Wash. State Governor Dino Rossi Candidate Talks About Poker Law

Washington Republican politician Dino Rossi lost the closest race in the history of governor’s races in the United States when he came just 133 votes from beating current governor Christine Gregoire in 2004.

Poker players at the time couldn’t imagine what that defeat meant for them there. In 2006, Gregoire signed a Senate bill that made gambling and playing poker online a Class C felony in Washington, which put online poker players there in the same category as child molesters.

Dino Rossi, who will again try to knock Gregoire out of office in Fall’s election, hasn’t been shy about telling residents of Washington that he thinks the law oversteps the boundaries of the government. Although he’s an opponent of gambling expansion (including online), he believes this law is excessive and overbearing, and he told CardPlayer.com that if he was in office at the time, there’s no way he would’ve signed it.

Mr. Rossi, who spent seven years as a member of the state’s Senate, recently spent part of his day talking with CardPlayer.com. The following is the interview:


Card Player: What is your take on the Washington State online gambling law that makes it a Class C felony to play poker or even link to online poker sites there?

Dino Rossi: Well, it seems really excessive in the penalties they put forward, because if you really look at this, what they’ve done is that they’ve made it a felony. And it would clearly ruin someone’s life if they have a felony -- it’s up to five years in prison. And if you want look at which other crimes are basically equal in nature in the eyes of the law now that this law is passed, it’s the same types of penalties for possessing child pornography, threatening the governor, or torturing an animal.

I mean, in our state, you could have five DUIs before you can even serve time. You could steal nine cars in our state before actually getting any jail time. But, somehow, playing poker online rises to that level.

CP: State officials have said that even though the law in on the books, they doubt the state will ever prosecute anyone. What’s the point of having laws like this on the books, and what is your opinion of them?

DR: Well, it turns into a scofflaw. The bottom line is that I think it needs to be turned back into something that isn’t going to ruin somebody’s life if they want to play poker online. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a law that they say they’re not going to enforce right out of the gate. When they do that sort of thing, it’s still on the books, so they could selectively enforce it. Why would you have it on the books if you don’t enforce it? What’s the point?

CP: It seems like there are two main modes of thought among politicians when it comes to gambling: that it’s morally reprehensible and a social scourge or that it’s an activity that consenting adults should be able to do if they like. Where do you stand?

DR: The way I’ve always looked at it is that I’ve never been a fan of expanding gambling. In my seven years in the Senate, that’s not something I’ve promoted. But I also I don’t see you hunting down people and going into their houses and checking their computers to see if you’re going to give them a Class C felony. That sure seems ridiculous in itself.

CP: Are you a poker player?

DR: Well, I’ve played poker before. I don’t do it online or anything like that. I’m not someone who plays online. I sure played poker when I was younger. I don’t have a bracelet, let’s put it that way.

CP: Legally, in the eyes of the federal and most state governments, poker is considered a game of chance. There are many different arguments that claim poker is actually a game of skill. What do you believe?

DR: It’s clearly a game of skill. You put someone who rarely plays poker with someone who plays poker all of the time and I believe the chance elements in there, but there’s also a strategy within the game, with the betting and understanding the odds and being aware of your surroundings. It’s clear that there’s a lot of skill involved.

CP: Would you support a law that would define poker as a skill game in Washington?

DR: I haven’t really thought about that. It clearly looks like it is a skill game. The gambling part about it is obviously the wager and how you bet. I’d have to see what the legislation looked like before I [support it].

CP: How is the game of poker viewed among your former colleagues?

DR: I think there are quite a few folks who think poker is just fine. I heard from some of the legislators who voted for this and who actually didn’t know that this was embedded in the bill and would like to have another crack at this, because they were told it was just a technical-fix bill. But when you do a Class C felony, it’s not a technical-fix bill, and some people think it was passed with false information.

CP: State governments across the country are experiencing revenue shortfalls. Many have turned to the gambling industry to help boost funds, but none have seriously looked at taxing and regulating online poker as a potential source, leaving millions of dollars on the table. Why do you believe states have never seriously considered this?

DR: I really don’t know. It is an expansion of gambling, clearly, and it’s something that is always hard. It’s sure not something that I’ve voted for in the past. I think that always is part of it. But most of the budget problems in a lot of states, especially our state, aren’t revenue problems, they’re spending problems.

CP: If you were governor, would this online gambling law have made it through?

DR: I would not have signed this bill.

CP: If elected, would you work to at least have poker exempted from the law?

DR: What I’d like to do is to make sure that we are not making people felons and we are not being intrusive in people’s homes and checking their computers and trying to hunt them down because they played Internet poker. It’s kind of ridiculous to equate that to five DUIs or stealing nine cars. It just doesn’t make sense to me, so what I’ve been clear about is I think that the heavy-handiness is ridiculous, and I would defiantly file legislation that would change that to something more reasonable.

CP: What would you consider more reasonable?

DR: Well not a felony, first off. A felony conviction, it does ruin your life, and that’s not acceptable. I haven’t thought about exactly where we will land on that at this point in time, but I think the first step is not to treat a bunch of people like felons for playing online poker.