Spoke with my congressman who voted for UIGA

[Dan Burns]

For those who are interested, I spoke with my congressman yesterday who voted for the UIGA, Mike Ferguson, R-NJ. He is on the telecommunications and internet subcommittee in the house yet knew surprisingly little about the issue. To his credit he knew plenty about net neutrality, but it seemed to me like he basically voted on the UIGA based on the title. He said they vote on so much stuff in the house they don't have time to research a lot of the issues. Scary.

What is even scarier is what he did remember from the debate. Something about the mafia controlling internet gambling sites and about college kids losing $$ and having to turn to the mafia for loans. WHAT? That is completely backwards. The mafia and other illegal bookmakers love this piece of legislation. It turns customers away from legitimate businesses with websites and puts them back into the "I know a guy who'll take that action" mentality. Prepare to pay 20% juice again sports gamblers and to have a minimum bet of $100 (down from $1).

The good news is Mr. Ferguson did seem to be receptive to listening to me and open to changing his mind, unless that was just his politician poker face. I gave him the column I wrote last year (I'm a newspaper reporter/columnist) and he said he'd read it. I'll copy the column below for those interested. - Dan

If you want to ban poker, then ban the lottery
By Dan Burns

While I was reporting on a Roselle election case last week at the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth, I walked past a homeless man holding up a crumpled McDonald’s coffee cup, begging for change.

When I left the courthouse hours later, the same man was sitting on the steps of a corner store, using one of the quarters he collected to scratch off three lottery tickets.
Never has an image I’ve seen better highlighted the hypocrisy of what Congress has done to Internet poker players.

The United States Senate passed legislation Saturday morning that makes gambling online illegal and forces banks to cut off financial transactions related to Internet gambling. The legislation wasn’t debated in the Senate, but was attached as an amendment to an unrelated bill on port security, which was cleared by a unanimous voice vote, after the majority of senators had already gone home for the night.

The amendment was companion legislation to HR-4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, which the House of Representatives passed in July.
Despite its comprehensive name, the bill carves out exceptions for online wagering on horse racing, state lotteries and fantasy sports. Some representatives say those exceptions are the essence of the bill’s hypocrisy.

“This bill's advocates proclaim the immorality of online gaming and shout that it will destroy our society,” U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. said. “Unless you are betting on horse races.”

A thought similar to Berkley’s crossed my mind as I watched the hungry, homeless man in Elizabeth devour gimmicky scratch-off tickets instead of the soup or sandwich he needed. Just who is the government trying to protect from the potential pitfalls of gambling?

To play online poker, you need a bank account, a computer and private Internet access. To play the lottery, you need only walk into a bodega.

Not everyone who owns a computer and pays a monthly Internet bill can afford to gamble recreationally, but it’s a better natural buffer for keeping the poorest members of our society from over-spending than any form of protection we currently have on the lottery.

The exception for online horse race wagering is even more egregious. Wagering on horse races on the Internet, when you know you won’t even be able to watch the race you’re betting on, is more indicative of compulsive behavior than is participation in any poker game.

A major concern opponents of online gambling have is children can access online casino games more easily than they could access the games in brick-and-mortar casinos. Though that argument is often exaggerated, it is true to some extent. Online poker sites place several safeguards to ensure participants are telling the truth about their age, but there is no 100-percent foolproof method.

This is the reason America should regulate the online poker industry, not ban it. Require online gambling companies with U.S. customers to set up offices in America and regulate them. Then sit back and watch the tax dollars roll in.

Successful online gambling companies make hundreds of millions of dollars every year. It would be fiscally irresponsible of our government to not claim its piece of the revenue.

Part of the tax revenue generated could be used to fund gambling addiction centers. The rest could go into public coffers and be used for anything from public school funding to tax relief.

Regulation would ease the concerns some people have about online poker, such as whether the cards are rigged to favor certain players or not knowing if their money will be safe once deposited. It would also make it easier to verify a user is 18 or older.

So Senate Majority Leader William Frist, R-Tenn., U.S. Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., and other supporters of this bill, if you argue you are passing this to protect American citizens from the “scourge on society” you claim is online gambling, then please include a ban on the forms of gambling that prey on the more vulnerable members of our society. Anything less would be hypocritical.
If you aren’t willing to do that, then please stop bothering us. We’re busy working hard for our paychecks and deciding how we want to spend them, like all American citizens should have the freedom to do.
Even if the government does begin to enforce this legislation and people are arrested for playing poker in “the land of the free,” you will never be able to convince me that poker players are criminals.
They are, and always will be, people who like to play a game.

[Uglyowl]

Hi Dan,

I was reluctant to read based on it's length, but this is one of the best pieces I have read. Very well done, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Also you drive home the point of why it is important to let our elected officials know what they voted for and how it impacts us tax paying, law abiding citizens.

[Atrophy]

Genius.

Your lottery argument is ironic. As I was driving home from work yesterday, the same idea entered my mind. It enraged me so much that I had to force myself to stop thinking about it. So, I went home and watched pornography instead. You, on the other hand, put your energy to use in a more positive form.

The only problem is that I just finished reading your post at work, and now I have to drive home. I guess I know what I'm doing again this evening.

[drefsab]

What a great article. The lottery illustration is so vivid. Nice work!

[Dan Burns]

I'm glad you guys like it. Hopefully the congressman will like it as much. If some of the other rumors, like the one about Barney Frank trying to repeal the law, are true, we should keep chewing the ears off of our representatives, so this never becomes a dead issue.

[flafishy]

That is a great post. Nice job.

One nitpick, though ... I'd be willing to bet that Rep. Ferguson and a lot of other congressmen really didn't "vote for" the UIGEA. They voted for the Port Security Act, which they cannot be blamed for, and a lot of them probably didn't even know the UIGEA was part of it.

[Ramon Scott]

Did not, however, necessarily agree with the horse racing part. Although a 16 percent take out on most wagers is hard to overcome, the thought of not being able to watch a race seems invalid, as most every race at every track is available on the internet or cable/satellite television. It's good recreational gambling IMO.

[planB]

Very good article, but I have a question. Doesn't "gambling" fall under states rights? If so, then at the federal level, the UIGA is intended to assist the states in controlling internet gambling. The states don't know what to do, the feds came in and UIGA was sneaked in at the 11th hour, on the back of an important bill. I would think that a poker exemption (carveout) is the only thing at this point that the federal government can do. They can't leagalize it because then they are stepping on the states rights. So while the tax gains would be good for the country, the dialogue for legalization will not happen at the federal level.

[dc_publius]

I like the mob association dis and illumination of proregulation benefits, but I don't really care for the lottery comparision. It's pointless and it's a weak argument in practice. Focusing on pros and cons of something is more effective than trying to compare it to something and stating that if A is legal then B should be too.

[Dan Burns]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a great post. Nice job.

One nitpick, though ... I'd be willing to bet that Rep. Ferguson and a lot of other congressmen really didn't "vote for" the UIGEA. They voted for the Port Security Act, which they cannot be blamed for, and a lot of them probably didn't even know the UIGEA was part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly, the house of rep. took an actual vote on this in July. That is when Shelley Berkeley and Barney Frank made their speeches. The senate was the house where the UIGA was attached to the Port Security Act, much later in the year. So Ferguson did vote for this after an actual debate.