2 Congressmen Fight Back

[oldbookguy]

Rep. Peter King (R) and Rep. Steve Israel (D) Are Fighting back with a good Op-Ed in the NY Post.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/pos..._peter_king.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/web_gambling__tax__dont_ban_opedcolumnists_steve_i srael__peter_king.htm)

Story:
August 14, 2007 -- THE Treasury Department is charged with a number of law-enforcement jobs - protect ing the president, investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing and more. But now, thanks to a legislative "rider" passed last year, Congress has told Treasury officials to spend their time and resources going after something far more trivial - people who play cards from their home computers.

Frankly, federal law-enforcement officials have bigger fish to fry.

In the final hours before Congress went out of session last October, anti-gambling lobbyists got their "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" attached to our port-security bill. The move allowed their measure to ride the coattails of our vital legislation and become law.

The ban on Internet gambling is misdirected - and it's also probably unenforceable. People will still gamble on the Web, just without the protections that a legal framework could provide to ensure age-verification and protection against fraud. And online gambling now generates $13 billion a year; under the ban, online gamblers won't send a portion of that cash in tax dollars to the Treasury - instead, it'll go to scam artists and gray market entrepreneurs.

The Internet poses new challenges and problems. When the music industry ignored the massive and growing consumer desire to access songs online, a piracy industry blossomed. Similarly, our bans on Internet gambling have been effective only in pushing the business off U.S. shores and out of the hands of scrupulous businesses. By contrast, simply taxing Web betting would generate significant revenues that could be used for a variety of domestic priorities.

Of course, some serious issues need to be addressed. Children, gambling addicts and those who would try to use gambling sites for illicit purposes absolutely need to be restricted from these Web sites. But it is far easier to put in common-sense protections when the industry is controlled by law-abiding businesses than when it operates as an illegal market. Thankfully, technology now allows companies to address these issues. In Britain, where Internet gambling is legal and regulated, technology checks ensure that gamblers are of age and are not problem gamblers; watch lists work to prevent money-laundering.

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which we've cosponsored, uses fines and revokes licenses for Web sites that don't sufficiently police against improper use. That's the right approach. Rather than simply repeal the ban on Internet gambling, our Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act would create a regulatory framework that ensures operators are licensed and protects consumers against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money-laundering, identity theft and fraud.

In the end, there is the question of how much we want government to be involved in our private lives: For many, playing poker with friends on the Internet is a way to unwind at the end of the day. Technology aside, Web gambling isn't so different than the way Americans have relaxed and enjoyed the company of friends for decades.

Years ago, the Treasury's Secret Service agents used to help Harry Truman put poker games together in the White House. Now they'd be locking him up.

Reps. Steve Israel, a Democrat, and Peter King, a Republican, represent Long Island.

obg

[meleader2]

Please dealer one time.

[75s]

[ QUOTE ]
Please dealer one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the new york times and wsj publish this, then we've got outs...otherwise, drawing dead.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please dealer one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the new york times and wsj publish this, then we've got outs...otherwise, drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. As most know the Post is a very right-wing paper. To have a paper that caters to the right wing print a commentary like this is very significant, perhaps even more significant than if it appeared in the Times.

[oldbookguy]

If you visit the Post article, below the picture of Truman is a link - REDDIT - click this, choose a name and password - NO E-MAIL ADDRESS REQUIRED - and add a positive comment, the more the better.

my comment added:
Finally there is at least ONE sensible Republican in congress!
I read early on where Rep. King stated, we never intended to ban poker, at LEAST he has the moxey to admit a mistake and take steps to rectify his error!

article: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/pos..._peter_king.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/web_gambling__tax__dont_ban_opedcolumnists_steve_i srael__peter_king.htm)

obg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Finally there is at least ONE sensible Republican in congress!

Ron Paul has been there all along. These 2 guys are just parroting the same old lies about internet gambling. They just want another way to stick their hands in our pockets.

The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

Right now we have precisely ONE ally in congress, Ron Paul, who would keep online poker available and UNREGULATED.

[oldbookguy]

I don't actually consider Paul a republican any more than he does at heart, he is a Libertarian running under the GOP banner as it was the only way he could get elected, his words, not mine.

obg

[Uglyowl]

While I am happy Peter King is now on our side, but I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know that cards would be effected by passing this law.

I remember calling Mr. King’s office and explaining this to his staff and was told his lines were flooded with similar messagesn by the operator.

