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.

As much as we try to resist, about twice a year CardPlayer.com does something uniquely worthy of sending you to them. (See, their spade points up, ours points down … that’s why we’re generally not link-friends.) The first of 2010 come from Stephen Murphy’s interview with Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association. It’s a great getting-to-know one of poker’s most powerful potential allies in Washington DC … and he provides a solid explanation of where, from the Big Casinos perspective, all the current legislation, in DC and the various statehouses, stands.

First thing is that Fahrenkopf acknowledges the AGA has officially changed its position on online gambling. For years the folks at AmericanGaming.org were against, and more recently shifted to neutral. Now, overall, they can be chalked up as for. “Open to the concept” means they’ll get behind it, so long as it’s done the “right” way.

However, Fahrenkopf informs us, the AGA’s voting membership is leaning more towards a state-based regulation model, and are maintaining a neutral stance on Barney Frank’s federal bill specifically. Also, he acknowledges, there actually is a need for the UIGEA if we really want the safe, protected internet gaming that we all purport to be demanding.

Good stuff that you can’t find anywhere else … and something that anyone following how the legislative framework that will shape poker’s future is, er, taking shape … will want to read.

Thursday is the hearing in the Barney Frank-led House Financial Services Committee in regards to regulating online gambling.

Witness List & Prepared Testimony:

You can watch the proceedings over at this link

Dec 3 – 10:00 AM ET

The Honorable Robert Martin, Tribal Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Ms. Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety
Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Mr. Keith S. Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on Problem Gambling
Mr. Jim Dowling, Dowling Advisory Group
Mr. Samuel A. Vallandingham, Chief Information Officer and Vice President, The First State Bank on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America
Mr. Mike Brodsky, Executive Chairman, Youbet.com

You can read the testimony for each person at the PPA site.

Agencies Extend Compliance Date for Final Rule to Implement Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board on Friday announced the release of a joint final rule to extend the compliance date for their joint regulation implementing certain provisions of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act by six months to June 1, 2010.

But a drinky Steve Lipscomb and even drinkier online poker exec were offering up a bit more at G2E this week.

THE INSIDE STRAIGHT:
Officially, they want to be regulated, but …
Unofficially, large online poker sites have the best of both worlds

After his segment, Lipscomb found the executive at the bar — “three or four drinks ahead of me,” he said this week at the Global Gaming Expo at the Las Vegas Convention Center.

The executive had just finished an interview in which he said he wants his business to be regulated and taxed in the United States, instead of operating in a legal gray area. He had a different story for Lipscomb.

“He said, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ” Lipscomb said. “ ‘I don’t want to be regulated and taxed. That’s the most ridiculous thing in the world. I’m making money without being taxed, without being regulated.’ ”

The executive’s conflicting statements illustrate the fractured nature of online poker in the U.S., Lipscomb said.

Word I’m hearing, btw, is that we’re drawing dead to a 1-outer in a 47-card deck for any anti-UIGEA legislation passing in 2009 … though I am (supposedly) eagerly awaiting to hear “good news” on the UIGEA delay — a move being pushed through the executive branch, not the legislative — like today … which I have come to learn in political circles probably means like Tuesdayish or maybe never.

A bit more from the click-worthy column above:

Even so, Lipscomb said, unless a clear plan is established, chaos — or at least conflict — will reign. Online poker operators who have opted out of the U.S. market don’t want their competitors who remained in the market to benefit from any settlements they made with the government. The major companies dealing to U.S. customers don’t want the paradigm to change, possibly leaving them without the ability to gain a license if new laws are enacted.

Lipscomb calls this stalemate of sorts “the thing that’s beneath the thing that’s beneath the thing that nobody really talks about.”

Uh-huh … touché Stevie-boy … “Nobody” lol. True.

Gambling Regs Could Fill Gov’t Coffers

Maybe it is time to press the issue … not just for poker, but for the sake of US America?

Nothing we don’t already know … but again, good that the national non-poker media is at least aware. And if we learned anything from our efforts in Texas over the post several years, the media still loves poker-related legal stories. Something to keep in mind when we make a more serious push.

the biggest problem for poker enthusiasts appears to be an already crowded legislative agenda. Frank has pushed his bill off until September.

