Rumors reached fever pitch last week that a bill to legalize and regulate online poker in the U.S. would be tacked on to legislation extending payroll tax cuts. Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), however, denied the rumors on Thursday. Congress passed the payroll tax bill sans online poker legislation on Friday.

Poker players are all too familiar with gaming-related bills getting tacked on to other legislation. In 2006, the UIGEA was snuck on to the “must pass” Safe Port bill in the dead of night. Last week’s speculation gave full measure to the adage “turnabout is fair play.” 

But U.S. players (and casino interests alike) remain hopeful that online poker legislation is still in the cards for 2012 despite the false alarm and Wall Street’s long odds.

The independent, non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics believes Bachus was “betting” the stock market with privileged information, the Washington Post reports.

OCE says they’ve been looking at the current Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for more than a year to confirm suspicions that, essentially, Bachus, an active trader, was operating like a stock-options superuser! OK, maybe not exactly, because you gotta think Bachus woulda banked more than a few thousand bucks here and there if he were truly the Russ Hamilton of Wall Street politics. But still …

DC Power Broker? A leader in the cause of stifling online poker, seen here with his wife at an event honoring Rafe Furst and Phil Gordon, two Full Tilt Poker pros.

Regardless of whether or not this level of OCE censure might ultimately land Bachus in prison a la Martha Stewart (it’s often a fine line between unethical and illegal) Bachus’ woe is a big win for poker because such allegations alone effectively neutralize his power and influence on Capitol Hill. In the War on Poker, Bachus has been a General for the other side post-UIGEA, and twice before has shown the ability to stop online poker legalization efforts in their tracks by persuading other members to line up behind him on our issue. But not this go-round, it would seem …

No? Regardless, as part of the process of eventually “getting there” legislatively, and staying true to Pokerati’s motto In Negotio Pro Poker Meliori, my contribution to policy noise today will be addressing online cheating. Below are my notes from which I plan to wonk out with my donk out:

Meeting with members before and after the hearing, I was immensely proud to hear every lawmaker tell us that they are being contacted by poker players. The question on the lawmakers’ minds was not “if” internet poker should be regulated, but rather “how” regulation should look.

Senator D’Amato did an exceptional job and delivered impassioned remarks defending your right to play.  He urged Congress to adopt rules and regulations to ensure American consumers have a safe marketplace in which to play poker on the Internet.  In fact, when it came to consumer protections the conclusion of every witness before the Committee was that regulation was far better than the status quo.  And, more importantly, that sentiment was also expressed almost unanimously by the lawmakers who attended the hearing.  The question on the lawmakers’ minds was not “if” internet poker should be regulated, but rather “how” should regulation look.

We have come a long, long way from just a few short years ago when Congress could only talk about how best to prohibit Internet gambling and poker.  This shift in attitude has much to do with the advocacy efforts of your PPA and the poker community in general who have done so much to educate lawmakers on this issue.  We have turned opponents into champions for our cause and completely changed the debate in Washington D.C.

As I stood with Senator D’Amato today meeting with members of the Committee — before and after the hearing — I was immensely proud to hear every lawmaker tell us that they are being contacted by poker players in their districts. While politicians often give us reason to be cynical about government, one thing is clear, they appreciate hearing from the voters on issues that matter most. Please keep up the pressure and please continue to make your voice heard. It is truly paying off!

We all have much to be proud of, but there is still much more to do.  I hope you will consider the next step in supporting the PPA by becoming a 2012 member today.  We are offering a special $15.00 deal (normally $20.00) that gives you a PPA membership for the remainder of 2011 and all of 2012!  This should be a “snap call” for any poker player who wants to continue the fight for our poker rights.

Other Highlights

• The PPA would like to thank Congressman Joe Barton for his continued leadership on this issue.  He was excellent at today’s hearing and he is working to educate every member of Congress about the benefits of regulated Internet poker.  Check out his opening statement from today’s hearing.
• This week the National District Attorney’s Association, the oldest and largest professional organization representing criminal prosecutors in the world, issued a statement in support of regulated Internet poker.
• Check out a good opinion piece by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge highlighting the need for Internet poker regulation.
• The Hill, one of the leading publications for Congress, has a good recap of today’s hearing.

Again, I hope you will please stand with the PPA and share in our continued success by becoming a 2012 PPA member today for just $15.00!

Thank you.

Proud to Play,

John A. Pappas
Executive Director

Presidential hopeful Gary Johnson (R-NM) came to the WSOP this year to show his support for online poker efforts, as well as drum up support for his White House run.

