But this upcoming week, Frank’s online gambling bills apparently are moving … on the docket for Friday, April 16, are Full Committee hearings for H.R. 2266, Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act and H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act-Governmental Perspectives.

Click here to watch the committee hearing live when it happens.

UPDATE: This hearing has been postponed, without a new date set.

HR 2266 is the bill that would grant a one-year delay for enforcement of the UIGEA. (The Treasury Department lumped it in with some bigger-politics stuff last year and compromised with a six-month delay, which expires on June 1.) So perhaps further delay is possible?

HR 2267, of course, is the full-fledged UIGEA-repealing online gambling regulations. Not sure where “governmental perspectives” comes in, but that’s how it’s officially listed at the top of the House Financial Services Committee calendar. I’m pretty sure this is where the committee goes over the bill, representatives voice their beefs, and send it back for revisions. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) will likely preach the terror it brings to the the children, at which point any Tea-Party-minded Republicans will have to say, “Yeah, he’s got a point. Make the child protection stronger and I can sell it to my voters as being fiscally sensible!” I think that’s how it moves … once they do that, then the bill is ready to be (considered to be) heard on the House floor.

It’s gonna be a big week for poker in Washington DC, that much is for sure. A high-power poker politico contingent will be in town (with their Hollywood friends?) for the Ante Up for Africa-DC tourney on April 14. Why on earth is no one broadcasting that tournament? TV pros and movie stars vs. congresspeople trying to out-bully and out-deceive each other … with a little lobbying subtext to the banter? It’d be like Celebrity Poker Showdown meets C-Span. Throw Gabe Kaplan in the mix and you’ve got a guaranteed ratings hit.

Here’s what I’m watching. Follow along if you we can …

* Yikes, video is great – HD! – but audio sucks, like irritatingly buzzy and scratchy.

* Barney’s opening argument … personal freedom. On the internet.

* He quotes John Stewart John Stuart Mill.

* Holy shit, you can pause this video? Like even without Tivo … awesome. I’ll be right back … need to get a beverage …

* OK, I’m back. While I was gone a press release came over the wire … apparently something that will be introduced forthcoming:

Study Shows Regulation of Internet Gaming Effective and Attainable
Study Unveiled During Financial Services Hearing on H.R. 2267

Washington, DC (December 3, 2009) –The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, today commended the release of a study by Harvard Professor Malcolm Sparrow showing that the best way to address the risks of Internet gambling is through regulation, not a prohibition. The study, commissioned by Wired Safety, a leading Internet safety non-profit, was released during the House Financial Services Committee hearing on H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act.

“Following last week’s decision by the Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury to delay the implementation of the flawed Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), the release of this study adds even more fuel to the fire that a prohibition like UIGEA won’t work and that licensing and regulation, such as Chairman Frank’s H.R. 2267, is the right answer,” said PPA Chairman Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato. “Robust and effective licensing and regulation will not only protect poker players, children and problem gamblers, but also collect billions in tax revenue that is currently being lost. This is a win-win situation.”

As more attention is being paid to the appropriate way for the U.S. to oversee online gaming, the Wired Safety study provides an academic view of how best to protect consumers. The study cites evidence that millions of U.S. consumers currently gamble online through offshore gambling sites, outside of American oversight and thus offering no consumer protections. The study concludes that a prohibition on online gambling would only serve to continue down this misguided path and turn a blind eye to protecting American consumers, especially children and problem gamblers.

The second, and equally important, component of the study is that not only is licensing and regulation the best approach, it is also realistically achievable given the technologies available today – and being used in other countries. Learning from what works around the world, the report identifies regulatory tools and technologies that have reduced the risks associated with underage and problem gamblers, money laundering, fraud, privacy and security.

“The technology to effectively regulate Internet gambling in the United States is available today – and it works. The time has come for Congress to acknowledge that Internet gambling is not going away and that consumers need – and want – the security of Federal regulation of this industry,” continued D’Amato. “The PPA looks forward to continuing to work with Chairman Frank on this legislation.”

* There are not a lot of people here:

* The bald heads in the foreground are the people who will be testifying.

* In the back, you can see Barney Frank (D-MA), our strongest opponent Spencer Bachus (R-AL) … and I’m not sure who the woman is on his far right.

* Barney starts out addressing the issue of protecting kids — we have to stop kids from doing all sorts of things on the internet, he says.

* Spencer is still very concerned of this wave of internet addicted youth roaming the, um, internet.

