Rich Muny

Rich Muny, an engineer, lives with his wife in northern Kentucky.  A long-time limited government conservative, Rich became active in grassroots Internet poker advocacy efforts while also becoming a prolific blogger on conservative-libertarian political issues.  These efforts led to his being named to the board of directors of the million-member Poker Players Alliance in 2007.   Rich is also a columnist for BigGovernment.com: http://biggovernment.com/rmuny

Follow Rich on Facebook: www.facebook.com/rich.muny 

As the president of Americans for Tax Reform, author of Leave Us Alone, and long-time conservative activist, Grover Norquist has been an active warrior for conservatism since his Harvard days in the 1970s.  True to the title of his latest book, Norquist’s brand of conservatism is one where the federal government simply stays out of the lives of the American people to the maximum degree possible.    

Norquist is opposed on principle to government interference in the lives of Americans.  It does not matter if that interference comes from the left or the right — big government is big government.  He would much rather protect our values from big government than entrust big government with them.  While this appeals to almost all conservatives — in fact, that’s why many conservatives ARE conservatives — this has recently gotten him into a public spat with someone within the movement who prefers more government to address social issues.    

Norquist and I recently sat down to discuss the spat, issues of excessive taxation, big government, the online poker issue, and the future of the conservative movement.  

 
Grover Norquist and Rich Muny at CPAC 2010 

Rich Muny: The GOP platform still calls for the party to support banning and prohibiting online poker.  Censoring the Internet right now probably isn’t a popular thing.  Do you think that’s a position the GOP should rethink in terms of its party platform and leave it to individual legislators to decide what they want to do?   

Grover Norquist: Yes.  Look, if people want to play poker, they should be able to play poker.  If you think it’s bad for somebody to play poker, you should go tell them that, but you shouldn’t use the state to go interfere with somebody else’s decision if they want to play poker or not.  There are millions of people who do play poker online and it’s not a good idea to interfere with how people nonviolently interact with other people.    

It’s entirely possible that it cost the Republican Party one House seat in [former Iowa Rep. Jim] Leach’s seat, who was defeated, having been the lead sponsor of that bill [the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act].  So, I think it’s not good politics.  It’s not good policy, but it’s also not good politics to run around telling people how to run their lives.  That’s something Democrats should do.  It’s not something Republicans should do.    

Rich Muny: It’s been noted by some that you have a libertarian streak regarding social issues.  Tom McClusky, Vice President for Government Affairs of the Family Research Council, recently noted your support for online poker players and your libertarian leanings on some social issues.  Do you feel the broader conservative movement is now moving away from big government regarding social issues and back to limited government across the board, with emphasis on fiscal issues, as it was back when Sen. Barry Goldwater was the conservative standard bearer?     

Grover Norquist: I’m a little surprised by McClusky’s article, he wrote a little essay attacking me, because it didn’t make any sense and it didn’t mesh with reality.  He says I’m not pro-life and quotes an article where when asked if I’m pro-life I said “yes”.  He said I was demeaning the pro-lifers when that wasn’t true.  So, I can’t speak for him other than to say he made no effort to talk to me and/or get reality-based thought into his essay.    

In point of fact, the point I’ve made in my book Leave Us Alone is that this silly idea that there are three legs to the stool of conservatism: social conservatism, economic conservatism, and foreign policy — that misses what happens.  What happens in the modern Republican Party from Goldwater through today, and what’s becoming more true as we move forward?  The modern center-right movement is made up of people who, on their great moving issue, want to be left alone.    

Now, what does that mean?  That means, for gun owners, leave my guns alone.  Now, is that a social issue?  No, it’s a leave me alone issue.  Taxpayers: leave my money alone.  Businessmen: leave my business alone.  Homeowners and property owners: leave my property alone.  Pro-parents: leave my kids alone.  Home schooling:  the most radical pro-traditional values, pro-family movement in the country is the home schooler movement.  Now, is that a social issue? Is it an economic issue?  It’s just a freedom issue.  It’s my home, you get off the lawn!    

In ’78, ’79, and ’80, the traditional values movement got organized.  Why?  Because Jimmy Carter was going after Christian schools, trying to take away their tax status, and after Christian radio stations with the FCC.  They wanted to be LEFT ALONE to raise their own families and run their own lives. So, the traditional values conservatives recognize that the state is a threat to their ability to raise their kids, raise their families, and educate their children as they see fit.  So, there isn’t this conflict that some like to see.    

Now, there’s an odd whining that one hears.  “Oh no.  How come the Tea Party people are all talking about economics?”  Well, what’s changed in the last three years?  There’s been an assault of massive spending, a series of tax increases, and massive regulatory regimes.  People are reacting to Obama’s assaults on the liberties of the American people, largely financial in terms of their business lives.  When government gets big, it threatens everybody everywhere.    

