US Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) will be in Las Vegas for Friday’s shuffle-up-and-deal … and possibly to unveil his new online poker (only) bill.

The Texas Republican has taken the baton from Barney Frank (D-MA), by way of John Campbell (R-CA), to lead the charge for licensed and regulated online poker in the House, with a new bill his office says he plans to “drop” either Friday or closer to the July 4th weekend.

It’s still probably too early to make decent predictions, prognostication, and prop bets — haven’t even seen a draft yet — but the forces lining up this go-round are indeed different than before.

This time we’re talking about an online poker-only bill, with a different committee path, and a conservative Republican — perhaps looking to put a bipartisan feather in his cap before the ’12 elections — charged with rallying support on his side of the aisle.

The Frank bill was initially about all online gambling, which brought necessary concessions to the NFL and others — forcing Frank to dilute his argument that his bill was a matter of 21st century consumer protections and civil liberties. The Reid bill was poker-only but something different altogether — arguably a strategic bone or carrot or pawn in bigger political games. But it did provide valuable data on who still needed checks from Caesars and MGM to properly play ball where various members stood.

When Barton symbolically took over the cause last month at the PPA’s Washington DC fly-in, he wasn’t exactly addressing a groundswell of revolt … at least not one ready to amass on the Washington mall screaming “give me PokerStars or give me death!” But to that extent, the real story, imho, wasn’t so much who was there, but who wasn’t …

No Full Tilt, no PokerStars, and certainly no UB, lol.

For all the good these banished poker sites may or may not have done since the UIGEA, it had become apparent that they also complicated the political effort they championed. So now, with a bill conceived before April 15th but written afterwards, Barton may be addressing the same poker players Barney Frank spoke to before him, but he will be navigating a different mix of motivated interests in the effort to make online poker special.

Frank mocked the seizures as the administration “protecting the public from the scourge of inside straights,” and lamented that the Justice Department is more focused on prosecuting online poker sites than those responsible for the mortgage crisis and financial meltdown.

“Go after the people responsible for empty houses, not full houses,” Frank added.

Doh! Barney was doing so well with that first poker metaphor, but then kinda blew it with the addendum, imho.

Still, you see the venerable liberal Congressman willing to finger the President more so than Bill Frist and the Republicans or Eric Holder and SDNY or Spencer Bachus or anyone else. Why would he direct his balk at Barack like this? Sour grapes, non-partisan principle, or something more he’d like the DC press corp to know about Obama’s role in the timing of these indictments?

From the press release:

WASHINGTON – The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act was introduced in the House today by Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) with Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) as a leading sponsor. Congressmen Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Peter King (R-NY) are also leading co-sponsors.   The bill is identical to H.R. 2267 that was passed out of the House Financial Services Committee on July 28, 2010 with bi-partisan support.  The bill would establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the United States. The legislation comes in response to the enactment of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which restricted the use of the payments system for Americans who gamble online.

As a recap, HR2267 passed through the Financial Service Committee last July.  It never took further steps in Congress last year, despite a significant sweat.  Harry Reid floated a draft of an internet gambling bill in December, known lovingly as #reidbill in Twitter, which also never made further official progress on Capitol Hill.  HR2267 contained no mention of the now dreaded “blackout” period that was the most infamous part of the #reidbill draft.

You can read the full statement by PPA, giving Campbell/Frank a virtual pat on the back-> here.

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) intends to take the lead in a Republican-controlled US House of Representatives on the internet gambling debate by bringing forth legislation similar to what Barney Frank (D-MA) has been pushing for years, according to Gambling Compliance.

Frank has reportedly signed on as the lead Democratic co-sponsor.

You may remember Campbell from his efforts to remove sports betting from last year’s Frank bill.

Campbell will be on hand in San Francisco in May as a keynote speaker for GIGSE 2011. The Global iGaming Summit and Expo was once one of the pre-eminent “annual” gaming conferences in the world, but went on a two-year hiatus after a move from Montreal to Malta. Returning to North America, and specifically US soil (California, no less!) seems to be a big deal for the conference and the gambling industry overall.

GIGSE says it has no political agenda — though its 2011 lineup of speakers suggests licensed and regulated online gaming in the US really is a matter of when not if. In addition to Campbell and likely supporters of his bills such as the PPA, conference speakers will include representatives from the Department of Justice, California Indians, other Native American gaming interests, Caesars Interactive, iMEGA, the Kentucky horse racing industry, various lottery interests, Jeffery Pollack’s Federated Sports+Gaming … and several others who have long found themselves at opposing ends of mutual interests.

