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.
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.
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.
More on this to come, but reports coming from the PPA, Pokernews, and other sources state that the UIGEA regulations will be delayed for 6 months. This news, along with an informational hearing of HR 2266 and 2267 December 3rd by the House Financial Services Committee are good news who enjoy online poker and hope for some sort of regulation.
Hmm, you know, it’s what been perplexing me, too … how some of the people who are pushing hardest for “our issue” are the people who stand to lose the most (in the short-term at least) should the Barney Frank or Robert Menendez bill(s) pass. The only explanation I can come up with is religious in nature … like sacrificing a cow.
But a drinky Steve Lipscomb and even drinkier online poker exec were offering up a bit more at G2E this week.
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.’ â€
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.
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?
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.
Yikes, I haven’t even gotten to write up all the exciting stuff the PPA has working for National Poker Week, and efforts to support efforts to undo the UIGEA.
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?
The Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 (aka Leave No Pot Behind) is gearing up for its Congressional push … I’ll be honest, few sources I’ve spoken to give this legislation much chance — at least not until Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) gets on board, and a little Obama-attended fundraiser hosted by Harrah’s at the Caesar’s Palace Poker Room is hardly enough to guarantee that.* However, thanks in part to publicity brought on by the crackdown on online payment processors, the bill seems to be gaining more momentum than anyone expected.
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.
First Gambling 911 and Pokerati … then the Associated Press, and now MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times are following aware of the $33 million of online poker winnings that has been frozen at the behest of an Assistant US Attorney in New York’s Southern District, the court that has historically created the most headaches for all things online poker.
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:
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.â€
The accounts frozen belong to Allied Systems and Account Services, two payment processors (at least one of which seems to be based in Canada).
A bunch of PPA state directors and politically involved pros are already booking their plans for after the WSOP — they’re headed to Washington DC for an aggressive play by the PPA supposedly dubbed National Poker Week.
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.
Ding ding! Let the first round of the official debate begin!
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…