So, people are reacting to what Obama’s doing.  We’re all talking about government taking over health care, government taking over the energy sector, and government taking over the banks. What does one expect us to be talking about?  That’s the assault that’s taking place.    

So, I think that people whose main concern is practicing their faith and raising their kids want to be left alone to do that.  I think people whose main concern is their business world, and by main concern I mean the thing they vote on….  Somebody can have twenty concerns in life.  The question is, “what are you voting on?”    

Rich Muny: As a follow-up, one of the top vote getters in the Liberty and Freedom section of the GOP’s America Speaking Out site is a submission in favor of poker rights.  It was made by 2004 WSOP Champion and Poker Players Alliance Board Member Greg Raymer, whom you met at this year’s CPAC convention.     

Grover Norquist: The one with the crazy glasses?  He’s a great American.  

Greg Raymer at CPAC, diligently signing
autographs as folks in line wait for their turn

Rich Muny: Absolutely.  He’s a great guy and a great American.

Modern conservatives seem to be focusing on this “leave us alone” embrace of limited government ideals and not so much on using big government to push social issues.  In fact, it seems many conservatives are far more interested in what goes with their own families and businesses than what goes on in their neighbors’ homes and bedrooms.  As you said a moment ago, they simply wish to be left alone.    

Do you feel they realize big government in one area invites big government for all areas, and do you believe the conservative movement will be able to stay focused on limiting the power of the federal government if it regains power?    

Grover Norquist: I think the Tea Party movement has certainly made it clear that people see larger government per se as a threat.  Now, people can look at the blob coming down towards the city and fear for different things, but everybody knows that when the blob hits the city, everybody gets whacked.  When the government gets big enough and has more power, how they wield that power will be bad for everybody in the country, but clearly and obviously will be bad for everybody in the center-right coalition.    

This government is so big that runs public schools.  What do you think they’re going to do?  Do you think they’ll let you have control over the education of your child?  No, they’re not going to.  In the public school, teachers’ unions fight against school choice.  They fight against home schooling.    

The most important socially conservative traditional values parental rights victory around is home schooling and school choice.  I’m on the board of the parental rights organization Campaign to Fight for the Parental Rights Amendment, which says parents have the right to raise their own children.   That is a leave us alone to be parents movement, which is central.  It’s one of the most important traditional values, socially conservative movements and institutions in the country.  I think it’s a central battleground.  Who gets to raise kids, the state or parents?  Parents should.    

Rich Muny: Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky claimed that you are supporting taxes in supporting online poker rights.  How do you respond, especially given that his organization has repeatedly sought laws banning the untaxed offshore online poker sites that currently serve millions of American poker players every day?     

Grover Norquist: That makes no sense.  I don’t support increasing taxes.    

Rich Muny: Americans for Tax Reform has been the leader in the fight against excessive taxation and government growth since its inception in 1985.  How is the fight going today and how do you see it progressing over the next few years?    

Grover Norquist: Well, we came together in 1985 at the request of President Reagan.  Our goal was to help pass the Tax Reform Act of 1986, taking the top federal income tax rate down from 50% to 28%.  During that campaign, I created the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which Reagan endorsed in the ‘86 election, asking all candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes and never to allow income tax rates to creep back up again.  That worked well. The first year we got 100 House members and twenty Senators to take the pledge.    

In 1988, all the Republican presidential candidates except for Senator Dole took it.  When Dole won the Iowa race but then was asked in the New Hampshire debate if he would take the pledge, Pete DuPont handed him the pledge.  Dole recoiled like a vampire being shown the cross.  At that point, frankly, New Hampshire was the one state where everybody would know what the Taxpayer Protection Pledge was, because that’s where I got the idea from.  New Hampshire had the Tax Pledge which meant, in New Hampshire, no sales tax and no income tax at the state level.  It was there where tax pledges had meaning at the state level.    

I grew up in Massachusetts.  Having watched, I said, “we should do that at the national level.”  Now, later, people know what the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is nationally, but at that point the one place where people did know about it was New Hampshire.  So, Dole lost the New Hampshire primary and went on to lose an election he has been winning before that.    

So, Bush won the primary because of the pledge and Dole lost because he refused to take the pledge.  Then, Bush said, “read my lips…,” took the pledge at the national level, and won the general.  Two years later, he broke the pledge and lost a perfectly good presidency.  You know, he did a pretty good job except for the tax increase.    

So, that really strengthened the pledge.  Going into ’92 and ’94, that’s when I started getting about 95% of all the Republicans running nationally to take the pledge.    

This year, I think, every Republican who might possibly win in the general in the House has taken the pledge.  There are one or two we haven’t gotten to who might yet win a primary, but there aren’t any we don’t think we won’t have.    

I’ve got everyone running for the Senate now, with the exception of Mike Castle of Delaware, who has not been a pledge signer as a House member — one of the few — and John Hoeven of North Dakota.  Otherwise, all the Republicans who could win in November in the Senate have taken the pledge.    