Sounds to me like this could be the biggest think-tank confab of people shaping our lives ever. Or, at a minimum, if they can’t all put their heads together to reach the same overall endgame, it could turn into a massively awesome battle royale that could include the throwing of chairs.

I thought so, too … and maybe that’s why few seem to be recognizing the historic happenings right here, right now, with sports betting in Nevada. Check out the new TV commercials — seen on the local ABC affiliate before the UT-Tech game — for the first ever legal wagering app in the United States, moral opposition be damned:

We knew the release of “Leroy’s App” might be kinda a big deal … and the CEO of Leroy’s parent company, American Wagering, Inc., spells out pretty clearly their intent to have their finger on every “online” sports bet in the country with “interstate sports betting networks, phone betting, and real-time handheld devices”:

Yikes, fairly dramatic … but a 31-year gestation period for online sports betting in America? That’s not so ridiculous when you consider the foundation of all opposition to “online gambling” traces back the Wire Act of 1961, made law of the land 49 years ago. Forget Harry Reid health care … it takes a long time for the kinda change we can believe in (in Nevada).

With Leroy’s fully legal online sports betting now marketing itself en masse — a development we hardly heard a whisper about until shortly after removal of sports betting from the Frank bill — you gotta think it’s only a matter of time before Cantor Gaming gets approval to take their “real-time handheld devices” (pimped by Doyle Brunson) beyond a casino property’s firewalls.

Even the bankruptcy-challenged Station Casinos has a fully legal online sports betting option — just no app yet. Haven’t figured out how long they’ve had this, but they apparently just launched a program allowing you, from home or wherever, to convert slot machine points into real-money sports wagers.

Who says sports betting won’t be part of legal online gambling in America? Seems it kinda-sorta already is, and is just being set up to ensure Vegas won’t lose out to bookies in London or New Jersey.

First, ABC’s Nightline aired their segment on teenagers winning big playing online poker:

Later, NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno featured Barney Frank, and when the subject came around to ways to raise revenues (around 3:45), Frank offered his support of legislation regulating online poker. Leno — making appearances this month at the Mirage in Vegas — wasn’t supporting the idea:

Open letter from pros, PPA website target Commerce
Though Barney Frank’s online gambling bill made it out of committee last month relatively unscathed, one troublesome opponent came from the Commerce Casino in California. In an effort to squelch the impact of their dissent, the PPA sends its million-plus members word of an open letter to the Commerce (signed by a few dozen top-level pros) and launches PlayersBeforeProfits.com, making it easy for poker players to bombard the Commerce with tweets, emails, and phone calls voicing displeasure.

Commerce says PPA misguided, Frank bill will cost jobs and hurt poker
Commerce board member Tom Malkasian, who testified against HR 2267 last month, turned up his rhetoric against the PPA, saying they are ignoring key issues. The Commerce has a right to fight against unfair competition from offshore operations, he tells PokerNewsDaily, and its something they must do to protect California revenue, American jobs, and poker player interests, he says. At least Duke and Negreanu seem back on the same team, having both signed the initial letter and both tweeting to help get thousands of signatures for the PPA in just a couple days. Duke hints at plans for a boycott.

Bike, other California casinos lock step with Commerce
In what’s becoming an increasingly hostile back and forth, the PPA appears to be winning the PR battle, now with more than 6,000 signatures and countless tweets to Congress. The Commerce counters with even bigger numbers and a sign their side is growing, too. They mass-email a press release late Friday, announcing a unified front with other major California card rooms, including the Bicycle, Hawaiian Gardens, and Hollywood Park. These card rooms claim they collectively represent more than 20,000 California employees and handle $13.4 billion in wagers, all of which would be severely threatened by the Frank bill.

Industry Leaders Join Together with Commerce Casino in Opposing Frank Bill; “California Will Lose If Frank Bill Is Passed”

The letter suggests HR 2267 is too broad, and would be more acceptable if it tried to legalize poker-only, not all online gambling. It also says the Commerce welcomes the emails, but asks concerned players to use their new email address supportonlinepoker@commercecasino.net.