If Mr. King held these views back in October we probably wouldn’t have been where we are today. I am glad he has seen the error of his ways, don’t get me wrong, but I have mixed feelings here. The negative being enacting a law which you do not know how it will impact American citizens.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't actually consider Paul a republican any more than he does at heart, he is a Libertarian running under the GOP banner as it was the only way he could get elected, his words, not mine.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, Ron Paul ran for President as a Libertarian in '88, but ultimately left the LP because of its non-stand on abortion.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What gives me the creeps is that when a site like UB tries to play games with my cashout, the closest thing I have to a recourse is posting something bad about them on 2+2.

When I have this kind of money at stake, I happen to like having some sort of oversight authority in place.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What gives me the creeps is that when a site like UB tries to play games with my cashout, the closest thing I have to a recourse is posting something bad about them on 2+2.

When I have this kind of money at stake, I happen to like having some sort of oversight authority in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had a problem cashing out from any site, though my largest cashout was low 5-figures, and I've never cashed out much from UB, so I can't speak from personal experience.

I guess I should have qualified by saying not *all* the sites we play fit those derogatory terms.

[JPFisher55]

I have had no problems cashing out from UB.

[Grasshopp3r]

The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
While I am happy Peter King is now on our side, but I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know that cards would be effected by passing this law.

I remember calling Mr. King’s office and explaining this to his staff and was told his lines were flooded with similar messagesn by the operator.

If Mr. King held these views back in October we probably wouldn’t have been where we are today. I am glad he has seen the error of his ways, don’t get me wrong, but I have mixed feelings here. The negative being enacting a law which you do not know how it will impact American citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

He knew then. Unfortunately for us, he and the few others that actually had a chance to read to bill didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism by not voting for the bill.

We were going to get screwed because those that put the legislation didn't have the balls that John Warner did when he told Frist and company to [censored] off when they tried to attach it to his bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe America will ever intentionally permit untaxed, unregulated Internet gaming. It will be taxed or it will be snuffed out by the DoJ, as we've been seeing. Unfortunately, this hits poker players the worst, as we need fish, and fish need easy access to games.

I prefer regulation to prohibition myself. I hope we'll all back IGREA. I also hope we'll all email a copy of this op-ed to our senators and congressmen. I did, and it took less than five mintues total.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe America will ever intentionally permit untaxed, unregulated Internet gaming. It will be taxed or it will be snuffed out by the DoJ, as we've been seeing. Unfortunately, this hits poker players the worst, as we need fish, and fish need easy access to games.

I prefer regulation to prohibition myself. I hope we'll all back IGREA. I also hope we'll all email a copy of this op-ed to our senators and congressmen. I did, and it took less than five mintues total.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree if it is left up to Congress. Rep. Frank's bill is better than outright prohibition, but maybe not better than the present situation.
However, courts or WTO action may lead to a better result than Rep. Frank's regulate and possibly tax the online gambling industry. Before you back Rep. Frank's bill too heavily, you might want to wait one year to see what happens with the iMEGA case, other litigation after the regs come out and the WTO situation.
Of course, you should heavily support Rep. Wexler's bill and I have emailed my congressman and senators seeking their support for this bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree if it is left up to Congress. Rep. Frank's bill is better than outright prohibition, but maybe not better than the present situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why's that? If we had advertising and easy money transfers, the fish likely would be lined up for the slaughter. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also, status quo is hard to maintain. It's IGREA that's keeping tougher laws from being introduced.

It's not all bad, I don't think. I hope you'll consider taking a closer look at the benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
However, courts or WTO action may lead to a better result than Rep. Frank's regulate and possibly tax the online gambling industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? If we win iMEGA, Congress will be able to simply change the law, if they want. Our goal is to make them not want to. Same with the WTO. The U.S. does have sovereignty. There's some low probability that bans will be unconstitutional, but that's like drawing to a one-outer.

[ QUOTE ]
Before you back Rep. Frank's bill too heavily, you might want to wait one year to see what happens with the iMEGA case, other litigation after the regs come out and the WTO situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we wait a year without giving Frank any support, there won't be a bill to support next year.

Supporting Frank's bill is as much about demonstrating political strength as it is about passing the legislation, I think. If we want something better, we have to show support for our position now.