We have more governors taking the pledge this time around than ever before.  All the Republican candidates in Florida, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, California, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have taken the pledge.  We’re doing very well with governors, which is a very strong statement to make at a time when the economy is poor and revenues are not just flowing in.  It was pretty easy for somebody to take the pledge in 1998 as a governor.  It’s tougher this time around.  What they are really announcing is, “I am going to be cutting spending, guys.”  That’s what that says.  That’s a pretty tough comment.    

So, the pledge is going well.  It’s stronger than it has been for a long time, particularly at the state level.  That’s the big shift.  Since ’92 and ’94, we’ve gotten most or all House and Senate candidates at the national level.  This time around, we’re doing very well with governors as well.    

Rich Muny: Are any Democrats signing the pledge?  How about those in Republican districts?     

Grover Norquist: We don’t get too many pledge takers from Democrats.  I mean, this is the issue that separates Republicans and Democrats more than any other.  Sen. Ben Nelson from NE signed the pledge, but broke it when he voted for health care which included tax increases.  A couple of House incumbents have taken the pledge as well.    

This is the big difference between the two parties, more than abortion or guns.  A whole bunch of people vote pro-gun and pro-life, or promise to, but there are almost no Democrats who run as anti-tax increasers.    

Rich Muny: You’re on the NRA Board of Directors.  I’m a Life Member myself.  Can you comment on your feelings on the two big gun rights Supreme Court cases, McDonald vs. Chicago and the Heller case in D.C.?     

Grover Norquist: Over the last decade, political support for the Second Amendment has grown.  I have a Wall Street Journal front page article from 1993 that was all about how attacking gun rights was a popular position to take.  Since then, the vote on the Brady Bill, the vote on the assault weapons ban, the pro-gun movement, the number of people with concealed carry permits, the number of people who are for or against gun control — all moved in the right direction.  We got 60 votes in the Senate saying that you cannot sue gun manufacturers out of existence – a very important win.    

But we’re always worried about the courts.  You know, two 5-4 decisions.  The Supreme Court has said — a 5-4 decision for the self-evident, that’s scary in itself — the Second Amendment means what the Second Amendment says.  The government can’t regulate your right to own a gun.  That’s progress.    

Rich Muny: What’s your forecast for November?  Do you think the GOP takes a chamber of Congress or even both?     

Grover Norquist: Right now it looks like the Republicans will capture the House, strengthen in the Senate, and pick up quite a number of governors.  It looks like a very good year for Republicans.    

I do not see what could change that.  Obviously, the world is an uncertain place, but if Democrats have some secret plan, some October surprise… If the Democrats knew that they were going to bring X number of dollars in from the unions and flood the zone, that’s the sort of information they would have told Stupak and Obey when they were begging them to stay and run for reelection.  And yet Obey and Stupak and Biden’s son, who’s a statewide elected official in Delaware, all of them looked at the best information Democrat consultants had.  They had the best arguments for how and why the Democrats could do well in November, and they decided not to run.    

I see generally conservative Republican taxpayer polling.  I talk to conservative Republican taxpayer pro-gun owner institutions. I think we’re doing well.  But the Democrats, when they sit in their bunkers and look at their information, they run for their lives!  I don’t know what’s in the polling they’re looking at, but it doesn’t sound cheerful for them.    

I don’t see what turns it around.  The vice president’s son can’t be convinced that the wind might turn to his back.  He has the best information available to somebody on the left, the best promises.  You know, the president is willing to do X for you, and still says to himself, “okay, and I still don’t think it will work.”    

Rich Muny: Now that you’ve had time to reflect and observe, has your opinion on the banking and auto industry bailouts changed at all?  Has it turned out better or worse than you had imagined at the time?     

Grover Norquist: It’s still a stupid idea.    

Rich Muny: I thank you for your time.  Most appreciated.     

Grover Norquist: You’ve got it.    

#####

I just updated the Senate letter on the PPA Action Site.  Let’s all send it and make ourselves heard!  It takes just 60 seconds to send.

Click here to send PPA’s latest letter to Congress

As a constituent, voter, and poker player, I am asking you to support S. 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation, authored by Sen. Robert Menendez, would license and regulate Internet poker and other games of skill.

Poker is a proud American tradition. Our nation’s citizens have enjoyed poker for more than 150 years. It is an honorable game that I am proud to play. The simple fact that some choose to play it on the Internet should not make it unlawful.

S. 1597 provides for sensible regulation of Internet poker and puts the U.S. in charge of safeguarding its citizens. This bill mandates rigorous, verifiable safeguards against underage participation while providing consumer protections for the millions of Americans who play online poker every day. It also includes dedicated funding to establish and implement programs for prevention and treatment of those with excessive gaming habits. This bill will also allow American companies to participate in the world’s Internet poker market, bringing needed jobs and revenue to our nation. An unenforceable, unpopular prohibition provides none of these benefits. All prohibition can do is drive players underground or overseas while limiting my personal freedom.