Boycott Commerce?
Twitter suggested lots of support for the idea, but few if any have thus far declared intent to cancel plans or skip the upcoming Commerce Hold’em Series, which kicks off Wednesday with a $500k Guarantee.

We’ve been saying for awhile how critical Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is for any regulated online gambling legislation to stand a chance at making its way into law. And despite non-denial denials from his office regarding plans for a forthcoming poker-only Senate bill, the Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that Reid is now saying something more directly suggestive of his online poker intentions:

[Gaming] executives said Reid, D-Nev., told them he would support the legalization of online poker in the United States but drew the line there — he would not support any other form of online gaming — during an Aug. 16 meeting at the Atlantis Casino Resort Spa [in Reno].

This falls in line with what Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) told the same paper earlier this month — that Reid’s position against online gambling had “softened dramatically” — after she and Nevada’s two other representatives made a serious push on Reid to support Barney Frank’s HR 2267. Berkley and Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) are Frank bill co-sponsors, and Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) “cautiously supports” it.

The problem Reid’s supposedly running into now are non-Harrah’s B/M casinos in northern Nevada asserting online gambling is a threat to business and Nevada tourism … thereby costing the state jobs. And as outdated and arguably inaccurate as that argument is — we’ve heard it before, from the same Vegas ops and Indian tribes that now support online gambling — anything that opponents can spin against Reid as anti-jobs probably isn’t something the senator would want to risk heading into November, as he faces a statewide election in the state with the highest unemployment in the nation. At a minimum, wading into such waters would require a lot more money for internet ads to smear Sharron Angle out of contention.

Titus, meanwhile, is making the argument to counter the smaller B/M casinos point of opposition. Her office’s spokesman told the RJG: “This legislation will not detract from our first-rate casinos and an industry that is vital to the livelihood of so many Nevadans, but will benefit Nevada’s casinos, many of which are interested in building an online presence in the United States.”

We’ll have to reserve judgment for now on what it all means … too many possibilities with so much money, power, and potential backstabbings in play. But it does reveal for certain that somebody’s Full Tilt checks arrived! federal bills ushering in a new era of online poker are moving forward, with or without casino games.

If you’re a registered voter in Nevada, visit the PPA for contact info to voice your position semi-directly to the Senate Majority Leader.

It was the King-Meeks amendment that assured the league the bill would exclude sports betting. One key supporters of this measure was John Campbell, a decidedly right-wing Republican from California who, incidentally, wrote the amendment that calls for a “blacklist” of “unlawful internet gambling enterprises”.

Photo special for Pokerati © James Berglie / BePhotography

Rep. John Campbell supports the rights of Americans to gamble online, so long as they can’t bet on football.

The effort to remove sports betting gives insight into the process of converting undecideds into supporters, as seen in the video below. Just a week earlier, Campbell had told the House Financial Services Committee, “You know I don’t gamble, and I don’t particularly like it; but freedom is not about legislating what I like to do and making illegal what I don’t.”

But as it became clear during markup that the NFL would be getting what they wanted and sports bettors would not, Barney Frank, who believes all forms of online gambling deserve the consumer protections HR 2267 advocates, couldn’t resist posing a somewhat humorous, if not uncomfortable question to his colleague from across the aisle:

With both the Campbell and King-Meeks amendments passing by voice vote, later that day Campbell signed on as the 70th cosponsor (and fourth Republican) willing to align themselves with online gambling.

McDermott makes a cautious prediction starting at about 4:57, saying, “It is very very likely that this bill will pass” before the end of the year. He then explains how and why he believes online gambling supporters on the Hill can win over the necessary Congressfolk, “one Member at a time”:

This interview came before the HR 2267 mark-up hearing, where the bill moved forward with a bigger margin of bipartisan victory than expected … presumably made easier by the various amendments added by representatives from across the country and across the political spectrum.

Because you can’t have McDermott’s bill, 2268, without 2267 — and 2267 means little in terms of practical application without 2268 — they totally go together. But until the two are merged, this dual-bill process also creates additional spots for cutthroat backstabbing shenanigans parliamentary maneuvers across the aisle should some influential sort not like the way the bill is taking shape for their client/big-donor’s competitive interest. I’m pretty sure that’s how it works … but to borrow a phrase from McDermott, not gonna say 100 percent.

So … watch and see?

