It seems that politicians on Capitol Hill are driving hard to the hoop in their efforts to get anti-online gaming legislation passed. In the past six months a series of related bills have been steadily climbing the ladder to becoming law.

Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte introduced legislation that would seek to amend the Wire Act of 1961 (basically prohibits bettors from using telephones to place wagers interstate). Known as H.R. 4777 it would include the internet as another means of illegal mediums from which people can place bets.

Iowa Rep. James Leach introduced H.R. 4411 which would add credit cards and funds transfers to the list of banned online payment methods.

Prior to a House of Representatives vote, Goodlatte and Leach merged their bill into one piece of legislation, rather than progress as separate pieces of legislation.

The House passed the bill with a resounding 317 to 93 vote on July 11, 2006, but it remains to be seen if the legislation will go through the necessary steps to become actual law. The Senate calendar is already tight with Senate elections set to take place in November and the bill still has a ways to go.

On the other side of the country, an online gaming ban is already in effect in Washington State. Bill 6613, introduced by tribal gaming advocate Sen. Margarita Prentice, passed quietly and with relative ease, prohibiting people from either sending or receiving bets and like information via the internet or similar telecommunication systems. The Bill also increased the severity of knowingly violating the law, moving it from a misdemeanor to a Class C felony—which could be punishable by time in jail.

Both Goodlatte and Leach say that they have sound reasoning behind their bill. They have always contended that internet betting outfits are places where money can be laundered and that children are at risk because the accessibility of online casinos.

As Representative Goodlatte put it, online gambling “is a scourge on [American] society.”

But the scope of such legislation is vast, and Goodlatte, Leach and the state of Washington may be biting off more than they can chew. A ban on online poker, the way Leach and Goodlatte want, and the way Washington St. has it, would be almost impossible to enforce and would violate a number of existing privacy laws.

One of the biggest obstacles faced by the litigants in the Napster music file sharing case a few years back, was that it would be next to be impossible to track and prosecute every single law breaker. According to Internet World Stats, over 1 billion people use the internet and even if a third of those had access to music file sharing, it would still take a very long time to hunt down everyone who illegally downloaded MP3 files.

The obstacles would be the same for tracking and prosecuting individual online poker players. An equally astronomical number of people participate in online gaming, whether it is placing bets on sporting events or playing online poker. It would be a monumental task to track down individuals who would violate the proposed legislation and prosecute them.

And if lawmakers actually did spend time and resources to crack down on violators, another can of worms would be opened.

One of the possible ways people suggest that the government could enforce the ban would be to subpoena Internet Service Providers, who would be forced to provide user information—something that some would view as an invasion of privacy. Where would the line would be drawn? Does the government have the right to view which sites that a person visits. Would it stop only at checking for online poker and gaming sites.

Another possible enforcement method would involve asking credit card companies and financial institutions to monitor their clients’ spending methods and report suspicious activity. Banking institutions and credit card companies deal with a very large number of transactions a day and adding something as burdensome as tracking each of their members is something they might not have time for. Would the two even have the financial wherewithal to pay for such a system? Small banks raised objections to this during one of the first readings of one of the anti-gaming bills.

If banks were to implement something as demanding as that, you can be sure the bank’s clients would foot the bill—something you can be sure they would object strongly to. On top of all that, a system such as that would again earn the ire of privacy advocates. The government and financial institutions would have no right to monitor private transactions, they would say.

An aspect of the crusade against online gaming that some might find vexing lies in what is actually included in the ban and what isn’t. Generally speaking the ban on wagering and betting online pertains to games of chance with certain exceptions. If the legislation does indeed become law, you won’t be able to play casino games or wager on sports like football, baseball and hockey, but you will probably be able to wager on horses and you will be able to buy state lottery tickets.

If gambling entails wagering on games or events of chance and the U.S. government wants to prohibit all online gambling and wagering online, why would horse racing be exempt? When odds were first posted for this year’s Kentucky Derby, horses like Lawyer Ron and Brother Derek were favored, but when all was said and done, Barbaro came out on top. The element of chance was clearly at work as the horses that were favored didn’t end up winning. Betting on Lawyer Ron to win is the same as betting on the New York Giants to win.

The reason for horse racing’s suspicious exemption lies with the lobby groups who try to convince legislators to vote in favor of legislation that they favor. But the government would look extremely hypocritical if they were to allow exemptions for horse racing and not the other sports. You can be sure that betting on any form of football would not be allowed and you can also be sure that football advocates would raise a stink. Why should horse racing receive preferential treatment?

Another hypocritical element in this whole debate centers around the fact that land based casinos would continue on, business as usual. The differences between the two are miniscule and one has a very hard time seeing why one would be banned and not the other.

In the Pacific Northwest, it seems that anything to do with online gaming or poker is now criminal. The Seattle Times publishes a regular column from professional poker player Daniel Negreanu. In one of his columns, “Kid Poker” told readers to sharpen their card playing skills online—which according to Washington State officials is a violation of their anti-gambling legislation. In fact, according to reports, the newspaper was warned by the Washington State gambling commission not to include anything related to online gambling within its pages.

Even online gaming magazines may be suspect. Recently subscribers of magazines Casino Player and Strictly Slots in the state of Washington were informed that their subscriptions would be terminated by the magazines. It was not immediately known if the magazines terminated Washington subscribers voluntarily of forcibly.

The punishment for breaking this law could be as harsh as jail time, seeing as it is now a Class C felony to knowingly violate the state’s new legislation. But is playing poker online truly worthy of being classified as a felony?

In the state of Washington a felony is defined as a violation that carries a sentence of more than a year in prison.

Crimes that are considered Class C felonies include cruelty to animals, possession of child pornography and threatening a governor. Is playing poker on a computer the same as possessing pictures of minors participating in lewd acts? Is wagering on whether the Seattle Seahawks can repeat as NFC champions on your laptop the same as capturing a bald eagle and slicing its wings and talons off? Should writing an article about poker carry the same consequences as a death threat to a governor? Banning online gaming is one thing. Classifying it as a felony is something else altogether.

Whether they know it or not, the current crusade could be hurting the United States in another way. They are currently in a dispute with the islands of Antigua and Barbuda in regards to offshore sportsbooks and U.S. restrictions. The World Trade Organization ruled that U.S. restrictions on online gaming sites from the islands were a violation of WTO trade rules and had until April 3 of 2006 to get up to code. The deadline passed without response from the U.S. and then the States issued a statement saying that they were in compliance and did not need to make any adjustments. An outright ban to online gaming would imply that they were not in compliance.

There are a number of reasons why pending legislation in D.C. and current Washington State law won’t work. The scope of the laws would be too large to accurately be enforced. Prosecuting all violators and asking the financial institutions to track transactions would be costly, a waste of resources and as some would say a gross intrusion on privacy. More importantly current exemptions for horse racing and land based casinos make the ban seem hypocritical.

People can debate all they want over the pros and cons of gambling, but when it comes down to it, is playing online poker really worth a year in jail or more?