* Anyone wanna place odds on whether or not Joe Cada gets brought up in this hearing?

* Spencer’s lead argument is that the 24/7 temptation is too much for kids to handle. I’m biased, but his arguments on why it’s different than buying liquor or porn or weak.

* We’ve heard all these arguments before. I could out-debate this guy in a neutral forum any day. #WorldSeriesofDebate

* Now he’s bringing up his real beef: Spencer wants to put these “illegal gambling enterprises” out of business, “not reward them like the Chairman [Frank] would do.” That’s a big friggin’ challenge man.

* Bear with me. Multitasking …

* Spencer Bachus is very unhappy that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have “allied” with Frank. He is very upset — it’s “particularly egregious” — that no one from the Fed or DOJ has been invited to this hearing.

* Most offensive Spencer Bachus statement so far: claiming that we are going against the will of the people — the American people have spoken — because the Congress voted overwhelmingly for the UIGEA. (No mention of the whole dirty Port Security thing.)

* If this passes, says Bachus, we will create a generation of 10s of millions of Americans who will be addicted to internet gambling from their youth.

* YES! That’s what we want! I mean, no, that’s not right. Check your numbers Beyot-achus. Coca-Cola! Baby stock trading commercials!

* LOL, they’re scratching! Addicted gamblers will be a danger because they will be playing from their Blackberries or iPhones while they drive, he says! Funny because it’s true.

* Bachus will do everything he can to make sure this never happens, he says. Sigh. My bullshit detector going berzerker.

* Awesome. Frank and Bachus fighting now over whether or not there was a request submitted for someone from the Fed or DOJ to be there.

* My inner Joe Wilson to Spencer Bachus: “You lie! You lie, distort, and jimmy! Liar liar pants on fire!”

* Barney shutting Bachus up — “It’s MY time!” — calling him out on his procedural mistruths.

* Barney no turning it on the matter of turning the banks into the internet police.

* Barney calling out mistruths related to Bachus’ numbers. Trying to shift it to efforts to stop adults from gambling online.

* Addiction addiction addiction. Barney is trying to dismiss relevance of addiction arguments.

* Ooh, first poker specific argument! He’s saying calling the millions of poker players addicts is unfair.

* Yikes. This is going to take a long time. Representative from Independent Community Bankers of America from West Virginia. (You say Darvin, I say Moon!)

* HR 2266 and 2267. Those are the bills we’re talking about.

* This bank guy likes our issue. He says the banks’ having to enforce a ban on internet gambling transactions would hinder their efforts to stop terrorism and rebound from the financial crisis. A little Spencer Bachusy with his linkage, but hey, he’s on our side, so yeah, you tell’em!

Mr. Samuel A. Vallandingham, Chief Information Officer and Vice President, The First State Bank on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America

* OK, wow, I’ve gone back (as per commenting with KevMath) and all sorts of stuff I missed from Bachus. He says $40 million has been spent lobbying to repeal this law.

* Listening to the part about the FBI letter … Bachus submitting it for the record, where it supposedly says that the technology exists for peer-to-peer transfer of ill-gotten gains from one person to another. (His words, mostly.)

* The FBI rejects claims from vendors that they can validate age and location.

* Any protections won’t work, says Bachus. Still nothing about Osama bin Laden.

* Ah, that $40 million lobbying figure goes all the way back to Abramoff. OK, fastforwarding back to the Independent bankers guy …

* Please don’t make us do this, the banker says. Leave it to law enforcement and courts, he adds!

* Uh-oh, Barney Frank admitting he did get an email from Bachus’ camp on Tuesday afternoon requesting testimony from the DOJ and Treasury. He apologizes. He was busy.

* Current score: Frank 4 – 1 Bachus

* We’d like more than one day notice, Frank says.

* Frank says he will have no problem with the Federal Reserver coming in to testify. He thinks they make his case great.

* I was wondering about the DOJ, though … it’s really hard to say where they stand on “our issue” (my term, not Frank’s). I think against.

* No taking the mic … a guy repping Indian casinos. Ooh, should be interesting. Wondering where they fall here.

* Ah, California. We know they want in.

The Honorable Robert Martin, Tribal Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians

* Indian guy droppong President Obama’s name … something he submitted on November 5th of this year. Executive Order 13175: Tribal officials are supposed to be in on this action.

* Tribes were not consulted on the UIGEA delay.