According to an economic study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers in April, tax revenue from licensing will add billions to the U.S. Treasury. Solutions like S. 1597 provide the most rational approach to controlling this industry and preserving it for adults who choose to engage in this skillful activity.

Our right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of UIGEA. While it is clear that the Act should not affect online poker nationwide (UIGEA only enforces other federal gaming laws…federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses. I ask for your help in rectifying this situation by clarifying the UIGEA and supporting S. 1597.

What’s most important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance members, can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

by RICH MUNY

In his new book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts,” Wayne Allyn Root asserts that America is a nation of gamblers and always has been.  Mr. Root, who was the 2008 Libertarian vice presidential nominee and who is now preparing to lead what he calls “a Ross Perot-like third party movement in 2012 for economic and personal freedom,” discusses this in detail in Chapter 29: The End of Prohibition – Why Gamblers Will Empower the Citizen Revolution. 

Mr. Root starts the chapter by citing gambles that were taken in our nation’s early history.  The brave Pilgrims who took great risks in leaving Europe in search of liberty in the New World, the lotteries that helped fund colonial America, and the daring exploits of George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin – who risked their fortunes in the Revolutionary War for freedom – are just a few examples of the risk-taking, gambling heritage of the American people. 

Gambling did not end with the founding of our great nation, either.  Immigrants with nothing but a strong will and unshakeable desire to succeed, entrepreneurs, and business owners all gambled that their dreams would come true, and they put all they had at risk to make it happen.  Americans are by nature risk-takers who are leaders and bold dreamers.  This willingness to gamble on success is an essential part of the character of America. 

This risk-taking legacy lives on.  During the last decade, Internet poker and gambling were a global phenomenon.  Still, despite the worldwide appeal of online gaming, 70 percent of money wagered came from Americans – this notwithstanding the fact that the Justice Department asserted that the activity is unlawful.  Americans made 376 million trips to casinos in 2007, and there are now 185,000 places to buy a lottery ticket in America versus only 14,000 McDonald’s.  In fact, more money is spent on gambling in America than is spent on books, movies, videos, and DVDs combined.  The facts are clear – Americans enjoy a good gamble and are proud of it. 

Mr. Root then discusses poker. Party Gaming reported $45 billion in wagering in 2005, for almost $1 billion in revenue.  Online poker was escalating in popularity when the Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.  This action outraged poker players.  Since passage of that act, over one million Americans joined the Poker Players Alliance to speak out and demand their right to play poker on the Internet.  Mr. Root believes the power of poker players is being harnessed by the Libertarian movement, as the 10 million to 12 million Americans who play online poker and the 50 million who play in person comprise a very formidable group. 

Mr. Root notes that the proponents of a new Prohibition – a prohibition on online poker – are straight-laced, nanny state busy-bodies who are afraid to take risks.  They want to police what others do, this despite the fact that it does not affect them in any way.  He notes that there are people in the Middle East who think the same way – the Taliban. 

Mr. Root wraps up the chapter by expressing his belief that the government will fail miserably in its attempts to stop online gambling.  The American people have tried online poker and gambling and they like it.  They want their freedom and are demanding it.  It makes far more sense to license, regulate, and tax online gaming than it does to try to enforce an unpopular prohibition. 

The chapter is well-written, and Mr. Root does a fine job in explaining the phenomenon of gambling in American culture and how gambling and freedom are intertwined.  I personally believe government has attacked the very people – people who cherish freedom and liberty – who are most likely to take a strong stand.  In fact, poker players have taken a strong stand against the UIGEA and will continue to do so.  In my opinion, Mr. Root “gets it” in a way that few who have run for national office do.  I wholeheartedly recommend this chapter of the book. 

Amazon.com: The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts 

Wayne Allyn Root’s Libertarian Presidential Candidate Website: “Root for America!“

Please visit the full blog at http://theengineer.theppa.org.

RICH MUNY

Evangelical group faces ‘serious’ shortfall
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/…C02
By ERIC GORSKI (AP)

DENVER — A “serious budget shortfall” at Focus on the Family has prompted the conservative Christian group to issue a special fundraising plea, and contributed to a decision to cede control of its contentious “Love Won Out” conferences about homosexuality to another religious organization, a spokesman said Tuesday.Focus on the Family, founded by child psychologist James Dobson, is on pace to fall $6 million short of a $138 million budget for the fiscal year that began last October, spokesman Gary Schneeberger said.

Jim Daly, president and CEO of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based evangelical ministry, explained the challenges in a letter to approximately 800,000 donors…..