You can watch it all going down here, assuming there aren’t shenanigans in play to delay matters further. And because there’s always a chance I don’t know WTF I’m talking about, Pokerati has deployed a Beltway team to not only keep us posted on today’s developments from the Hill, but also to provide a primer on what’s really in play today for the future of internet gambling and/or poker in America.

You can follow reports from the Hill today on Twitter with @Scarlet_LV, and below is more about what she’s walking into.

HR 2267 Markup

A special report for Pokerati by @Scarlet_LV
photos by James Berglie / Be Photography

If all goes well, the House Financial Services Committee will decide today the fate of HR 2267, which seems to be the keystone for any new laws that stand to eliminate burdens of the UIGEA and establish a framework for the future of licensed and regulated online poker in the United States.

Today’s hearing is a “mark-up”, where the full committee debates amendments to a bill, and votes on a motion to send the bill to the House floor with recommendations on the amendments to consider for a decisive vote. Make sense?

I’m pretty sure that’s how it works — but I never would’ve expected two weeks ago when dealing the WSOP that I’d be on Capitol Hill watching a different (but not too different) game with so much riding on the deals being cut. For more explanation, see house rules and parliamentary procedures here and here.

H.R. 2267 Internet Gambling Regulation and Consumer Protection, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act.

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling activities by the Secretary of the Treasury, to provide for consumer protections on the Internet, to enforce the tax code, and for other purposes.

Having attended last week’s meeting, I met this week with people who could fill me in on the amendments the Committee will be discussing today. Though more or fewer are possible, here’s what most expect:

1. Barney Frank “Managers Amendment” — the contents of this will not be disclosed to anyone before the markup, but it will provide the baseline used to “define the debate”
2. Brad Sherman –- his amendment will likely look to limit licensing to US-only companies and those that have not been acting “outside the law”.  Supposedly “smaller internet gaming companies” might be able to get around this if added to the bill, but bigger companies with a notable TV presence (such as FullTilt, PokerStars, and UB) would not be able to so easily if at all.
3. Spencer Bachus / Michele Bachmann –- perhaps with elements of Sherman’s amendment included (I peeked over the shoulder of some lawyer suits holding it yesterday, he’s looking to completely gut the bill and more regulation to strengthen anti-gambling components of the UIGEA.

With these potential amendments, you get a sense of the driving forces currently behind the bill, and the key players. These became apparent during last week’s hearing — which sources tell me was rather unusual for a bill like HR 2267 to get a second hearing like that — as testimony from Members and witnesses helped shape matters that will be in play today.

As the mark-up proceeds, here are the different Members and groups claiming a stake in this piece of legislation.

Representing:  personal freedom, sensible finance

H.R. 2267 Position: In favor. Says this bill will relieve the burden on banks and notes that the US Chamber of Commerce is likewise supportive.

Washington, D.C. – July 21st: Congressman BARNEY FRANK chairs the House Financial Services committee, discussing the “Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act.”
(Credit Image: © James Berglie)

“Unwise choices is (sic) part of freedom.”

“It is the death of freedom, if you say that because some minority of adults will abuse something you prohibit it.”

“Opposition to this bill consists of partly of people that think that gambling is terrible and partly of people think that it is so wonderful that they don’t want anyone else to compete with them in offering it.”

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama)
House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member

Representing:  anti-gambling, family values and protection of minors; protection of America from unwise financial decisions

H.R. 2267 Position:  Against

Washington, D.C. – July 21st: Congressman SPENCER BACHUS speaks at the House Financial Services committee, discussing the “Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act.”
(Credit Image: © James Berglie)

“After all the talk here about shutting down casinos on Wall Street, it makes no sense to me why we would be taking steps to open casinos in every home, dorm room, library, ipod, blackberry, ipad, and computer in America.”

After citing Obama’s legislation to protect Americans from “unwise financial decisions and predatory practice”, he expressed the irony he finds in discussing “the merits of a bill that will fleece Americans by reversing current restrictions on internet gambling.”   He believes that gambling is perhaps the “ultimate example” of an unwise and harmful financial choice made by Americans.

Claims the revenue from internet gambling will not match the estimates, and in any case, the revenue would benefit at the expense of the vulnerable (addicts, children).