I almost forgot that when this National Poker Week was conceived, it was supposed to coincide with active hearings. Can’t help but wonder how that might’ve made things different.

Curious timing. It could just be a throwaway piece of filler, or it could be given an introductory time-hook connecting it to the kickoff of the WSOP. (The non-poker world that hasn’t been following us for the past month thinks the World Series starts next week.) Or … might the replay have been pushed in connection with National Poker Week and the supposedly soon-to-be-heard Barney Frank bill?

ADDENDUM: Yep, pushed back to September.

If that’s the case, you gotta wonder which side pushed for that — the side that contends prohibition is necessary because online poker is a crooked, degenerate pursuit, or the side trumpeting regulation in part because of the assistance needed to keep the game clean.

Seriously, the fully legal online poker forces are gearing up for a long, arduous fight — and man, they got lots of us feelin’ good! — and yet Beltway sources are telling Pokerati that Congressional hearings on the Frank bill are about to be pushed back to September.

Phluck.

May just be standard procedure … but also could be a sign of the types of procedural obstacles we can expect to be thrown in our way. More TK, of course …

Is the American Mass Media hurting our helping the online gambling industry? Plus, what is the status of the Barney Frank Bill and its attempt to overturn the UIGEA?

Four more congresspeople signed on as co-sponsors Friday, bringing the total number to 30:

Rep. Steve Dreihaus (D-OH)
Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO)

Now before my Libertarian and Conservative friends get on my case about this bill more Democratic socialism, just know that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is a big backer of HR 2267, so if Dr. No can say yes, then so can I — regardless of my poker bias.

The bill was also sent on Friday to the House Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Good thing — since one of the first arguments against it is that online poker funds terrorism, when we know full well that even if that were true, it’s all the more reason to regulate it. To follow the progress of HR 2267 as it moves through Congress, click here.

* MGM/Mirage is reportedly neutral on the bill, and Steve Wynn supposedly strongly against.

ALT HED: Neteller 2?

The banks are deflecting blame and criticism, saying they’re simply complying with a federal court’s direction. Not surprising, of course, considering they aren’t really in a position to defy their new dot-gov overseers. The non-poker media probably doesn’t even give a shit about poker players — they just care right now about the relationship between government and banks … but hey, good to know … because just like government officials found a villain in the form of online gamblers to justify fingering its way into the bigger world of cross-border internet commerce, now online poker has a potential villain in bad, old-school governmenting (relying on nearly 50-year-old laws) to justify its immediate need to revise the laws that affect our multimillion-UScitizen industry.

To understand the brass tacks of what just happened and is happening, be sure to read the NYT story here:

Web’s Poker Winners Face Delay in Collecting
(Thanks, Lana, for the link!)

In it we learn:

• Four American banks were hit with court papers — Wells Fargo, Citibank, Alliance Bank of Arizona, and one other — telling them to freeze the funds.
• In part because of the secretive nature of grand juries, it’s not yet clear whether all are court orders or just friendly requests. (Ha.) Wells Fargo’s was an order.
• Four online sites affected — Full Tilt, PokerStars, and two others.
• Southern District prosecutors told at least one bank the funds in question “constitute property involved in money laundering transactions and illegal gambling offenses.”
• The accounts frozen belong to Allied Systems and Account Services, two payment processors (at least one of which seems to be based in Canada).

All fine and dandy (not), but what I found particularly interesting were the very last grafs:

The casinos and poker houses are based overseas, beyond the reach of prosecutors, who have sought to attack the businesses indirectly by going after American businesses that process transactions for offshore casinos or that advertise on their behalf.

Poker sites involved in this latest crackdown make money by taking a small part of each poker pot.

A. Jeff Ifrah, a lawyer representing Account Services, which has offices in San Diego and Canada, said that his client charged a small fee to issue checks to poker players.

Mr. Ifrah said that, to his knowledge, the government “has never seized an account that belongs to players who are engaged in what I would contend is a lawful act of playing peer-to-peer poker online.”

