talou
10-19-2006, 10:03 PM
(Some of this has been covered before; this is a cut/paste of an email I had sent some friends but since I thought some here might like to hear about it, I've included it in its entirety)
The week after the port security bill passed, I wrote letters to my congressman and both senators (I live in Georgia 6th). Yesterday, I got a call from a member of my congressman's staff, and I had a nice conversation about my concerns. Needless to say, I didn't get a very satisfying outcome from it, but the staffer was frank about a few things.
HR 4411 (the original bill considered by the house in July) passed for a couple of reasons. One is that he said that Congressman Jim Leach saw it as an opportunity to disable an activity that is already illegal. The staffer acknowledged that the legislation was unlikely to be completely effective in this regard. He also noted that there are nine months for the regulations to be published and that some payment methods (e.g., checks) could prove impossible to enforce. The other reason was that this legislation was opposed by Jack Abramoff, and many in Congress were happy for an opportunity to vote for something that had been opposed by Abramoff.
The staffer volunteered that he believes that Senator Frist's motivation to include the UIGEA legislation in HR 4954 was his presidential ambition. No surprise there.
I raised the question of legalizing and regulating online poker, and (again, candidly) the staffer pointed out that the government is actually not very good at that sort of thing. We didn't touch on it specifically, but I believe that all legalized gambling is regulated by the states.
That's about it. I remain convinced that there is no reason to believe that UIGEA will be overturned. If I find any hope, it is in the following: (1) UIGEA will prove unenforceable (at least regarding checks and EFT transactions). (2) It may be possible to get a more explicit recognition of poker as a game of skill (which could remove some ambiguity about whether poker is covered by the Wire Act of 1961). (3) A breach in the wall might be created if a state decided to legalize/regulate online poker (although it would only be legal in that one state). While Nevada might seem like the natural choice, South Dakota is also a candidate. Once it was legal in one state, the legal landscape could change dramatically.
The week after the port security bill passed, I wrote letters to my congressman and both senators (I live in Georgia 6th). Yesterday, I got a call from a member of my congressman's staff, and I had a nice conversation about my concerns. Needless to say, I didn't get a very satisfying outcome from it, but the staffer was frank about a few things.
HR 4411 (the original bill considered by the house in July) passed for a couple of reasons. One is that he said that Congressman Jim Leach saw it as an opportunity to disable an activity that is already illegal. The staffer acknowledged that the legislation was unlikely to be completely effective in this regard. He also noted that there are nine months for the regulations to be published and that some payment methods (e.g., checks) could prove impossible to enforce. The other reason was that this legislation was opposed by Jack Abramoff, and many in Congress were happy for an opportunity to vote for something that had been opposed by Abramoff.
The staffer volunteered that he believes that Senator Frist's motivation to include the UIGEA legislation in HR 4954 was his presidential ambition. No surprise there.
I raised the question of legalizing and regulating online poker, and (again, candidly) the staffer pointed out that the government is actually not very good at that sort of thing. We didn't touch on it specifically, but I believe that all legalized gambling is regulated by the states.
That's about it. I remain convinced that there is no reason to believe that UIGEA will be overturned. If I find any hope, it is in the following: (1) UIGEA will prove unenforceable (at least regarding checks and EFT transactions). (2) It may be possible to get a more explicit recognition of poker as a game of skill (which could remove some ambiguity about whether poker is covered by the Wire Act of 1961). (3) A breach in the wall might be created if a state decided to legalize/regulate online poker (although it would only be legal in that one state). While Nevada might seem like the natural choice, South Dakota is also a candidate. Once it was legal in one state, the legal landscape could change dramatically.