Representing:  denying licensing to current operators, perhaps tribal and California brick and mortars

H.R. 2267 Position:  On the fence; modifications need to be made

Rep. Sherman quotes himself as saying in the past “you have had to leave your house to lose your house” but that he is reconsidering his stance.  He makes a interesting point that two reasons that some are making to support the bill are contradictory.  The first is that the technology available is too weak to be able to prevent what is already going on, and therefore we should tax it and benefit; the second is that the technology is strong enough to provide protection from minors.

Sherman seems to be willing to support this such that the current internet sites operating not be allowed to license under the premise they are currently operating outside the law. 

Representing:  personal freedom, consumer protection, internet gaming for economic growth

H.R. 2267 Position:  In favor

“You know, I don’t gamble, and I don’t particularly like it; in poker, I always forget what’s a straight and a flush ….  ….but freedom is not about legislating what I like to do and making illegal what I don’t.”  Likens people gambling online now to people enjoying liquor during Prohibition.    He supports the concept of consumer protection, and using the online gaming as a revenue stream for the US rather than other countries benefiting.

Representing:  protection of Californian interests – brick and mortars and tribal casinos, protect American jobs

H.R. 2267 Position:  Against

Rep. Baca is primarily concerned that the passing of this bill will cost jobs in the state of California and in the US, and violate tribal sovereignty rights.  He believes that the safeguards stated in this bill will do nothing to protect from fraud or problem gaming.  Baca states he is uncomfortable with the accessibility that internet gaming gives to children and problem gamblers.

Editor’s Note: Check back … the hearing is going on, and we’ve still got some updates on this post coming.

The markup hearing of the House Financial Services Subcommittee started shortly after 10am. The schedule is to discuss HR 2267 until 11am ET, then take a one-hour break. The Committee will return at 12pm for more discussion with a vote scheduled by 2pm ET.

A letter they all sent to Congressional members yesterday:

July 25, 2010

Dear Member:

In the next few days, you will consider legislation that would modify the regulation of Internet gambling. We have a variety of opinions about the specifics of the bill but, as representatives and employees free market organizations, we all strongly believe that the current government regulations intended to prohibit Internet gambling are destructive, burdensome, and unfair.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, and the Wire Act all need review and revision. The legislation you are about to consider about would make some necessary revisions particularly to the burdensome, silly, and destructive regulations contained within UIEGA.

Certainly, other approaches need to be tried. The ideas contained in the bill you are about to consider are certainly worth your careful consideration and attention.

Yours truly,

Eli Lehrer
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute

Grover Norqist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Wayne Brough
Chief Economist
FreedomWorks

Michelle Minton
Director of Insurance Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Wednesday’s hearing on HR 2267, which would regulate and license Internet gambling, brought out strong opinions from both sides in over two hours of testimony in front of the House Financial Services Committee. The next step in the legislative process is a mark-up of the bill, tentatively planned for next week where members of the Committee can add amendments to the legislation, with a vote to move the bill out of Committee and have the full House of Representatives vote on the legislation later this year. A couple of items from the hearing:

Bachus v Duke on Ultimate Bet scandal

One of the more contentious moments of the hearing was when Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) entered into evidence a two-year old article from MSNBC.com discussing the Ultimate Bet superuser scandal. That article stated that over $75 million had been stolen from its players. Duke corrected Bachus, stating that the figure was $22 million, and the entire amount was refunded to its players. Duke also stated that the scandal was a reason why regulation would be beneficial to those who play online poker so that justice could be served for the parties responsible for the scandal.

Disagreement among opponents

Another point brought up during the hearing was while anti-terrorism/money laundering consultant Michael K. Fagan, a former US attorney, was against all forms of Internet gambling. Meanwhile, California cardroom executive Tom Malkasian was also against the legislation, but he and his coalition of California cardrooms and Native American casinos have been pushing hard for intrastate gambling in California. Another Native American executive, The Honorable Lynn Malerba of the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut was for the legislation, but the tribes had to be on a level playing field. Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), who is against the legislation, got into a war of words with Malerba, stating the legislation could threaten the sovereignty of Native American casinos.

You can watch the hearing at the link above, and read the press release from the PPA regarding the hearing:

House Financial Services Committee Holds Hearing on Internet Poker Bill

Washington, DC (July 21, 2010) The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, thanked Chairman Frank for holding a hearing in the House Financial Services Committee on H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, paving the way to a markup and successful vote on H.R. 2267 before the August recess.