First, yikes if they go after companies that advertise online sites — but I guess that’s the whole dot-net thing. But beyond that, the non-poker world — just in time for Congress — is starting to understand how a rake works … and the relatively new phrase of “peer-to-peer poker online” is a step towards making the difficult distinguishment that online poker is indeed different than online gambling.

Should be a most interesting gathering — different from previous pokery political collectives in that there are so many legal issues playing out in real ways right now (Kentucky, Minnesota, Pokerstarzistan, etc.) … and all this with a pretty important-looking nuts-and-bolts online banking regulation bill in play … with non-pokery representatives finally aware of the online poker murmurs, and public opinion clearly leaning in our favor.

Check out last week’s poll in US News asking, simply:
Should online betting be legal?

That’s an important question — because ultimately, that’s what each Congressperson has to decide, and be willing to stand behind regardless of what they do or don’t do to help or hinder any poker legislation moving through Congress.

Leading the arguments for online gambling/poker, of course, is Barney Frank (D-MA) — “With Gambling, Personal Freedom Is Always the Best Bet”.

And the voice of the opposition is Spencer Bachus (R-AL) — “Online Gambling Leads to Crime and Hurts Young, so Why Encourage It?”.

Naturally you gotta like our chances, intellectually, but at the same time, Bachus’ understanding of the issues has grown deeper, and his talking points more refined since he woefully misquoted medical studies to suggest 1/3 of all college students who gamble online attempt suicide. While we can be almost-sure he won’t lean on such crap this year, we do know he’s capable of disregarding the truth, lying, and distorting whatever suits his purpose. That’s why it’s important to get face time with as many elected decision-makers as possible, I think … to make sure they have a more real understanding of how we (and 87 percent of the general populace, according to US News) see things before Bachus and his powerful minions get to them.

The PPA supposedly has partnered with major casinos (Harrah’s?), online sites, and poker rooms around the country to launch a “huge” ad campaign, as well as essentially a DC pep rally for its state directors — getting them all on message and building a groundswell of support in face-to-face meetings with their representatives.

There will also be a charity tourney event benefiting Wounded Veterans, and though I haven’t seen it yet, apparently the PPA booth at the WSOP has or will have a video camera set up for the telling of “My Poker Story” — a knockoff on the Applebee’s ad campaign to show the wide range of Americans calling themselves poker players.

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.

(emph. added)

Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.

Clear global banking transactions? Seems to me like the USA is fixin’ to rake the internet … and the framework currently being set up to regulate online poker would put some of the necessary mechanisms in place.

Then all we’d need is for the Pentagon to get its act together and we could shoot colluders.

Lifting the Online Poker Ban Could Cause a CO2 Emissions Boom

Playing poker online is a time consuming venture—playing tournaments can take hours, and the programs make it extremely easy to play in multiple rooms while surfing the web between hands in different windows. In other words, it encourages parking yourself and sitting in front of the computer for hours.

As Pablo pointed out in his piece on the impact of internet use, computers generate between 40-80 grams of greenhouse gas emissions simply by being on (given the user gets his electricity from a coal-fired power plant, as most Americans do)—now imagine some 10 million more computers on for hours longer than before. It would add up to hundreds of thousands more tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thanks, Brian, for the link — despite all the trees you plausibly killed in the process!

via Wicked Chops.

Also … more online poker issues being laid out for the non-poker public in ESPN: The Magazine. And the Washington Post is letting people know that the American masses have spoken — directly to Barack Obama — and they want two things to get this country back on track: legal pot and legal online poker money transfers.

Thanks, Huff, for the latter link.

The 48-page bill provides for licensing, enforcement, and consumer protections regarding legal internet gambling, as detailed on the House Financial Services Committee website.

SUMMARY
The Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act 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 U.S., on the condition that they maintain effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, and Indian Tribes.

At the same time, Frank introduced a piece of companion legislation calling for the postponement of UIGEA regulations from this year’s compliance date of December 1, 2009 to one year later. Pushing it to 2010 gives “The Bill” time to progress as it may.

So, it’s on! According to Bloomberg, Harrah’s Entertainment and Youbet.com are already on board and ready to lobby on behalf of this bill. More to come in the weeks ahead, no doubt.

(Note: KevMath beat me to it again! Duplicate posts on this can be forgiven, eh?)