November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, IMO it's time to stop pushing the IGREA HR2046. Rep. Charles Rangel realizes that it does not comply with the WTO decision. Also, I think that we have a chance, if the WTO grants Antiqua IP sanctions, to get a better bill. We can get a bill that repeals the UIGEA, exempts foreign online gambling providers from all federal and state gambling laws and establishes a system of regulation and taxation for US based online gambling providers. However, we need to push for such legislation instead of the flawed IGREA. A law that permits states and sports leagues to opt out and requires foreign providers to become subject to US jurisdiction and maintain records etc. within 500 miles of US is not much of an improvement over the present situation.
If the WTO fails to grant Antiqua the IP sanction and the iMEGA case fails, then pushing the IGREA may be the best we can get.
However, I think that the PPA's lobbyists ought to get ready to assist either the appropriate committee or Congressman in drafting WTO compliant legislation that accomplishes the above goals or at least the first two.
I have no problem with Rep. Wexler's bill, but it has no chance. Also, I am not sure that it will make it easier to transfer money to online poker sites. I think that most ewallets do not want to adopt Epassporte's solution of requiring their customers to separate their poker balances from other gambling parts of their sites. Thus, I wonder if legal online gambling isn't the best solution for online poker players. Now is the time to go for our best law; not a second best alternative like the IGREA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% that we should push for the best law we can get. I personally tend to show support for IGREA both because we have an existing bill out there and because it seems we should support Frank, an ally of ours (again, just my opinion). As I've mentioned before, IMO if we don't show support for it, it will just look like there's no support for online poker.

That being said, I'd obviously prefer something with a lot less regulation, at least like the Wexler bill. Sumbission to the WTO is the nuts for us, of course, but I think we'll have to show some Congressonal support for to keep the WTO issue active, which is where IGREA keeps coming in.

[TheEngineer]

Version not endorsing IGREA or Wexler's bill:


November 11, 2007

House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in regards to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to let you know that I, and many like me, believe online poker should be explicitly legalized.

To my disappointment, and contrary to the desires of the American people, my right to play poker online was inadvertently restricted with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). While it is clear that UIGEA does not apply to Internet poker nationwide (federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting (1) , and very few states have any laws against Internet poker), this legislation has nonetheless had a chilling effect on my ability to access and patronize these legal businesses.

Additionally, many offshore poker sites continue to legally offer Internet poker within the U.S. In fact, some offshore poker sites that left the U.S. market with the passage of UIGEA (most notably Doyle Brunson’s site, Doyle’s Room) are now returning (2). Unfortunately, U.S.-based sites have been prohibited from opening under pressure from the Justice Department. This has resulted in the exact opposite of the ideal situation, from a U.S. perspective. Rather than U.S.-based sites serving the world (and subject to U.S. laws and regulations), offshore sites serve us. We can do better.

Online poker will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We are losing our opportunity to insist on reasonable regulations, and we are losing valuable opportunities for U.S. companies to operate sites. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue. I urge the committee to recommend that the federal government reject prohibition and to embrace freedom and liberty.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



---------------------

1. In re MasterCard Int’l, et al., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, (E.D. La. 2001), upheld on appeal by the Fifth Circuit – 2002 C05 518 (USCA5, 2002)
2. www.doylesroom.com, statement on main page, effective October 19th, 2007

[JPFisher55]

I agree that we need the WTO to grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions. If not granted, then this whole discussion and the whole WTO process is moot, legal term for meaningless.

[TheEngineer]

Casinogamblingweb.com Article

Internet Gambling Hearing to be Held Nov 14 by House Judiciary Committee

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, has set a date for a hearing on Internet gambling. The set date will be November 14, at 10 AM in the Rayburn Building in Washington D.C.

The intentions of the Judiciary Hearing are to find out if there can be rules to fairly and effectively mete out laws concerning regulation in order to get rid of the current prohibition.

The hearing is a direct result of efforts of the Poker Players Alliance's (PPA) lobbying 'fly-in' they hosted in D.C. last month.

There is not an official 'Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers' list of those giving testimony, however, it is rumored that Annie Duke, a poker professional, will be there to establish her views on the skill aspect of poker.

Also expected, but not confirmed, to give testimony at the hearing are an expert on WTO obligations, a representative from the Department of Justice, congressmen for and against online gambling, and others.

In related news, Rep. Conyers this week signed on to Rep. R. Wexler's Bill H.R. 2610 (The Skill Games Protection Act) as a co-sponsor. Wexler's bill would make an exception in the UIGEA for skill games such as poker.

Ironically, what makes the UIGEA so hard to enforce in the first place is the fact that there are so many exceptions already in the bill that allow horse race betting online, and fantasy sports gaming.

The banks are mandated to enforce these laws, but the banks say it is near impossible to determine what is illegal and what isn't.

The newly set hearing will look into issues like these.

November 10, 2007
Posted By Bob Hartman
Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com

[Capitola]

Any updated word on whether we'll be able to watch this hearing? I can't seem to get any useful info out of the C-SPAN website.

[oldbookguy]

Nothing is showing as you know.
I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this.

Write:
viewer@c-span.org

My letter:

I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers .

This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement.

Thanks in advance,


obg

[TheEngineer]

done

[Capitola]

My letter (probably too long and not guaranteed to be 100% accurate):

I am writing to you in the hopes that you will decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 (Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers).

This hearing is of great importance, since the resulting legislation may impact the USTR's negotiations over billions of dollars in WTO trade sanctions. As you know, the US is facing up to 100 billion dollars in sanctions as a result of its anti-online gambling position and its resulting withdrawal from GATT commitments.

Since many millions of Americans play poker online, the hearing is important to a large segment of your audience.

Also, poker pro Annie Duke is rumored to be testifying, and she is both well-spoken and easy on the eyes.

Please show the hearing. Many of us would like to watch.

Thanks,

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing is showing as you know.
I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this.

Write:
viewer@c-span.org

My letter:

I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers .

This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement.

Thanks in advance,


obg

[/ QUOTE ]

E-mail sent

[Capitola]

Excerpt from the C-SPAN auto-reply. This may not exactly be news, but I thought it was interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Schedule

C-SPAN is committed to LIVE gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on C-SPAN2 when they are in session. Due to this live coverage, we are only able to schedule events more than a few hours in advance. C-SPAN3 carries live events when the House and Senate are in session and offers additional choices in public affairs television.

Each day we decide in the late afternoon what events we will cover the following day. Until the events are complete, we do not know how long they are and how they will air in our schedule.

Throughout the day, events are posted as we know them, but this is often just shortly before they air.

View our TV schedules online at www.c-span.org for up-to-date programming information. In addition, on-air programming updates will appear at the bottom of the screen every 15 minutes.

Subscribe to C-SPAN Alert! You can receive daily programming information via email for C-SPAN, C-SPAN2, C-SPAN3, BookTV, C-SPAN Radio and Washington Journal by signing up for C-SPAN Alert! at www.c-span.org/watch/cspanalert


[/ QUOTE ]