H.R. 2267 establishes the needed licensing and regulatory framework for the United States to exercise appropriate control and oversight over Internet poker and other forms of Internet gaming. Testifying in support of the legislation were professional poker player Annie Duke, Ed Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Federal Credit Union and The Honorable Lynn Malerba, Tribal Chairwoman, Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut.  This legislation is further supported by a diverse network of organizations including the American business community and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“This Committee and this Congress should not tolerate laws that seek to prevent responsible adults from playing a game we find stimulating, challenging and entertaining.  H.R. 2267 provides this freedom in a safe and regulated environment and I urge everyone on this Committee to support this common sense policy.  However you might feel about gambling on the Internet, I would suggest that gambling with freedom is far more risky,” said Duke.  

“The testimony we heard today underscores the challenges faced by the Federal government due to the unclear definition of what now constitutes unlawful Internet gambling and the glaring lack of protections for consumers,” said PPA Executive Director John Pappas.  “Frankly, our opponents can’t offer a consistent argument on this issue.  Former U.S. Attorney Michael Fagan wants to go as far as banning Internet gambling outright, and Tom Malkasian of Commerce Casino supports licensing and regulation – just not a competitive marketplace.  It seems that our opponents don’t even agree with each other here,” continued Pappas.

“As interest in and awareness of licensing and regulating online poker grows among members of Congress and the Administration – and with it the consumer protection and tax revenue benefits that accompany licensing and regulation – the PPA is ready and eager to work with policymakers to continue moving this legislation through the process,” concluded Pappas.

About The Poker Players Alliance

The Poker Players Alliance (www.theppa.org) is a nonprofit membership organization comprised of over 1,000,000 online and offline poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and to protect poker players’ rights.

UPDATE: A series of roll call votes will delay the hearing until at least 2:15pm.

This afternoon, Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing scheduled for 2pm to discuss HR 2267, a bill to license and regulate online gambling.

Five witnesses are expected to testify at today’s hearing (with links to ther opening testimony):

Ed Williams – President/CEO of Discovery Federal Credit Union (on behalf of the Credit Union National Association)
Tom Malkasian – Vice Chairman and Director of Strategic Planning, Commerce Casino
The Honorable Lynn Malerba – Tribal Chairwoman, Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut
Michael K. Fagan – Law Enforcement/Anti-Terrorism Consultant
Annie Duke – Testifying on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance

AnnieDuke Heading to DC tomorrow. Testifying Wednesday at 2pm in front of Chairman Frank’s Committee on his new legislation to regulate online gaming.
about 4 hours ago via web

Apparently it’s the real deal taking shape in DC. Annie, of course, has been in this position before and delivered admirably … and that was before she had faced off several times in front of Donald Trump in the Apprentice board room.

Still unclear how far the current package of poker-related bills can go this year. (Frank Bill, McDermott Bill, and think one other in the Senate but have lost track.) Not to be a doubter nor pose as a political Joe Navarro, but it doesn’t look promising in what’s sure to be a contentious election season when the three most powerful Dems in America (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) are kinda speaking volumes with their silence on the awesomeness — nay, the righteousness — of internet gambling.

Maybe that’s what this week’s hearing is all about?

With Annie testifying in DC, her brother Howard Lederer stepping out in a new way, and their good friend Andy Bloch taking the lead for poker engaging a wider community concerned with internet freedoms as a whole, you can tell — or at least it seems — that poker political forces have shifted gears.

The bill itself seems like it might be struggling, as might have been suspected in a contentious election year. But poker opponents are rallying their troops, with Focus on the Family getting their members to voice their staunch opposition:

The bills represent the most aggressive expansion of gambling in American history.

The instant accessibility and anonymity of Internet gambling sites will only accelerate addiction and increase the negative social and fiscal costs imposed on U.S. citizens, families and nonprofits.

Research shows gambling is already the fastest growing addiction among the Millennial generation.

Congress voted four years ago to pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) to combat, not encourage, these costs.

What we know and can prove about groups like FOF — they lie.

You can see they’re even trying to encourage their usual Congressional supporters to not risk losing the all-important Tea-Party vote by claiming our argument about the money online gambling generates as their own, simply flipping things around to contend these bills — despite a recent study about the 10s of thousands of jobs and 10s of billions in tax revenue that licensed and regulated online gambling would create — will “cost” America money.

What jerks. Hope your God is a vengeful one.