[JPFisher55]

The iMEGA case is all about constitution. If iMEGA wins then an outright ban is unconstitutional. The problem with the iMEGA case is standing which is a procedural issue. The constitution issues have been raised by many legal experts and have merit.
Of course, some regulation and taxation would be constitutional, but I would rather do without it. I agree about some regulation attracting fish (casual player), but no regulation attracts plenty. I guess I am afraid that Congress will over regulate and tax the industry. Also, I don't think that foreign firms will cotton to paying taxes to US or obeying much regulation for merely having US citizens access their websites. All the UK regs and taxes only apply to firms based in UK.
The US surrendered a lot of trade soveriegnity when it ratified GATS and WTO. Without these treaties, every country could violate our IP laws. I wonder how the music and movie industries, huge Dem supporters, will like it when Antiqua is granted the right to violate their copyrights.
Remember Rep. Frank's bill violates the WTO as much as present law, while Rep. Wexler's bill is a step toward compliance with Antiqua and the WTO. Maybe a compromise can be reached in which US regulates online sports betting and no other online gambling.
As far as demonstrating political strength, I watched the Republican Party demonstrate lots of political strength and achieve little of its core principles before abandoning them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The iMEGA case is all about constitution. If iMEGA wins then an outright ban is unconstitutional. The problem with the iMEGA case is standing which is a procedural issue. The constitution issues have been raised by many legal experts and have merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The case has some probability of getting UIGEA overturned, but the likelihood of a finding that Congress lacks the authority to ban Internet gaming is fairly low (the one-outer to which I referred). So, we'll still need political strength to keep the victory.

Everything else is a political solution also, so it seems we should pursue all options to demonstrate that strength. It can't hurt, right?

SPGA is a good bill, but IGREA has a better chance of getting passed. Also, IGREA has the benefit of having casino games to take up the tax load, allowing poker its traditional role as loss leader (or at least weaker profitability).

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It really frustrates me that people assume that because a company is not based in America, that it is run by unethical crooks in savage countries with no laws.

No US-based company has ever done something wrong, right?

[JPFisher55]

I guess I disagree about the odds of a complete ban on internet gambling being declared unconstitutional. I think that iMEGA filed its litigation too soon and should have waited until the regs came out. But I think that the law itself does not pass muster under the constitution because it is too broad. Same for a law banning online gambling. Of course regulation is different.
I think that some impetus such as WTO sanctions or court case like iMEGA is needed to compel Congress to make any changes to existing law.
I am just not wild about IGREA. The only advantage that I think it yields is that ewallets to serve the licensed market will arise and some will serve the unlicensed market. Thus, playing at the unlicensed market will be easier than playing at the alleged illegal market today.
I might feel differently if the regulations under the IGREA were stated and narrower than potential regs in the present language. I don't know about the 2percent tax. Seems lower than UK's 15% but is it low enough to not negatively affect the market.
I think that SGPA is more likely to pass as IGREA because it is WTO compliant and IGREA is not. The most immediate impetus for legislative change is WTO granting Antiqua the right to ignore US IP laws. The SGPA is the start of some sort of compromise with the WTO and Antiqua, but IGREA is not. The next few months will be interesting. BTW, the PPA blog has a link to a Business Week article about the potential problems with the trading system under the WTO caused by the US stance against online gambling. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_33/b4046041.htm?chan=search

[Legislurker]

IF , IF UIGEA is overturned in court, then we have INERTIA back on our side. Look how hard Kyl et al had to fight to get UIGEA through a back door. I will lay you any odds you want no one cares enough to try to shove this regulartion back through. The court doesn't have to say Congress can't legislate UIGEA, all it has to do is say UIGEA is an unconstitutional way to do it. I loathe making the weaker argument the stronger, but when you need them, lawyers are useful enough not to gibbet. My problem with Frank's bill is the industry may like it, and sign on, and then wonder why 40 some states opted out. Im not opposing it outright, but I hope someone tells him its horrible law, and unwanted.
The Feds saying poker is a skill game, ala the skill games bill, that undercuts the states ability. The Supremacy Clause/Commerce Clause would ensure it was left alone.

And I don't think either law will be passed, maybe tacked on and Kyl dies from an apoplectic fit, but I don't think we will have any input on what rider is attached, if any.

The WTO is a complete wild card, the only rumours I trust come from Jay, and I don't think he can comment even if he knows what is going on in the negotiations/arbitration mess.
I wonder what would happen if law enforcement was enjoined from prosecuting any online gaming?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I disagree about the odds of a complete ban on internet gambling being declared unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, these are two issues: UIGEA being unconstitutional vs. Congress lacking Constitutional authority to ban Internet gambling. UIGEA may very well be unconstitutional (I hope it is found to be so). As for congressional power, the courts have been pretty liberal in giving the federal government all the power they want under the insterstate commerce clause. And, the Wire Act is apparently constitutional. I'm with you in hoping the feds will require a constitutional amendment to gain the power to ban Internet gaming, but I think it's too low a probability for us to count on.

Also, we ought to strike while this is still new. Imagine if we tried to get the Wire Act repealed today? We'd be laughed at, I think, as it's long established law.

