Rep. Berkley introduces gambling study bill [Archive]

Dondoh

05-07-2007, 02:01 AM

Rep. Berkley introduces gambling study bill
11:42 AM, Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Sarah Polson

Online gambling seems to be on the forefront of more than a few minds of Congressmen, as Rep. Shelley Berkley has followed up the introduction of legislation last week by Rep. Barney Frank with another Internet gambling bill.

Berkley (D-Nev.) introduced H.R. 2140 in the House of Representatives Thursday.

The bill asks for a study to be done by the National Academy of Sciences to identify the proper response of the United States to the growth of Internet gambling. Her bill is cosponsored by 60 Congressman, including Frank.

The first action taken on the bill was to refer it to the three committees: Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means.

While Berkley has been in support of repealing an online gambling ban in the United States, she said in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "One of the advantages of this legislation is that it doesn't take a side. It doesn't say Internet gambling is good or bad. It says 'Let's study the issue.'"

Berkley is also a cosponsor for Frank's bill, H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, which seeks to set up legislation and licensing for online gambling operators.

dtan05

05-07-2007, 02:14 AM

isn't proving poker a game of skill bad for fish?

whangarei

05-07-2007, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
isn't proving poker a game of skill bad for fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

Marginally, probably, but this has nothing to do with the proposed study bill.

TruePoker CEO

05-07-2007, 04:32 AM

Is there a link to the bill ?

As the press and forum descriptions of Barney Frank's bill were WAY off from what was actually introduced, it would be useful for us all to be on the same page in this thread.

JuntMonkey

05-07-2007, 05:27 AM

Link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2140

I e-mailed the following to my Congressman, Peter King, who is a co-sponsor of Frank's bill:

[ QUOTE ]
Congressman King:

Last week, Rep. Shelley Berkley introduced H.R. 2140, "To provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences to identify the proper response of the United States to the growth of Internet gambling."

I know that you are a co-sponsor of the bill that Barney Frank recently introduced to move towards legalizing and regulating Internet gambling, H.R. 2046. I would also like to see you co-sponsor Ms. Berkley's bill, as that bill is along the same lines as H.R. 2046.

It is my strong belief that, as President Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to the problem - government is the problem." In my opinion this especially applies to issues regarding leisure activities that adults like to engage in their spare time, such as Internet gambling.

I would rather see H.R. 2046 passed before H.R. 2140 since the former will have a more immediate effect, but they are both a step in the right direction. I did vote against you in 2006, but you will certainly get my vote back if you continue to support and vote for these and any similar bills.

Thank you,

[Name]
[Town]

[/ QUOTE ]

Reef

05-07-2007, 05:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
isn't proving poker a game of skill bad for fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

how many people do you know that think of themselves as bad poker players?

TheEngineer

05-07-2007, 07:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
isn't proving poker a game of skill bad for fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, IMHO. It may help. They think they're skilled! That's why they keep coming back for more. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

TheEngineer

05-07-2007, 07:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2140

I e-mailed the following to my Congressman, Peter King, who is a co-sponsor of Frank's bill...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice letter! Please also snail-mail a hard copy.

I have a lot of respect for King and Wexler. They were once against us. Each actually spoke out in favor of banning online gambling on the House floor. They each took a deep look at the issue and came around, not because they were pressured into changing their minds by interest groups, but because they decided to do what was right. It's good to see some politicians do still actually think, and it's also good to see some will vote on convictions.

JuntMonkey

05-07-2007, 08:56 AM

Little_Luck

05-07-2007, 09:18 AM

Things like this make me think our government might still be able to actually work, albeit a small chance.

It's good to see some of our congress realize they were tricked into approving this bill and want to actually see if it's something they would want or not.

whangarei

05-07-2007, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
isn't proving poker a game of skill bad for fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, IMHO. It may help. They think they're skilled! That's why they keep coming back for more. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is debatable. At the extreme end of the skill/luck spectrum is chess, and you don't see many fish playing chess. Also, things like Pokernomics and some of the ideas talked about at that Harvard seminar are somewhat concerning if they find a way to dumb down the essence of the skill involved so that anyone can imitate it. But then again there's tons of poker books and still tons of fish.

antneye

05-07-2007, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2140

I e-mailed the following to my Congressman, Peter King, who is a co-sponsor of Frank's bill...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice letter! Please also snail-mail a hard copy.

I have a lot of respect for King and Wexler. They were once against us. Each actually spoke out in favor of banning online gambling on the House floor. They each took a deep look at the issue and came around, not because they were pressured into changing their minds by interest groups, but because they decided to do what was right. It's good to see some politicians do still actually think, and it's also good to see some will vote on convictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think my scalding phone calls to King had something to do with it. I have always been a big supporter of his and made it extremely clear my vote was gone forever without him taking some action to right the wrong.

Of course my one voice is not the key here, but all of our calls in the aggregate make a difference.

TheEngineer

05-07-2007, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof on their apparent change of heart or are you just extrapolating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty much extrapolating. However, while I don't know why Wexler changed his mind, we do know he stood up on the floor of the House in opposition to HR 4411. And, that was prior to any real organized effort on our belalf (the PPA has just started up). Also, his constituents (at least the ones who vote for him) consist of 80 year olds who were confused and bebuddled by the "butterfly ballots" in the 2000 election...hardly the folks to lobby for Internet gambling. Regardless of the reason, I'm glad he's on our side now.

As for Peter King, I have no idea why he changed his mind, but I'm glad to see he has an open mind, which was really my point.