Perhaps that’s why Full Tilt has taken the unprecedented move of publicly stating its support for these poker-friendly pieces of legislation, and is calling on its players to reach out to Washington DC. In cooperation with the PPA, Full Tilt (dot-net) has launched a new site — www.fulltilt.standupforpoker.com — that features a video of Howard Lederer encouraging players to take action.

According to Focus on the Family’s shell site “CitizenLink”, Congress will be looking at two bills on Wednesday — both Frank’s bill and the McDermott bill, HR 2268 — with markup planned for a week later, July 28. I’m not so sure that part is certain, actually — poker politicos are saying only that markup will be “soon”.

But if it is just a week-and-a-half away … great! And if not, more reason to be concerned about what poker’s political enemies will stoop to do in an effort to make matters seem even more critical to their membership — which has the influence, if not the power — to derail us.

Yet at the same time, momentum in Congressional circles seems to be going the other way — with more money being spent on online gambling-related lobbying than ever before, and not coincidentally, a growing number of congressfolk suddenly on board with the cause.

But when it comes to hammering out a future for our specific special interest — licensed and regulated online poker — the Poker Players Alliance is hardly the only group claiming to speak on our behalf. The AGA, iMega, various Native American interests, the NTRA (horse racing) and the American Horse Council … they all want seats at the lawmaking table, too. However, the PPA is the only group specifically focussed on poker, that was built by poker players, and operates in Washington DC with poker community and industry interests foremost in mind.

Thus …

On July 1st, the PPA will be launching an unprecedented 1-day fundraising drive with the goal of raising $50,000 in support of our advocacy and grassroots efforts. We are asking all loyal poker supporters to make a donation to the PPA — even if it’s just $5 — on July 1st.

www.pokermoneybomb.com

Love or hate Obama-driven reform, with health care out of the way, “financial overhaul” is next on the agenda. And the man spearheading this effort is poker’s ole friend Barney Frank, who has the ability and interest to make sure online gambling is — or is not — part of that political conversation.

Supposedly financial overhaul isn’t gonna be some years-long endeavor like health care; instead Congress is ready to push things along as quickly as possible, getting the main bill to Obama’s desk in like a month, they say … or at least before November’s elections.

That’s why the PPA (imho) is circling its financial wagons now in preparation for a “surge” … and why poker players should want to help them.

You can be sure that online casino, online sports betting, Indian tribe, state lottery, and even right-wing morality-based special interest groups are all ready to deploy their resources as needed. And while the PPA has shown with its million-plus social-media-savvy membership that it can be one of the loudest advocacy groups among them … at four years old they are still the smallest financially and least-established in DC circles of influence.

So while the PPA has vociferously made the anti-UIGEA case since its inception, now that Washington is ready to move on related matters, there are plenty of folks claiming to be poker allies who’d be more than happy to take over from here — and not necessarily because they envision the same licensed and regulated online poker future that you do.

As the messy business of re-writing law, bargaining for amendments, and negotiating line-item compromise heats up in July, this could prove to be a critical time. And the last thing poker players should want now is to see the PPA stuck at the kiddie table.

Again, PPA Poker Moneybomb, July 1 … pretty sure this is how the big kids do it. Click here to insta-donate.

Nothing to do with poker specifically at first glance … but if you believe the Feds don’t operate in a vacuum, there seems to be a message here that might-should have a few Poker After Dark regulars shitting bricks taking note …

I learned about the arrest from J. Todd, whom I find myself paying closer attention to than before as the June 1 D-Day approaches. However, point of order, dude, I think you got it wrong saying Lyons was the first ever UIGEA arrest. I’m 99.99 percent sure he was the second. You gotta read your Pokerati, man, where you’ll see that the first was Daniel Tzvetkoff. It’s right there, charge #4, in the criminal complaint from the DOJ! Reason magazine saw the same thing, too.

With that out of the way (we understand typos here), let’s look a little closer at this case and how it may or may not be different from payment processor arrests related to online poker …

First off, this indictment does not come out of the Southern District of New York, which we know is where the biggest poker heat has been coming from. However, is it just a coincidence that the first UIGEA arrest happened in Las Vegas (capital of the poker world) and the second was in Massachusetts (home to the biggest Congressional opponent of the UIGEA). The message someone could read here is “Barney Frank can’t save you!”