Well, this is really something.  Focus on the Family can afford luxuries like expensive lobbying to stop adults from choosing to play online poker in their own homes with their own money, so surely FoF has enough for its core ministries.  Perhaps they simply need to tighten their belts, like American families are right now, before asking for cash.

Here’s my open letter to Focus on the Family
(their email form is at: http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/f…?p_faqid=14190):

Subject: Your request for donations

Dear Sir/Madam,

I read your request for donations to cover a “serious budget shortfall” with interest. I am surprised to hear that you feel your organization is having any financial issues. After all, you have plenty of extra money to lobby for federal legislation to stop adults from choosing to play online poker in their own homes with their own money.

If you have enough money to work to give the federal government even more power over our banks and our lives, I must wonder where you could possibly be running short.

May I recommend that you take a better look at your spending before seeking more money? That’s what American families do every day.

Best regards,

Rich

© Rich Muny

RICH MUNY

Poker players have been lobbying the federal government for their rights and are getting solid results!  The next phase is to lobby the states.  Let’s all write and call.  Fortunately, finding your elected national, state, and local reps is easy.  Simply visit http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials and enter your ZIP code.

I wrote the following letter.  Feel free to send it as-is, edit it, or send a unique one:

Poker is a proud American tradition and our nation’s citizens have enjoyed playing poker for more than 150 years. It is an honorable game that I am proud to play. The simple fact that I choose to play it on the Internet should not make it unlawful.

U.S. House Bill H.R. 2267 provides for sensible regulation of Internet gaming and puts the U.S. in charge of safeguarding its citizens. The bill mandates rigorous safeguards against underage participation and protections for those with excessive gaming habits while providing consumer protections for the millions of Americans who play online poker every day. This bill will also allow American gaming companies to participate in the world’s Internet gaming market, bringing needed jobs to our state. Internet censorship and an unenforceable, unpopular prohibition provide none of these benefits. All censorship and prohibition can do is drive players underground or overseas while limiting my personal freedom.

What’s most important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance members, can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Thanks!  We will keep our liberties if we fight for them together.

© Rich Muny
Rich Muny’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given to the author.

Rich Muny
July 9, 2009

Despite running for governor on a pro-gaming platform, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) has unfortunately chosen to lead a protectionist crusade against online poker. Last year, he authorized an out-of-state contingency-fee only law firm to go to court on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to seize 141 Internet poker and gaming website domain names, this despite the fact that these sites are operating legally in their home jurisdictions.

Beshear’s underlying theory – that domain names of Internet sites operating legally in their home nations can be taken by any court in the world – is deeply troubling. For example, a few years ago a French court ordered Yahoo.com to block French citizens from accessing parts of the site deemed to have content unlawful under French law. Yahoo.com pushed back, citing free speech issues. What if French courts had the authority to seize the domain www.yahoo.com to force compliance? What if other nations could seize Internet domains to force the entire Internet to comply with their local laws? If Beshear succeeds, imagine the chilling impact on Internet freedom.

Attorney General Jack Conway wisely steered clear of this issue. In his absence, Beshear had Secretary of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet J. Michael Brown initiate the seizure action. Beshear and Brown managed to move this case through a state circuit court, but rightly lost at the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, Beshear and Brown are not done. They appealed their loss to the state Supreme Court. One hopes they not only lose again, but that the justices make it clear that Beshear lacks jurisdiction in the matter.

Following the loss at the Court of Appeals, Brown commented, “the evidence demonstrated that illegal and unregulated activity is occurring in Kentucky, and that millions of dollars are being lost as a result of that activity, a fact that wasn’t disputed in Tuesday’s ruling.” Brown’s statement is very misleading. He says this is an illegal activity. However, the court ruled that sites are not “gambling devices” as defined under Kentucky law, and the Commonwealth conceded during testimony that poker players and casino gaming enthusiasts are breaking no laws by playing online. Brown may think online poker should be unlawful, but the court did not find any laws to have been broken.

Additionally, the Poker Players Alliance – a one million member poker advocacy group – filed a brief with the court proving that poker is a game of skill, not chance. As such, they argued that poker is not “gambling” as defined by Kentucky law. Attorneys made verbal arguments in support of this position at the Court of Appeals hearing as well, and the Commonwealth’s attorneys did not even try to counter those arguments.

Brown also stated that online poker is unregulated in Kentucky. However, online poker is not regulated by the Commonwealth (it is regulated within the sites’ home jurisdictions) because the Commonwealth chooses not to regulate it. Likewise, online poker site revenue is not taxed because Kentucky chooses not to tax it. The Commonwealth is losing money by not creating a legal framework for online poker, but that’s an issue for the legislature, not the Secretary of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet.