He took note of online poker matters shortly after April 15, he said, and couldn’t help but see the similarities between online poker and other issues he’s fought for over his political career — from ski-helmet laws or marijuana reform. He was at the PPA booth shortly before the start of the main event, and I got to chat with the two-term former governor of New Mexico about the Republican shift in support of online poker, where online poker fits in the scheme of national issues (right up at the very top, he says, as an example of American freedoms under attack), and how those who believe in smaller government can support the concept of more regulation. Apparently you can regulate online gambling without regulating the whole internet. And regulations work best, he explains, when a guy like him gets to be “dictator”. (If Obama thought he had “socialist” problems … yeow.)

Pokerati Raw: Courting the Poker Vote
Gary Johnson at the WSOP

download

Johnson calls on poker players to realize that their passions go beyond just poker and are more of an American issue — like pot — and the immediate solution is to donate to his campaign.

He’s pitching himself as “the people’s president” … and thus is letting poker players know that he can be their guy in DC. For what it’s worth, I didn’t leave with the feeling that this will be a special day having met the future president … but I did leave with the sense that Johnson would help make the issues of online poker players — the basic ones, the simple right to play for money online — part of the national debate.

Check out his campaign website at GaryJohnson2012.com … and here’s a special donation page set up just for you.

You’ll have to tell me what’s in it … I gotta go to the concert — and I’m sure the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada won’t be able to resist manipulating it in some way by the time it moves outta the house … but feel good overall that it will be more player-focused from the start than any that preceded it … simply because Black Friday put so many other battles amongst potential supporters to rest … and we’ll have to reassess, but I really think the conditions look strong for now as opposed to later. And I say that even though I’ll bet that Barton’s staff didn’t take my suggestion and include any provisions for splashing pots with concert tickets in the Pokerati game. (Didn’t they see I still have a 214 area code!?) Hey, special-interest politics is about compromise, right?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I just think the masses of poker players are in a better spot for such negotiations in 2011 than we were in 2010 … especially if this 101-page bill I skimmed is more than just smoke-and-mirrors on the water, which now it has no reason to be.

Click here to download a copy of the Barton online poker bill … so hot off the not-for-publication-yet presses, it’s listed as HR _______.

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.

The surge actually goes down on a Monday and Tuesday, but do days even matter any more when Americans can’t compete against the rest of the developed world on Sunday?

The Poker Players Alliance moved up plans for a Washington DC member fly-in scheduled for September to later this month, May 23-24 … where the official call to action is supposedly to hit Congress hard to legalize online poker and do it quickly … if not before the WSOP then at least some time in 2011, maybe, please? Click here for details on the fly-in, and here for what you can do from afar to support what should be poker’s biggest political assault on Washington DC ever.

Congress has seen the numbers — millions of voting-age American players, a $6 billion US industry, $10-40 billion in tax revenue (over 10 years), thousands of jobs — and most members know they won’t face much backlash at the polls for opposing internet prohibitions and allowing online poker the same protections as other forms of legal recreation. But what they may not realize is why it may not be so cool to wait a few years to fix things, nor how many non-criminals have been hurt by recent DOJ actions, which are rather unprecedented in that the case against online poker operators ultimately hinges on a thusfar unsettled matter of what legally defines gambling and/or games of skill.

I think for the PPA, beyond reinforcing sensible-government arguments, they plan to get their members on message — because as more and more sign on with positions the PPA first advocated after the UIGEA, the game of legitimizing online poker has evolved — while getting Congress to realize the need for more immediate action because:

• This is total bullshit!
• Never before has the government seized so much money belonging to so many American citizens not accused of any crimes.
• “They took our [frickin’] jobs, bro!”
• We’re not talking about just online pros who contribute nothing to society, we’re talking about people who made their livings in a fully legitimate industry that’s been decimated by a government slowroll.
• No new taxes!
• Do you support holding American money hostage while the administration dedicates resources to prosecute a victimless crime that hasn’t even had a court officially declare it illegal?
• What if the another country did the same thing to Americans? “Tough luck?”
• Come on, what is money laundering?
• How could it be illegal when these companies are all over FCC-regulated TV?
• Have you read Steven Levitt’s research? Pretty sure this makes the whole “crime” thing moot.

OK, my talking points might be a little off target. But for all the hubbub in Congress about internet gambling over the years, few have considered much of the above … so what’s the point of waiting with so many billions on the line?

It’s time to have a poker player run for President of the United States. Forget Joe the Plumber. How about Tom the Gambler?

I actually gave serious consideration to running for President in 2012. However, when I woke up, it didn’t seem like such a great idea. I thought what could a gambler offer that others can’t? I came up with several ideas and am going to share one here. This is not an article about bashing one side or the other. I’m trying to show how gamblers typically get right to the root of the problem by viewing the world differently than others.

First, I wanted to identify a problem that 95 percent of Americans would agree was a problem, thus removing all political bias. The Problem: Politicians lie, misrepresent facts and gamble with our money. Do you agree?