Also, the three arrested payment processors with direct connections to American-facing online poker sites — Rennick, Schuett, and Tzvetkoff — all were foreign nationals. Though I haven’t yet seen the legal docs on Lyons, it seems he’s an American. OK, so part two of the message: we’re not just going after foreigners, we’ll arrest Americans, too!

And in case anyone’s not getting it, Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, gave a statement to telegraph the DOJ’s intent clarify:

“The conduct alleged in this case reveals a blatant effort to circumvent gaming and tax laws. The notion that the type of activity alleged here is legal because it is conducted over the Internet from offshore is pure fiction.’’

Yikes, so you’re saying the DOJ is going after people in America who operate businesses they believe to be illegal, even if the central computer action takes place in another country? But that would be bad for some people we know … Are you sure about that? Have you talked to Barack Obama?

Actually, it turns out she has. While most of the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are Bush-era holdovers, Ortiz was a relatively recent Obama appointee, sworn in in January 2010 by current Attorney General Eric Holder.

Wow. Let me soak this in here … Are you trying to say the whole US government — even the current administration — could be in on this, not just a few robes in Manhattan pretending to be Mob-busters?

It’s possible. And though not unrealistic that US Attorneys in New York might compare notes with US Attorneys in Boston, especially when they work under the same boss, it could all be coincidence.

Ortiz comes originally from New York, after all … and years ago, she worked closely with the NFL.

Stossel outs himself as a recreational poker player in an episode of his namesake show on Fox Business that aired Thursday: Bans on Betting.

The show re-aired throughout the weekend, and will be on one more time tonight, Sunday, at 10 PM ET.

His efforts to bring the online gambling issue to the fore last week extended far beyond his own show. Here he is on The O’Reilly Factor:

While Stossel makes quite the issue of state lottery hypocrisies, O’Reilly seems to have little clue about the prominence of internet gambling, and thus presumably how big and evolved the industry has become. However, the speed in which someone can go broke seems to be important to people who don’t get the awesomeness of Rush Poker.

Also check out his latest syndicated column, which ran in newspapers across the country last week: Leave the Gamblers Alone!

In it he speaks to Chad Hills of Focus on the Family and Andy Bloch representing the online gambling side. I’d typically include a blockquote here, but almost every paragraf leads to another one worthy of cut-and-paste, so just click and read the whole thing. (Kinda cool that he ledes with a bit about police raiding a VFW hall — hey, I know where he learned about that!)

You’ll likely see more of this debate moving forward. Mix the timing of the main event with the UIGEA deadline, some criminal investigations, and legislation … and suddenly media who don’t rely on online-poker-site press releases have a storyline with some teeth. And if any players regularly seen on TV end up in handcuffs — “Perp Walk with the Pros” — then they’ve really got a few hedlines, for better or for worse. In some respects, the attention that would bring could be huge for ESPN ratings! actually help the online poker industry finally get what they’ve long wanted, albeit probably not the way they wanted.

Of course, with the mainstream media trying to get a handle on poker issues, they’ll undoubtedly get a few things wrong. But in bringing our issues to light, Stossel’s recent TV appearances provide a pretty good read on where things currently stand for online gambling … and where poker interests may have fallen short in getting the message out that we all practically know by heart.

A few examples become obvious on Megyn Kelly’s daytime show, America Live:

* Kelly claims 2/3 of American public want internet gambling to stay illegal. I’m pretty sure there are studies out there that say exactly the opposite, but for some reason she didn’t get word of those, and pretty much dismisses Stossel when he questions the veracity of her numbers.

* Stossel brings up odds, and why the lottery preys on poor people. This woulda been a good time for him to explain how poker is different from other forms of gambling … apparently not everyone understands that.

* Stossel is a string-bettor.

* Barney Frank wouldn’t appear on Stossel’s show. WTF? Supposedly because Stossel offended him with a joke, but I’m wondering if we won’t be seeing Barney for some reason or another until after June 1.

And then on Varney & Co. on Fox Business:

* He explains the crackdown on payment processors.

* Again, more lottery talk.

* They discuss setting up a poker operation online … at which point Stossel jumps on the personal freedom issues, but doesn’t clarify that the example given couldn’t apply, because poker isn’t played against a house.

* Tax revenue shouldn’t be the big reason for legalizing online gambling?

* Gambling a better vice than marijuana? Hmm, that’s a tough call …

Much credit to @RichMuny and @TheEngineer2008 for making these videos easy to find.