Governor Beshear claimed that, “unlicensed, unregulated, illegal Internet gambling poses a tremendous threat to the citizens of the Commonwealth because of its ease, availability and anonymity.” However, there is no anonymous online poker play. Poker sites track and confirm ages and identities of each participant using authentication systems equal to those used by Twinspires.com, an Internet horse race wagering site owned by Churchill Downs that operates in Kentucky. As Twinspires.com’s business is (rightly) acceptable to Beshear, surely the equivalent systems poker sites employ ought to be acceptable as well.

If Beshear and Brown really wish to help Kentucky’s poker players, they ought to propose legislation creating a legal framework for online poker. Players would naturally gravitate toward Kentucky-based sites and to offshore sites that chose to participate, as these sites would be perceived as being safer. Thus, market forces would drive compliance, rather than some scheme to police the entire Internet from the Kentucky governor’s office. This would certainly be preferable to the destruction of Internet freedom and personal liberty. This common sense approach would also provide jobs and revenue to Kentucky while providing strong consumer protections.

Please tell Governor Beshear that it is time for Kentucky to embrace and manage the technologies of the 21^st Century while respecting liberty and Internet freedom. Call him at (502) 564-2611, then send him a letter from this easy-to-use PPA letter site and from this similarly easy-to-use FreedomWorks letter site. Let’s let Beshear know it’s time for him to fold.

© Rich Muny
Rich Muny’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Rich’s website addresses, http://poker.townhall.com, http://theengineer.theppa.org, and www.campaignforliberty.com/user/TheEngineer, are included.

Rich Muny
June 29, 2009

Rich Muny
June 4, 2009

U.S. News & World Report recently published a column by House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL), where Bachus argued in favor of a big government prohibition on online poker. An online poll was provided with the column. As seen below, readers overwhelmingly favored online poker rights and Internet freedom. The fact that the Poker Players Alliance has over one million members further shows that many Americans care strongly about this issue:

It is odd that Bachus would champion a new, unpopular prohibition, given that his party is out of power and needs every vote it can get. It’s equally odd that Bachus would champion big government on this issue, as this undercuts his limited government arguments on other issues important to his fellow conservatives. Surely conservatives will rise up and tell him to stop driving voters away, right?

TAKE ACTION

Please call Congressman Bachus at (202) 225-4921 and tell him to support Internet freedom and poker rights.

Rich Muny
June 3, 2009

In my youth, I became (and remain) a conservative Republican. I did not want big government in my life, and the president of my youth — President Ronald Reagan — promised me he would keep it out. Rather than forcing the values of others on every American with the force of the federal government, President Reagan wisely chose instead to protect traditional values from the corrupting influence of big government. 1993′s Contract With America wisely promised much of the same. This is an ideologically consistent position — one either likes and trusts big government or one does not. How sad that many 21st Century Republican politicians now value big government restrictions on liberties under a misguided belief that our values come from government.

Yesterday, U.S. News & World Report published a column by Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) on the issue of online poker. Regrettably, Bachus argued in favor of a big government prohibition on online poker, stating his belief that Americans cannot handle the freedom to play poker in their own homes with their own money. He claims to believe in limited government principles, but it seems the sky is the limit when it comes to enforcing social issues important to him. Sadly, Bachus has fully embraced the concept of using the power of the federal government to control the behavior of Americans.

Some readers are saying to themselves, “so, I don’t play poker.” Sorry, but this affects all conservatives. Besides the fact that Bachus’ arguments are generally speculative (a laundry list of “potential” issues, with a citing of a grand total of one adult who found himself $3,000 in debt) and are wholly without merit, the real problem for Republicans is that voters oppose government censorship of the Internet by wide margins. Even within the conservative movement, free speech advocates, libertarians, young voters, small government advocates, and traditional conservatives are quite suspicious of arguments contending that Internet freedom is dangerous. Young voters especially are generally libertarian and want government out of their homes. Will these voters find a home in the Republican Party as I did in my youth? It appears they have not been. In fact, the Democratic advantage seen within the 2008 youth vote should have been a wake-up call for every conservative. Continued efforts to censor online poker endanger other conservative goals. We need every vote we can get, and this effort to censor the Internet chases off many voters. Surely we’ve all noticed that it’s hard to move an agenda forward when out of power.

Fortunately, many conservatives believe the federal government should not be in the business of preventing adults from playing a game of poker at a time and place of their choosing. After all, traditional conservatives believe, “the government that governs best governs least.” It is simply wrong that Americans are being told they are criminals for enjoying the great game of poker. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, George Will, Walter Williams, and Grover Norquist have all written in opposition to prohibitions on online poker. One hopes the rest of the conservative movement will follow suit and will support personal liberty over the false promise of big government.

