poker. It can’t be denied that the AGCC failed massively over the course of many years and deserve no credibility going forward.

Yet another example of why it is foolish to rely on government (who can’t even run a post office) to regulate instead of the private sector (those who actually have something to lose if they don’t do their job properly). No doubt the AGCC will remain largely unchanged out of this whole debacle and again oversee millions of dollars of players money…

LIBERTY IN OUR HEARTS – Thanks to Richard Shilling

Being an online poker player, the laws in other major poker playing countries have a dramatic impact upon my everyday life. None more so than the United States, which prior to April of this year contributed about 50% of the players that I would face on a daily basis. It is with great interest then, that I follow to 2012 US presidential race. In my mind, there are only two candidates that you can be serious about when it comes to the possibility of having a quick and easy return of US players to the global online gaming market. I’ll leave it to you guys to research these two guys more meaningfully, but I’ve come up with some of the pros and cons I used when comparing the two of them.

Gary Johnson

Pros

• Has spoken out explicitly about online poker in this campaign and you get the sense it would be something high on his agenda
• Comes across as less radical and possibly more appealing to people hearing the true freedom/liberty message for the first time
• More likely to work with other people/parties in office and actually bring about some meaningful changes

Cons

• Doesn’t have the following or money raising capabilities that Ron Paul does and thus stands even less chance of earning the nomination
• Foreign policy
• Maybe a little too willing to compromise on freedoms in order to please more people

Ron Paul

Pros

• Greater recognition of his name and fundraising capabilities
• The most consistent politician in recent memory at presenting his beliefs and following through on them
• Has spoken out against government action on online gambling in the past (as shown in this clip from 2007 below)

Cons

• More radical, which I personally think is a good thing from a philosophical perspective, but it does make him more polarizing to voters
• Aged 75 and not getting any younger

Reason.tv: Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

A new champion of the libertarian cause has emerged out of the UK in the last few weeks. Daniel Hannen entered the public eye when he unleashed on Gordon Brown in the European parliament in late March. He has since been appearing on US cable networks and other media, getting his ideas out there.

Everyone in the poker community talks about government regulated and taxed internet poker with such hope and enthusiasm, but I really do question whether that is the right path. Is government involvement really a good thing? Bureaucrats flexed their muscles in 2006 and summoned all the power they could to ban online gambling. By allowing them to become a major player in the online poker market we would only increase the size and scope of their influence in the industry. While online poker could once again be ‘legal’ again, who is to say that administrations down the road don’t decide to impose another ban. A secondary prohibition would  be even more damning than the one we have now because poker sites would be even more dependent on United States than they were prior to the UIGEA. Everyone should be warned that the power to regulate is the power to destroy something.

One of the biggest issues with current legalisation proposals is the taxation aspect. There has been talk that taxation of online poker would be a great way to finance some of the mind blowing spending the Obama administration is undertaking. Corporate taxes would be passed onto players and rake will increase compared to pre-UIGEA levels. Teamed with less competition due to ‘regulation’, the price of poker will go up even further. There is also the potential for the government to force poker sites to withhold winnings for personal taxes.

Some people will contend that government regulation is needed in order to stop another Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet type cheating scandal (or worse). The free market is a much better form of protection for consumers than any type of government involvement though. If we cast our minds back to pre-UIGEA times it wasn’t exactly the Wild West, there were many reputable sites with solid customer service that satisfied consumers. The occasions that there was something shady going on, it wasn’t the government that discovered it, but a bunch of 2+2ers. Subsequently, the identity of the culprits came to light, all without any government involvement. In fact, the US-government currently stands in the way of prosecuting fraud because according to them online gambling shouldn’t even be taking place. So I think it is important to realise that anytime government talks of regulating online poker, what they really want is the ability to get a slice of the pie and ascert their influence on it. They may pretend they are doing it for a noble reason like “protecting” consumers.

Our best hope is for a proposal that simply makes the UIGEA go away. Which thankfully is what Barney Frank is fighting for at the moment. Hopefully, those advocating government involvement in the industry have a re-think on whether that is the best idea in the world.

The Republican Party has declared themselves against online gambling. They’ve already taken away your ability to fund your online accounts and if re-elected they will go even further. According to the following press release, banning online gambling is right up there with stopping online child predators and getting rid of street gangs.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Crime.htm

“We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.”

What I find most laughable is that another one of their goals is ‘Securing Civil Liberties’. If this were true then surely a government wouldn’t be looking to interfere with what someone can and can’t do in their own home on their own watch. Trying to ban online gambling is a slap in the face to freedom and liberty.

“Because our Constitution is based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government, we must always ensure that law enforcement respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people. “

The Republican Party of the last eight years has preached limited government, but practised something completely different. The US Federal government has more power and influence than ever and that has only acted to increase the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups on the American political system.

So America… if you want to live in a country where the government tells you what you can and can’t do in your own home then go ahead and vote the Republicans in for four more years.