November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wow it sounds like we did an awesome job! i really hope this gets online somewhere so i can see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to nitpick, but it sounds to me like the PPA and Annie Duke did an awesome job of representing poker players, not "we."

I think many posters on this board underestimate the influence they may bring by getting involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that who "we" are?

[Uglyowl]

JackInDaCrak, your wording is confusing me. Can you restate what you are trying to get at? I have read it two different ways now.

[JPFisher55]

Tuff, IMO the poker is a game of skill is a very good legal argument that it and online poker are legal in most states. However, I don't think that Congress cares about the skill aspect. I think that Congress might care a little about the individual freedom argument. But the biggest concern is the WTO situation and the WTO equates all forms of gambling.
From what I heard Prof. Weiler was brillant.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff, IMO the poker is a game of skill is a very good legal argument that it and online poker are legal in most states. However, I don't think that Congress cares about the skill aspect. I think that Congress might care a little about the individual freedom argument. But the biggest concern is the WTO situation and the WTO equates all forms of gambling.
From what I heard Prof. Weiler was brillant.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree JP that the threat of those WTO sanctions is going to have a larger impact on Congress, I disagree that the skill argument does not help us there.

I also think very, very few in Congress give a damn about our "freedoms." As you well know they spend most of their day thinking about which freedoms we should have to give up, or be taxed on greater if we exercise them.

The skill argument is helpful in thwarting the "gambling is evil" folks, and the "gambling is dangerous" folks. Thus its much easier for a congressman from a conservative district to support skill games as opposed to gambling.

And the skill argument can be useful at the WTO too: we could ban all gambling and then permit only wagering on games of skill, and foreign companies are free to offer those same games of skill in the US, on the same terms as US companies.

Its far from the only argument, it may not be the single most effective argument, but it is an import argument in our arsenal, IMHO, both in the courts and politically.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we ought to equate all forms of gambling. The skill argument to elevate poker above gambling is a very good legal argument. However, for political purposes we ought to argue that casino gambling=horse racing=lottery=fantasy sports=all online gambling. Thus, we can argue that a state has two logical options. Permit all gambling or ban all gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In certain States, we may have to take that position because of existing State laws.

On the Federal level, I do see the argument, but under the existing Administration, IMO, it is a waste of time.

Short term politically we are the only non-exempt form of gaming currently organized enough to affect change pre-mid ’09, and even that IMO is a long shot. The WTO action has backed the Administration as evidenced by Catherine’s suggestion, echoed by the FoF (fool who sees Congressional hearings as a main his source of pleasure), that a total ban is better justified than any addition to the “hodgepodge” of gaming laws in this country.

No bill before Congress addresses both the State’s rights and removes all WTO issues. Short of the US paying to keep a protection for trade barriers under some need to protect an industry claim for remote Horseracing, banning remote Horseracing is indeed the cheapest and easiest of the tasks facing Congress.

That is unless the problems are so huge and withdrawing from the Uruguay Round commitments to quick and binding arbitration if the remote gaming issue “wasn’t really agreed to under GATT agreement” continues to fail, is only a bluff, then expecting quick action or deciding to side with unrestricted remote gaming is a mistake IMO.

Therefore, I agree with your suggestion that taking sides with unrestricted remote gaming seems expedient, I feel it brings us many more problems than it ultimately solves. As it is, the larger gaming industry is not convinced of the profit in remote gaming, as remote gaming produces no ancillary jobs or profit. The constitutional problems regarding States rights will not satisfy Utah or any other State or State Attorney Generals’ desires desire to keep gaming expansion control at the State level. Thus, even a WTO compliant bill adds to our existing problems, and puts us politically in a dilemma concerning individual State actions currently and in the future.

Therefore, I am uncomfortable ceding to Catherine’s and the DOJ position that the Wire Act is controlling on the issue of on-line poker or attempting to use this alliance to further force the issue with this apporach.




[ QUOTE ]
When our foes argue that Internet gambling is worse than casino gambling, we can cite studies and technology to argue that Internet gambling is no more addictive or more susceptible to underage gambling than casino gambling. I can testify that I first played $2 blackjack at the MGM casino in Las Vegas at the age of 19.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purely devils advocate; that actually re-enforces the opposition’s main premise. The B&M’s either did or did not follow the law depending on where you played and the year, and thus your pre-disposition to gambling has thus found the easiest outlet to currently participate in gaming. You re-enforce the “crack” argument not help defeat it.


[ QUOTE ]
We can argue that this option, ban all or none, complies with the WTO decision. I know that this might not be true, but it is much more likely to comply than the IGREA, which only regulates some forms of Internet gambling. In addition, this argument points out the hypocrisy in the foes of online gambling and exposes their true goal to eliminate all gambling. Plus, how many states will want to give up their lottery. If forced to choose, I bet almost all the states will choose to permit all gambling rather than ban all gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

As evidenced by the FoF and government positions today, they have no problem with the ban all position. The FoF types actually invite it. The governmental duty to eliminate or at least combat money laundering, criminal ownership, fraud, under aged participation, and even addressing problem gambling are all better addressed as shown by Catherine’s testimony today that regulation actually goes much further than addressing all of these issues and is more effective than prohibition.


D$D (himself)

[thac]

Sorry I'm a bit ignorant, but what can we expect to come of this.. as in, what's the next step if this is successful? The House has a vote on the bill?

[PPABryan]

Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[Skallagrim]

Hopefully, thac, this is the first in a long series of steps to get the Wexler "Skill Games Protection Act" favorably referred by the committee to the House floor and there passed.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Video is up on the House Judiciary site.

Video

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for all today. I would count today as perhaps the single best moment in PPA history and another great leap built on all the hard work done from John's appointment throught the fly-in. We would have not gotten the hearing today if it were not for the sucess of the fly-in!


D$D

[Capitola]

Thanks to the PPA for all your work. You'll have a new paying member shortly.