Wayne Allyn Root
May 16, 2009

I am asked constantly by talk show hosts across the USA why I left the GOP and became the leader of a national Libertarian movement for smaller government and economic and personal freedom. Nothing could symbolize my bold decision more than the issue of online poker and gaming. It was only 5 years ago that Republicans controlled every level of government from Congress, to the U.S. Senate, to the Presidency, to a majority of Governorships, and even a majority of state legislatures. Now they control NOTHING. Now Democrats control every one of those same levels of government. The Republican brand went from wildly popular to poison. Amazingly, Republicans haven’t a clue how it happened. Worse, they’re digging the hole deeper. I believe the meltdown of the GOP all started and crystallized with the Republican-led ban on online poker and gaming. Once again, this issue is roaring back to life to haunt the GOP. It may be the final death-blow.

Congressman Barney Frank, a politician that I have attacked with gusto on numerous occasions for his ultra-liberal fiscal views, unveiled a plan on Wednesday to legalize online gaming. For once, I find myself on the same side as Barney Frank and actually cheering his words. I never thought the day would come where I uttered these 7 words- “I love what Barney Frank just said.” I am a Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan disciple who believes the GOP has abandoned its fiscal conservative roots- and therefore abandoned me. When Congressman Barney Frank and I agree on something, you know that either hell has frozen over, or the GOP is in big trouble.

Plain and simple, gambling is an issue of FREEDOM and personal responsibility. What I do in my bedroom, on my computer, with my money is none of government’s business. In any free society, I have a right to enjoy gambling as my choice of either entertainment, or investment, without government getting involved. It’s that simple.

Gambling in my opinion is as American as apple pie. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin both enjoyed gambling. The original colonies successfully raised money with lotteries. Virtually any business decision involves financial risk. That is why the biggest winners on Wall Street are virtually all world-class gamblers with nerves of steel. That is why our wealthiest citizens are often business owners- what could be a bigger risk (or produce a bigger reward) than betting millions on a start-up? Entrepreneurship (risk-taking) is at the very heart of capitalism. Billions are risked every day on Wall Street. Billions are risked every day on the commodities market. Billions are risked on Main Street by small business owners. Without risk, there is no reward. Without risk-takers (capitalist gamblers), America could not be the world’s greatest economic power. Those who attack and denigrate gambling, have no understanding of the very roots of capitalism.

Gambling has been in our blood and DNA from the first days of America. The world’s biggest gamblers left their homelands, leaving behind their safe lives, to travel on dangerous boats, filled with disease, to a New World called America- often with no money, and no friends or relatives waiting on the other side. Later the pioneers risked their lives to travel thousands of miles in covered wagons, facing starvation, Indian attacks and disease to tame the Wild West. What would you call that? Playing it safe? The very idea of America is symbolized by gambling, throwing caution to the wind, betting your life on a new start in a new land.

The Republican-led ban of online gaming badly damaged the Republican brand. It was all downhill from there. I believe this issue killed the GOP message of smaller, more limited government. Republicans may believe in just a little bit more economic freedom than President Obama and his socialist tax and spend crowd, but when it comes to personal freedom, Republicans want bigger government in your bedroom; on your computer; interfering in your personal decisions; limiting your freedoms; violating your civil rights; deciding what behavior is acceptable and “moral.” The ban of online gaming and poker morphed the GOP into Big Brother. Worse, it exposed Republicans as hypocrites and uptight prudes looking to take away our personal freedoms and limit the choices of consenting adults.

The smokescreen used to defend this ban was “morality.” But morality based on whose standards? Here’s the great thing about freedom. I like to gamble. You don’t. Great. So don’t gamble. No one is forcing you. Feel free to teach your children not to gamble. But why would you ever want to stop me from enjoying what I want to do? What right have you got to limit my choice of entertainment? Are you upset that I’m having a good time and you’re not? Are you upset that I can enjoy gambling without becoming addicted or ruining my life, while you can’t? You know what they call groups that police morality and ban choices of personal freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Taliban.

Whether I choose gambling as my form of entertainment, or investment…either way, it doesn’t effect you and it’s NONE OF YOUR DARN BUSINESS. Any political party that disagrees with that simple philosophy deserves to lose power at all levels of office, destroy their popularity, and tarnish their brand forever. Sound familiar?

What’s the GOP’s new slogan? “We are the Nanny State. We’re going to save you- whether you like it or not.” If that’s your political slogan, good luck. You aren’t the party of smaller government. You are the party of bigger government. You are the very symbol of political hypocrisy (and stupidity). I wish you a wonderful future in the world’s smallest and most uptight political minority.

The truth is that the ban of online poker and gaming is not an insignificant issue. It is a huge issue. If our government thinks it has a right to tell citizens what games they can play on their own computer, then there is no limit to what control they want to hold over our lives. The ban of online gaming cost the GOP the support of many Libertarian-leaning voters. It cost them the support of many fiscally conservative, socially tolerant small business owners (whose contributions fuel the GOP). Most importantly, it cost them the support of millions of men who love to play poker and gamble on sports.