TheEngineer

05-07-2007, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not at all, IMHO. It may help. They think they're skilled! That's why they keep coming back for more. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is debatable. At the extreme end of the skill/luck spectrum is chess, and you don't see many fish playing chess. Also, things like Pokernomics and some of the ideas talked about at that Harvard seminar are somewhat concerning if they find a way to dumb down the essence of the skill involved so that anyone can imitate it. But then again there's tons of poker books and still tons of fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is chess with variance. Fish don't play chess because they get killed every time. They win sometimes, which is what keeps them coming back. Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I come from a blackjack card counting background. The thing that made me think poker had great potential was watching the ploppies (that's what we call blackjack "fish") play blackjack. These gamblers are really just looking for action. Also, the slot machines were rarely empty. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I don't think we'll run out of fish, especially if we get good legislation soon.

Flacks

05-07-2007, 09:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Link to the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2140

I e-mailed the following to my Congressman, Peter King, who is a co-sponsor of Frank's bill...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice letter! Please also snail-mail a hard copy.

I have a lot of respect for King and Wexler. They were once against us. Each actually spoke out in favor of banning online gambling on the House floor. They each took a deep look at the issue and came around, not because they were pressured into changing their minds by interest groups, but because they decided to do what was right. It's good to see some politicians do still actually think, and it's also good to see some will vote on convictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to rethink your theory about them "doing what was right"

Ask yourself what they had to gain by putting pressure on offshore gambling. Then what they will they gain if they do studies and convince enough people that they can regulate online gambling the way they do in the state of.....NEVADA. *Gasp..shocking coincidence.

Make no mistake where the money and motivation came from to pass the bill we are currently working under. The names are up in lights across the desert.

TheEngineer

05-07-2007, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You may want to rethink your theory about them "doing what was right"

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh...okay, I'll get right to rethinking. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself what they had to gain by putting pressure on offshore gambling. Then what they will they gain if they do studies and convince enough people that they can regulate online gambling the way they do in the state of.....NEVADA. *Gasp..shocking coincidence.

Make no mistake where the money and motivation came from to pass the bill we are currently working under. The names are up in lights across the desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like proof to me! Of course, Wexler's been on our side for years. He spoke up against HR 4411 when the casinos weren't near us. Anyway, thanks for sharing.

whangarei

05-07-2007, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is chess with variance. Fish don't play chess because they get killed every time. They win sometimes, which is what keeps them coming back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we'll run out of fish, especially if we get good legislation soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. The huge influx of players from a formal "sanctioning" of online poker would far outweigh the marginal drawbacks of labelling poker as a game of skill.

permafrost

05-08-2007, 01:58 AM

This study could be handy to have in place if the promised UIGEA regulations prove to be effective. The biggest problem is that poker will get lumped in with other gambling. There needs to be recognition of the widespread belief that poker is a skill game, not gambling, and promises that the belief will be part of what is addressed.

Flacks

05-08-2007, 06:19 PM

I wasn't trying to post proof but if you think that these politicians are having a change of heart for any other reason than it benefits them then you are fooling yourself. The casinos gave millions to be sure that they put a clamp on online poker while behind closed doors they were putting together their own plans to start websites.

Everything is going exactly how they planned.

Of course lining a few politicians pockets or showing them how it will benefit their state would make most politicians have a change of heart. It has absolutely nothing with "doing what is right"

TheEngineer

05-08-2007, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to post proof but if you think that these politicians are having a change of heart for any other reason than it benefits them then you are fooling yourself. The casinos gave millions to be sure that they put a clamp on online poker while behind closed doors they were putting together their own plans to start websites.

Everything is going exactly how they planned.

Of course lining a few politicians pockets or showing them how it will benefit their state would make most politicians have a change of heart. It has absolutely nothing with "doing what is right"

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound quite certain. No offense, but I always get a chuckle when someone comes by and posts their random thoughts as unequivocal fact. It always has the same "[fill in the blank] then you are fooling yourself" discussion style. Unfortunately, it's that attitude that keeps many from fighting back.

You may wish to consider that politicians like to get elected. As such, they care about public opinion.

Your post does not explain why Wexler would support HR 4411. Frist was well-compensated by Harrah's and he led the charge against it. Sorry, but not everything is some conspiracy.

I recommend you join with us in writing to your congressman to support IGREA and the Berkley study bill. You may find your congressman may respond to public opinion as well.

TheEngineer

05-08-2007, 10:27 PM

Typo

[ QUOTE ]
Your post does not explain why Wexler would oppose HR 4411.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sniper

05-09-2007, 05:35 AM

Is a study really that good for us?... doesn't it have the potential to derail the Frank bill?

Skallagrim

05-09-2007, 09:49 AM

Sniper is right, IF the 2 bills are seen as an either/or choice.

A lot can happen while bills go through committee.

If the "poker carveout" is proposed too, then maybe the best compromise is that plus the study.

We can support the study, but only if it is not allowed to let the status quo (and the UIGEA) continue for the next year or two or three while the study takes place.

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

05-09-2007, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is a study really that good for us?... doesn't it have the potential to derail the Frank bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's something we'll all have to discuss, but I think it will be okay. First of all, the converse of this concern is that the Frank bill has the potential to aid the study bill. Also, the study sets a maximum study time of one year (which is very important for obvious reasons). Also, Berkley and Porter represent the interests that will likely take the lead in offering much of the U.S.-based Internet gaming, so there could be lots of loose cash floating around Washington. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Again, that's a first look, and it's one person's opinion. If Frank's bill takes off, we'll probably want to get Berkley to table her bill. Fortunately, there are other financially interested parties that should aid us with that.

I personally think we support this, IGREA, and the Wexler bill and hope one or more take off.

Focus on the Family? Focus on YOUR OWN damn family!!