* Tribal gaming = 600,000 jobs.

* By following the law, Indian tribes are not able to compete in international marketplace. “Please allow the current regulatory scheme to work and protect that which we have so carefully built.”

* Hmm, not sure exactly what that request is then.

* Skipping ahead to the end on Twitter:

@VegasTales
Hearing is over. Last point made was that gambling with credit cards is bad, but debit cards are fine.

* The woman speaking now might be our best testifier yet:

Ms. Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety

* She protects kids on the internet for a living, apparently. Says Aftab: “This is a consumer protection issue … it’s ironic that I am sitting here today saying the only way to protect the consumers from online gambling risk is by legalizing it. I never thought I would say such a thing. But if we don’t legalize it, we can’t regulate it.”

* She wants a holistic approach. Financial system regulation is only part of it. “I do not advocate gambling anywhere. I advocate the protection of consumers and families and children.”

* Aftab is now claiming that she works with Bachus regularly (and with volunteers in his district) … very interesting someone on his side taking our side.

* It’s all about who gets what cut.

* Murmur? Be careful what we wish for? The Indians have to get their money, the Family Safety people have to get their money … see how this works? We’re gonna get there — I’m almost sure — but we are gonna have to share the profits — big time. And not just via taxes. That’s what I’m reading into this.

* Her group did a study — paid for by gambling interests — but she insists the data was protected and not manipulated.

* Now here comes the Harvard professor who ran the study … Macolm Sparrow, from the JFK School of Government, with an expertise in regulatory policy.

* They assessed risks associated with regulation. No moral issues considered, and no attempt to take a side on legalize online gambling or not.

* I’m fading …

* Really fading …

* Numbers. $6 billion. Status quo.

* Here’s a picture of Barney:

* US market currently represents 1/3 – 1/4 of the global market (despite existing restrictions)

* Gibraltar … ooh, wait, this is interesting. Rewind …

* OK, British companies, those in UK, Gibraltar, and Alderney are well-regulated.

* Those run out of Antigua, Grenada, and the Kahnawake not so much. “Less well-regulated or completely unregulated.”

* US incurs all the social costs.

* US has no jurisdictional control for its citizens who play.

* US offers no consumer protection. (These are the Professor’s arguments.)

* US, currently, is unable to prevent organized criminal growth.

* (Do you get the idea that Spencer Bachus is saying the same thing we are to these?)

* Conclusion: Legalization + Regulation ~ licensing = Good. Current legislation provides adequate framework.

* Eventually, he says, US sites will be able to dominate the industry, and all categories of risk would be better controlled.

* Now: Mr. Keith S. Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on Problem Gambling

* Neutral on these two bills. Just here to discuss problem gambling to establish a baseline (my interpretation) on what’s what when they are arguing problem gambling issues.

* 1 percent of Americans have a really bad gambling problem. A few percentage points more have a kinda bad gambling problem. Including 500k kids age 12-17.

* $7 billion a year in social costs of problem gambling.

* Internet gambling has the lowest participation of any form of gambling. It’s an “add-on” for people already involved in gambling.

* UIGEA had no affect up or down on problem gambling helpline calls.

* The problem gambling guy appears to be wearing his nice cufflinks:

* He wants the law to require money for his research. He finds it appalling (but not in an angry way) that the current bills don’t have anything in them for research on problem gambling.

* $7ish million in grants should suffice.

* He claims to be working for Bachus’ issues, too.

* New guy: Mr. Jim Dowling, Dowling Advisory Group

* Says he has dedicated his whole professional life to preventing fraud, money laundering, and now financing of terrorism. I think he said he’s a former IRS special agent.

* He’s now on the casino payroll, helping them prevent money laundering.

* Another Barney:

* Dowling says he takes no side on the legislation. It’s a banking, law enforcement, and technology problem as-is.

* Billions of dollars at stake. And terrorist financing.

* I think this is important … but I’m zoning out …

* Land based casinos have good stuff in play. Sophisticated electronic systems, foot surveillance, strong compliance department doing transactional monitoring, state regulatory agency … 24/7 365 …

* (Efforts to blacklist sites is impossible, he said earlier.)

* Frank jumps in to tell him to rap it up … and he did.

* Last guy. Mr. Mike Brodsky, Executive Chairman, Youbet.com

* Microphone problems. Lots of starch in his cufflinks.

* Youbet is the largest legal online gambling op in the US … they handle horse racing. In the process of being acquired by Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby.