How popular is sports gambling? It has made the Super Bowl and March Madness two of the most popular television events in the country and for all intents and purposes, national holidays. How popular is poker? Just one organization, The PPA (Poker Players Alliance) has over one million members. Experts estimate that 10 million to 12 million American citizens play online poker. Over 50 million Americans play poker as a recreational sport. The World Series of Poker held in Las Vegas each summer has become the world’s richest sporting event (with over $100,000,000 in prizes). Poker TV shows dominate the television screen.

What are the demographics of these online gamblers? For the most part, they tend to be males- macho, fiscally conservative, free spirited, entrepreneurial, small business owners, stock investors, self-employed. Like me, they are passionate capitalists that believe in limited government, low taxes and free markets. They distrust and dislike government. They certainly do not trust or support Barack Obama or his plans to redistribute the wealth. Do you get the idea who we’re describing? Republicans! The brilliant GOP, with this ignorant ban on online gambling, has screwed over the worst possible group of voters- their own constituents.

Instead of learning from this fiasco, it appears the tone-deaf GOP is a glutton for punishment. They appear to be gearing up to fight Congressman Barney Frank in order to uphold this ban on the freedom of their own supporters. And you wonder why millions of former lifelong, loyal Republicans just like me have changed sides? We’re never going to fall into the arms of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, with their socialist tax and spend ideas that limit our economic freedom, denigrate capitalism and greatly increase the size, scope and power of government. But we’re done with the GOP. We’ve found a home in the only political party that supports both economic and personal freedom: the Libertarian Party.

Libertarians understand- unlike the GOP- that asking government to play Nanny; to take control over your personal behavior; to play Big Brother in your bedroom or on your computer; to limit your personal freedom; is no better than Democrats forcing big government into your personal financial decisions or trying to steal (they call it “redistribute”) your hard-earned money. It’s all about the same issue- freedom. It’s the reason our ancestors came to America (or died trying). It’s the reason we fought the American Revolution. Freedom is at the root (excuse the pun) of what America is all about.

Gambling is about freedom. Whether you like it or not, approve of it or not, that personal choice is none of government’s darn business. More importantly, what difference is there between making a $100 online bet on a hand of poker; a $1000 online bet on the Dallas Cowboys or Los Angeles Lakers; or a $100,000 wager on Microsoft or ExxonMobil with your Charles Schwab or E*Trade online account? There is no difference- except that the last few years have proven Wall Street is far more dangerous and costly. Should we ban stock investing? Should we ban online stock accounts at Charles Schwab, E*Trade or TD Ameritrade? Well we shouldn’t ban online poker either.

A far bigger problem in America today is obesity. Only 6% (at most) of Americans have a gambling addiction. But as much as 60% of the U.S. population has an obesity problem. Should we ban delis? Should we ban McDonalds? Should we ban Krispy Kremes?

Alcohol kills more Americans than any other addiction. Yet we allow bars, restaurants and clubs to sell alcohol, don’t we? We tried Prohibition in the 1920′s- it was the greatest political failure ever. Our citizens kept drinking; lost respect for the law; millions of dollars of tax revenue was lost; and organized crime was born to fill the void. Nothing about online gambling is any different. Banning it will solve nothing; the people who enjoy it as entertainment will keep doing it; they will lose respect for the law; billions in tax revenues will be lost; problem gamblers will move underground; and organized crime will rake in the profits. Perhaps we should call this ban “The Gambino Family Support Bill.” Afterall, the mafia is the greatest beneficiary of this ban. It is estimated that Americans have gambled over $100 Billion per year online since the ban on online gambling. Pretty effective, huh? Once again, more proof of the utter futility and stupidity of trying to limit freedom under the guise of morality. They should just rename the morality police, “the Keystone Cops.”

This ban has nothing to do with morality. If it did, the same politicians who railed against online gaming would not have carved out exemptions for online lotteries, online horseracing, tribal casinos, or fantasy football. The next time you hear a politician say he or she supports a ban on online gaming or poker, you should ask them which organized crime family is bribing them with campaign contributions.

PriceWaterhouseCooper recently studied the issue of online gaming and concluded that legalization will produce over $50 Billion in tax revenues for the federal government. That’s $50 Billion (with a “B”) at a time when our budget deficits and national debt grows by the trillions. Why would we throw away $50 Billion in revenues just waiting to be collected, at the same time we limit the freedoms of millions of Americans? Seems like a no-brainer to me. But then I also understand why the GOP brand has been ruined, leaving the party in shambles. The answer is clear: this tone-deaf obsession with limiting the personal freedom of consenting adults. It’s funny how a little issue of taking away people’s freedom can destroy a political party. Or even more remarkably, drive a free-market, limited-government Libertarian into the arms of…Barney Frank.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book will be released by John Wiley & Sons this July entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” The book is available for pre-sale at Amazon.com.

Reprinted with permission of the author. For more articles by Mr. Root, please visit www.rootforamerica.com.