In a debate, if a politician sounds convincing, we believe him. He can’t be lying, he sounds so sure. The debate is concluded and the viewers have no idea that the bastard lied for an hour straight. He made up stuff and pulled answers out of his ass to avoid having to say, “I don’t know.” (Note: when pulling numbers out of asses, avoid the sharp ones like 4 and 7.)

When trying to get the Healthcare bill passed one Senator made a huge deal about the American Medical Association (AMA) supporting the bill, thus trying to make the public feel better since all doctors support it. Did you know that only 17% of all doctors belong to the AMA, because most doctors don’t like the political stands the AMA takes? Did you know that a significant majority of doctors were opposed to the proposed Healthcare bill? It is outrageously disingenuous to act like doctors are supporting the bill.
Our elected officials say that if we pass a stimulus package, we will create one million new jobs…oops, sorry, we were wrong. No big deal, we will try something else. They are guessing with our money. I like idiots in a poker game, but I’m tired of idiots in Washington. It’s like all of us voters decided to put the worst poker player in the biggest game. Unfortunately, unlike poker, these idiots can’t get lucky with our money.

How do gamblers find the truth? We wager. When sitting at the poker table, someone might say, “That’s a tall guy, he must be seven feet tall.” I say, “I don’t think so, how much would you like to bet.” That’s it. Gamblers engage in this kind of activity all the time, and if you make bad decisions repeatedly, you are no longer gambling because you run out of money. Unlike every other profession, our politicians get no credit for being right and no punishment for being wrong.

The Solution: As President, I would set aside $200 million for a “Required Political Gambling Fund.” This fund will be comprised of a couple great gamblers, a few CPA’s, an attorney, and a historian. Here’s how it works. As part of becoming an elected official you may be required to make a significant wager on what you believe will happen as a result of the legislation you are proposing or supporting.

As President, I would set aside $200 million for a “Required Political Gambling Fund.”

Let’s take the Health Care Bill. The Governmental Accounting Office claimed that this bill will be deficit neutral, i.e. not creating more debt. If the Gambling Team doesn’t think that will be the case, then those politicians that are supporting the bill must wager…the bigger the issue, the bigger the bet.

Since the Healthcare Bill represents 16 percent of our economy, supporters of the bill have to wager 16 percent of their net worth. Think about what this does. Politicians will be doing their homework for a change. Unsubstantiated numbers and guesses will not be thrown around without significant research and understanding. They will actually have to read proposed legislation. This system will take the politics out of politics. I can hear a Republican saying t o another Republican, “I can’t support that bill because I will lose my own money.” Perfect. I want an idiot politician to lose his own money and not ours.

How do we eliminate lying? After debates, our Gambling Team will determine what lies the politicians told during the debate, and then bet on each of the lies. If the politician decides not to bet, a big flashing neon “Liar” sign will go off. Obviously if he doesn’t want to bet on the supposed facts he is spewing out, then he is a liar or a bull-shitter. This would make one heck of game show. We can use the money from the show to reduce the National debt.

I bet that the $200 million gambling fund would make it to $1 billion by the end of my term, and we would have a bunch of broke politicians. Once the politician is broke, he is out of office, kinda like a poker tournament. The “right” politicians will get richer and remain in office, and we won’t be betting against them very often. Voila! There you have it.

We would have a new form of Railbird, the Politicalbird…a broke politician looking to get back into action, eh, well, office. It would be funny seeing ex-Senators and ex-Presidents going around asking people to put them into the dog catcher race. “Come on, give me a shot. I know I can beat this guy.”

If you would like to hear more of my Presidential ideas, tell Dan, the owner of this fine poker website. If you want to donate to my campaign, please do so, but don’t be too upset if some of the funds get put into a juicy $100-$200 mix game.

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?

The guys at Wicked Chops are saying “two outer” as if they have the same level of expertise as Pokerati. Dudes, we’ve done more than just take a tour of the White House … we ponied up the extra $9 for an audio guide!

(OK, you’re right, I can’t prove that … but if I had a receipt it would be an easier tax deduction for us than you! And true fact: I did ride paddle boats outside the Jefferson Memorial more times during the Carter administration than I saw Star Wars at a drive-in, so …)

Though just semi-experienced at best, I have been down this special-interest road before … where you’ve got a bill on the table but are running up against a semi-arbitrary not-clearly defined session clock — go Texas poker ’09! Which is why Pokerati is setting its line for #Reidbill passage firmly at somewhere between 8 and 88 percent.

Book it. We should know for sure by Tuesday or Monday or Wednesday-ish.