* He really really wants legalized internet gambling. Even though he technically already has it.

* They love technology. He has kids. Legal is the best! Only way to protect kids.

* Barney Frank closing it all up, addressing Indian concerns … don’t worry you can be in on it, too, he says.

* Indians concerned about jobs being shipped off-shore.

* Ah, the horse racing people are concerned because the DOJ still considers some of their business illegal, because their UIGEA-protected transactions — 88 percent of them — take place over state lines.

* Spencer Bachus gets his final questions and words. He’s trying to discredit the studies based on their being funded by the PPA and Harrah’s.

* The lady insists her data (and Prof. Sparrow’s) is pure.

* Bachus trying to site a study that shows addiction problems dropped after the UIGEA, and then came back up when Treasury didn’t enforce it.

* No way, he’s trying to bring the suicide factor back in while trying to discredit the National Council of Problem Gambling guy?

* Some new guy speaking … not sure who it is, but he is bringing up the historical problems with alcohol prohibition, and why regulation is a better way to curb its destructive potential.

* Yeesh, I kinda fast-forwarded … there’s still a way to go. Taking a break …

* Here’s the Youbet bloke. He seemed to have the most self-interest on display:

* A letter from some law enforcement guy … saying yeah, regulation is better than black market. Rep. Moore (?) wants to drive it into the sunlight.

* Yep, Rep. Dennis Moore … from Kansas.

* Unknown alcohol prohibition comparison guy giving Bachus credit for his concerns, acknowledging they are real, but disagreeing with his solutions.

* Lady says: Technology can do a whole lot to help problem gamblers.

* Self-set betting limits help. (Indeed. I’ll set mine to one BILLION dollars!)

* Ahh, now they are bringing into play the billions and billions of data on online gambling transactions … and how that can help with predictive behavior.

* Rep. Peter King (R-NY) in the house. He apologizes for being late, but says it’s because he had something to do as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

* King says he’s dealing with major Constitutional issues there, so he apologizes for the pop-in, as he just came over from a Homeland Security hearing on the White House party crashers and related separation of powers.

* He thanks Rep. Bachus for his hard work, even though they haven’t seen eye-to-eye on this issue over the years.

* King got in a spat with another Congressman from Illinois earlier this year:

Rep. Rush says Rep. King should apologize for calling Michael Jackson a pervert

* King brings up how the UIGEA was passed … without barking on the process of last-minute hardly related add-ons … simply saying that those who voted for it were well-intentioned, but the law has had unintended consequences.

Important Rep. Republican Popper-Inner.

* I wonder if it’s a Republican issue … that King didn’t want to seem too supportive.

* OK, probably not. He’s speaking very strongly in support of both UIGEA repeal bills.

* King gives a shout-out to Ron Paul and his libertarian ideals.

* Frank gives King props as a former Chair of the Homeland Security Dept. and now ranking member.

* Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) now pushing for the States. “You have to leave your house to lose your house,” he says. Huh?

* But maybe we can’t stop it anyway, he says, since the internet has no boundaries.

* Ahh, now I get it … he’s discrediting the Indians. Pointing out that Robert Martin is against the federal regulation but pushing for the state regulation in California. Or something like that. Not sure where Martin stands. Or Sherman for that matter.

* Damn states.

* Someone’s cell phone rings briefly. Not an embarrassing ring. Standard phone sound.

* Martin choking a bit on trying to explain the consortium of California tribes.

* This whole California state thing is directly referencing “online poker” … and working with the card rooms.

* Fugk, I’m getting a phone call. “Ignore”.

* Where was I?

* Oh, right … so the Indians are just saying they want to compete like any other business enterprise, but it may or may not be outside their compacts, which is why they need to work with the state to establish this entity that they would like to have competing for any federally regulated online poker pie.

* I kinda get it.

* Yeah yeah, leave a friggin’ voicemail, I’m typing …

* Sherman poses question to Martin (the Tribal rep) … what are your fixed costs? Martin goes silent, consults with notes and associate.

* In the interim, Sherman, from Caifornia mind you, calls out Nevada for not having a representative at this meeting … and then points out that Nevada is at the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis.

* It is. My landlords are letting Pokerati HQ go into foreclosure. Forced move forthcoming. A-holes

* I can’t tell if Sherman is working with or against the California Indians.

* Dude, Martin … he’s faltering!