As for IGREA, we did lose last time 317-93. We don't have the luxury of being too picky, I don't think. Just because the Republicans are out of power now doesn't mean they'll stay out (though they're doing their best to remain the minority party, from what I see). For us, IGREA has great value as a rallying point....a way for us to show our strength, as I mentioned before. It keeps new bills at bay and puts on a show while the UIGEA regs are being drafted. It must be helping the banking lobby in negotiating what they will and will not do.

In summary, if IGREA passes this year, it's great for us...the uncertainty is gone and the fish are back (along with plenty of commercials). Sometimes a lesser result is acceptable in exchange for certainty. If IGREA doesn't make it through (but either passes at least a committee vote or never gets voted on)...great as well. We demonstrated resolve and helped the status quo, putting ourselves in a strong position for next year, an election year.

[JPFisher55]

The basic challenge by iMEGA against UIGEA involves first amendment rights and due process rights; not commerce clause issues.

[oldbookguy]

In this instance, I will have to accept Rep. King's statement and accept it as correct and honest.

This bill was received by the House at 11:30 that evening and voted on 15 minutes later with less than 10 copies available, but given the nature of the controlling bill, there were no choices really.

In this defering I rely on the original UIGEA of 2003 (Union Calendar No. 68, 108th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. R. 2143) passed by the House which reads in part:

[ QUOTE ]
(II) (viii) any participation in a simulation sports game or an educational game or contest that--

(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual performance in any single sporting event;

(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge and skill of the participants with such outcome determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting events; and

(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is established in advance of the game or contest and is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants;

[/ QUOTE ]

Though this bill did not specify what is / is not skill, it certainly excepted skill games, contests which now the Wexler Bill intends to do, fix the problem in the current UIGEA and make it conform to the House's original intent.

The current UIGEA can potentially include Skill gaming as there is no stated broad exemption in it I have seen (though I may have missed it).

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic challenge by iMEGA against UIGEA involves first amendment rights and due process rights; not commerce clause issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the case. I was discussing how the federal government claims juristiction over interstate commerce issues. UIGEA could be overturned on the grounds you listed, but it's unlikely that the Supreme Court will claim that gambling is protected under the First Amendment, such that state and federal governments will be unable to regulate or prohibit any gambling. In other words, UIGEA may be unconstitutional, but it's likely that some other bill could be rushed through to "close the loophole", as politicians like to say. We want support to prevent that from happening.

[JPFisher55]

I think that the Supreme Court could rule that online gambling is somewhat protected by the first amendment. Then the govt has to show some reason for a restriction and the restriction has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish the reason or valid objective. The UIGEA is not narrowly tailored.
Yes, some other law could be passed like the IGREA and it might pass constitution muster even if it has some restrictions on internet gambling. But passing laws in Congress is difficult these days. Sometimes I doubt if Dems and GOP agree on which direction the sun rises and sets.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the Supreme Court could rule that online gambling is somewhat protected by the first amendment. Then the govt has to show some reason for a restriction and the restriction has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish the reason or valid objective. The UIGEA is not narrowly tailored.

What hope would we have a for a ruling that if the government argues it needs to protect from fraud, underage, and compulsive gambling then the Court would say the best rememdy is legally, and that Prohibition can't accomplish it? Would a Court really have the balls/nerve to say it knows banning would have no impact?
Yes, some other law could be passed like the IGREA and it might pass constitution muster even if it has some restrictions on internet gambling. But passing laws in Congress is difficult these days. Sometimes I doubt if Dems and GOP agree on which direction the sun rises and sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

I don't see how we'll get First Amendment protections, as various state government have banned various forms of gambling since colonial times. I agree with the rest of your comments. Again, we gain from political support.

[oldbookguy]

hey Engineer, please join our discussion on the NT story at USA Today, your comments are always spot on!

obg

[TheEngineer]

Thanks. I did a bit ago.

[Legislurker]

I lobbied for a WTO story. Not just a generic AP one.

[oldbookguy]

Nice, I was looking for you there!

I have in the NT story line a beginning of a 'letter to the editor' for USA Today.
We need to send several there are well.

Ride this horse till it gives out, then bet on another (since we are ALLOWED to bet on horses!).

obg

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how we'll get First Amendment protections, as various state government have banned various forms of gambling since colonial times. I agree with the rest of your comments. Again, we gain from political support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but these laws have not been challenged in federal court or even enforced much. And they had nothing to do with online gambling which someone does in their home which is a pretty big sanctuary under the constitution. (Not complete sanctuary as doing drugs, rape and murder in home is still a crime)
I recommend that you read the petition and brief at iMEGA's website.
I don't disagree with your efforts to persuade Congress to change the laws. I applaud them. But for the balance of the Bush Administration, I think that court litigation or WTO pressure is more likely to change the present situation for the better. Also, I am just not sure that the IGREA represents a much better change over the present situation.