Though no one in the so-called “poker industry” has much if any political experience prior to Harry Reid’s current term … some poker-biz donkey-pols have learned a thing or two along the way to get us here. For a little perspective, here’s “the Professor” Howard Lederer learnin’ us some Political Science 101 last year at a high-society charity tourney in Washington DC, providing an overview of the game at hand … particularly for small-time players hoping to satellite into a bigger Beltway event:

1. PokerStars turns off Washington players - This is the first US state to be turned off by PokerStars. Major Stars competitors have not responded in-kind. This was not prompted by any change in state law in Washington (the ostensible reason was the result in the Rousso v. Washington judgment handed down on September 23^rd). This may signal that Stars is not going to be as aggressive as others in maintaining a presence in all jurisdictions in the US. [Casino City Times]

 

2. HR 2267 - People continue to try to read the tea leaves to determine what’s going to happen with the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act. Every utterance from Reps. Frank or McDermott or from Senator Reid sends the online forums and poker press into overdrive. The House is now adjourned until after the November elections. If HR 2267 is to pass, it must be done during the lame-duck session starting after the mid-terms and ending before the start of the 112^th Congress in early January. I continue to believe that it’s more likely than not that the current version (as amended) will not pass before the start of the next session, but remember that a lot can happen in a few days. [GovTrack.us]

 

3. Betfair IPO - This is one of the biggest public offerings in gaming in some time, so it’s no surprise that it’s getting quite a lot of attention. Betfair is apparently not raising new money on the float; shareholders are selling off approximately 10% of their holdings before over-allotment. Initial media reports had suggested a valuation of as high as £1.5B, but this appears to have been discounted. [Wall Street Journal]

 

4. Penn National coming to Vegas - Penn National Gaming purchased the outstanding debt of the M Resort in Las Vegas for $230.5M. This is seen as Penn’s way of eventually owning the asset, giving it its first Las Vegas property. The M was built at a cost of $1B, so most appear to be congratulating Penn for effectively purchasing a nice asset at a fraction of cost. [LVRJ]

 

5. PokerStars Licensure - Stars continues to build up gaming licences in various jurisdictions; it now has operating licences in France, Italy, and Estonia, as well as its ‘main’ international licence from the Isle of Man. This may be a sign of the kind of regulatory fragmentation that owners will face in future (especially in Europe) as different countries open up their markets to licensure and operations. [Gaming Zion]

Gaming attorney and expert Stu Hoegner follows the poker and casino industries from a tax- and law-minded perspective @GamingCounsel.

This will be the first opportunity for HR 2267 to take those *many* next steps on the legislative grind  to Obama’s ”final table” since it passed through House Financial Services committee over six (!) weeks ago. It is also the last window for anything to happen before the November election; however, this window will close on October 8. That’s about 20 days from now, folks.

So what’s going to be happening, if anything?

On a month’s respite from Vegas, I am living a stone’s throw from ”The Strip” of DC, aka Capitol Hill. I’ll have my new iphone4 charged up and at the ready to live-tweet/twitpic any action from the Congressional rail. So many questions … When will HR 2267 be scheduled to go to the House floor?  Will a hearing be set for a companion bill in Senate committee?  What’s going on behind the scenes to determine when and if these things might be scheduled? Certainly the machinations of special-interest politics have been busily churning in the background.  But the usual Google news alerts and poli-poker twitter feeds revealed nothing new.

So I asked John Pappas, executive director of the PPA, where to start and where we stand. He explained that companion bills have to catch up to HR 2267, but that may not happen until after the October recess and November election.

“With the positive momentum coming out of the successful mark up of HR 2267, we are anticipating a markup of the companion tax legislation, HR 2268, in the House Ways and Means Committee before the end of the session,” he explained, “though given the timing the the mid-term elections, that will most likely be in a lame duck session.”

Congress’s session ends in January, where the newly elected get sworn in and take over, bringing a new dynamic to the Hill. But that doesn’t mean no work is going on.

“The PPA is actively working members of the Ways and Means Committee to educate them on the benefits of licensing and regulation of online poker especially as it related to the revenue benefits for states and the Federal government,” Pappas said.

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?

I think we all know how much Congress’s approval would soar if they had more @KevMath. While many legal- and poli-minded folks have been waiting for a “red-line” version of a marked-up HR 2267 — with properly inserted and deleted amendments, as per voice votes and roll call — Kevin Mathers took it upon himself to do what Congressional staff couldn’t … or at least hadn’t yet.

He makes no promise of 100-percent accuracy, but based on his reads, clicks, cuts and pastes … Here is a cleaned up version of what Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly agreed to send to the floor of the House of Representatives for further legislative action — the new-and-improved HR 2267 according to Kevmath.

ALT HED: (Way) Outside Washington DC

(I posed the question to him or his people on twitter. Will look for but not expect a response, despite < 140 words finagled to sound more constituenty ... #semibluff)

Data via the PPA.

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.