* Rep. Lee — not sure what state or party he’s from — now doing his own pop-in, bringing up the issues of credit cards … claiming, essentially, that gambling on a credit card is getting an unsecured loan to gamble with.

* Interesting.

* He says he is making no moral judgment, just bringing up the credit card issue. It’s unfair to taxpayers if they’re stuck with bad debts on that sorta thing.

* Hmm.

* So here’s the only comment he wants on the record — that online gambling should only be allowed on debit cards. Not credit.

* And he’d like to know how much, percentage-wise, of online gambling takes place via credit card. As opposed to debit.

* Frank adjourns the meeting: “We will be returning to the subject next year.”

* And likewise, I adjourn.

According to the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, the tens of billions of dollars collected by the U.S. government from online gaming could offset health care costs going forward:

An increased focus on the benefits of Internet gambling regulation are expected as the Senate Finance Committee considers a proposal introduced on Saturday to use Internet gambling revenue to offset the costs of health care reform. The amendment offered by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) would dedicate Internet gambling tax revenue generated through implementation of the currently pending Internet Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267) to increase low-income subsidies provided through the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis shows that collecting taxes on regulated Internet gambling would allow the U.S. to capture up to $62.7 billion over the next decade.

Wyden is a chairman of the Senate Finance subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness.

U.S. News & World Report provided a forum for representatives of both sides of the issue of legalizing and regulating (and taxing) online gaming. When Rep. Barney Frank introduced H.R. 2267 on May 6, Rep. Spencer Bachus was quick to respond with a blurb about criminals, youth, blah blah. But the U.S. News piece allowed both parties to cool down and present their opinions with some bias thought.

In this corner, we have the winning argument from Frank, with a heavy concentration on the personal freedom aspect of the issue. He also takes the time to counter some of the arguments like the alleged criminal element and the sports betting worries. A few excerpts:

With Gambling, Personal Freedom Is Always the Best Bet, Says Barney Frank
There are many vices in the U.S. Those that hurt others must be stopped. Online gaming need not be.
Posted June 1, 2009
By Barney Frank
Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee

There is one major reason that leads me to oppose the ban on Internet gambling: It is an activity that adult Americans enjoy and that does no conceivable harm to anybody else…

Several other negative arguments exist. The least serious comes from the professional sports leagues, which express their horror that if Internet gambling were allowed, people might actually bet on sports games. The bill I proposed prohibits betting on sports through the Internet, but the notion that the people who run professional sports leagues are shocked by the idea that people might actually bet on their games has to rank as one of the least credible in human history. Indeed, one of the major shortcomings of the current law is precisely that it prohibits human behavior that in fact harms no one. Thus, it winds up doing more to discredit the law than to discourage the activity….

Finally, there are two blatant contradictions in the position of those conservatives who push to outlaw Internet gambling. First, it is the most glaring example we have of interfering with freedom on the Internet. Second, to those who claim to be unhappy with the intrusiveness of the “nanny state,” there is no stronger case than for a nanny government insisting we be “better” people by reducing our freedom.

On this issue, there is a very clear case for the citizen’s right to be left alone.

And in the other corner, we have Bachus with some irrational Joan-Rivers-esque arguments about crime and the corruption of society. A few excerpts:

Online Gambling Leads to Crime and Hurts Young, So Why Encourage It? Asks Spencer Bachus
Computer betting lures the young and leads to crime. Government should not send the wrong message.
Posted June 1, 2009
By Spencer Bachus
Republican from Alabama and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee

In the history of our country, the federal government has never authorized or sanctioned gambling of any kind. Now, offshore casino interests are leading an unprecedented effort to legalize Internet gambling.

Internet gambling’s characteristics are unique: Online players can gamble 24 hours a day, seven days a week from home; children may play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of cash, leading to addiction, bankruptcy, and crime. Young people are particularly at risk because a computer in the bedroom or dorm room of a young person is a temptation that many may fall prey to…

Even if one concedes that legalization and regulation could possibly prevent underage gambling, compulsive play, cheating by casinos as documented by 60 Minutes and the Washington Post, and money laundering or drug trafficking by criminals on U.S.-sanctioned gambling sites, the pre-2006 problem of predatory, illegal offshore casino bets would return. One country’s rules would be woefully insufficient. Ultimately, the results of legalization would be expanding, sanctioning, and inevitably losing control of an industry that offers few advantages to the economy or tax base but incredible pain to families across the country.