November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[Jerry D]

This hearing is not important, because according to Mason Malmuth and the powers that be at 2+2 they need to have a congressional hearing on the PPA. So write to congress and tell them to please cancel this hearing and schedule a hearing on the PPA as soon as possible. Thankyou everyone.

[IndyFish]

Members of the Judiciary Committee,

I am very pleased that you are addressing the issue of Internet Gaming this coming Wednesday.

The UIGEA is a very flawed piece of legislation for several reasons:
It leaves enforcement to the banking system, without even defining "Unlawful Internet Gambling"--thus leaving individual banks to decide what is or is not legal. If the Federal Government is unable to make this distinction, I doubt my local bank will have much success either.
It blatantly ignores a treaty we signed within the WTO, which seems certain to cost us tens of billions of dollars per year, if not hundreds of billions. This, to me, sounds more like something you would expect from China than the US.
It exempts certain forms of gambling--specifically horse races, lotteries, and fantasy sports leagues--while pushing all other forms of gaming underground. This is hypocritical, to say the least. How is one form of gambling more "moral" than another?
Because the UIGEA was passed, the publicly traded companies--licensed and regulated in their own countries--were replaced by private companies with less transparency. History has proven prohibition to be ineffective. A poorer product at a higher cost is sure to result.

There are better ways to handle the current situation. If the Government must get involved in affairs between consenting adults in their own homes, at least have the courtesy to allow the citizens of this Nation to make our own decisions. Regulate, tax, and provide age verification, help to problem gamblers, and whatever other protections you feel are necessary, but please don't protect me from myself.

Sincerely,

*IndyFish*

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want to overstate the implications of the hearing, but it is a significant step at gaining legislative traction.

This means that the poker community has caused enough of an uproar for these guys to take note and look into it more closely. A hearing is no guarantee for legislative movement, but it can frequently be a precursor for some type of action and/or closer review.

[/ QUOTE ]

The name of the hearing sound like a "How we can enforce UIEGA", am I misreading it and it's a "Why should we enforce UIEGA?"

[TheEngineer]

Yesterday's letter:


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.

There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. These safeguards will work -- the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gaming proved conclusively that Internet poker can be effectively regulated. I am comfortable that your hearing will show the same.

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,

TheEngineer

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

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

[TheEngineer]

November 12, 2007

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

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing in regard to the upcoming “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” to request that the committee review the unintended consequences of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Specifically, I request that the committee review the impact of the failure of UIGEA to define what types of Internet gaming are illegal to banks and to legal online gaming services.

Our nation’s banks have been deputized by the federal government to enforce UIGEA. However, they have not been told what exactly they are to enforce. The draft UIGEA regulations specifically state that the regulation authors do not know what is illegal and what is not. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gaming bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by blocking all Internet gaming transactions. Foreseeing this, the regulation authors actually devised a term for this – “overblocking”. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, despite its specific exclusion from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

I urge the committee to review this situation during the Internet gaming hearing and to carefully consider the need for clarifying legislation. There are two bills currently in the House that correct this situation. HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, clarifies federal law by expressly exempting games of skill like poker from UIGEA. HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, regulates online poker via stringent licensing regulations for poker site operators. Both bills have rigorous safeguards against underage and compulsive gambling. And, neither bill forces any state to permit online poker; states can opt out if they wish. I urge the committee to recommend passage of these bills to clarify UIGEA and the Wire Act. Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[JPFisher55]

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.

[oldbookguy]

JP, I agree with you on this one.

What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete.

Ideal, however, I doubt we will get.

obg

[chrisptp]

wrote this letter and posted the item with a link back to this thread on PTP news.

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I write in reference to the hearing scheduled for the HJC later this week: “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers”.

Attempts to prohibit online wagering to date have wasted significant amounts of governmental and commercial resources, put our country at odds with any number of critical trading partners, and unnecessarily expanded the government's reach into the day-to-day lives of American citizens.

No one doubts that, much as it has with live gambling, the USFG will play a significant role in the development of online gaming. I respectfully submit that the committee should consider the negative impact and likely futility of a prohibitive approach when determining what that role should be.

Regards
Chris

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

JP, I agree with you on this one.

What is needed is legislation that in many ways mirrors the defense case in the BoS case as put forth or a simple court ruling for the defense and congress simply drop the matter and repeal UIGEA while allowing stateside companies to compete.

Ideal, however, I doubt we will get.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

We may or may not be able to get it, but we can only find out if we try. Why set our goals for half a loaf? Or some form of a split-pot at best and be happy with a quarter share of the high or low end? When we can and should at least play to win the whole pot?


D$D

[Legislurker]

I think its going to take the actual IP sanctions to get something moving. This session of Congress is about to wrap up. Draft legislation to simply comply with the WTO ruling should be being worked on FOR NEXT YEAR. Not a bill to regulate and tax, but one to back off criminalizing it. I am giving up on having an iMega ruling on the TRO at all before the hearing, I had hoped we would. Congress won't be in session again to work till Jan when the WTO decision is handed down. God knows the the Bushfuck administration won't be working all to implement a ruling.
So if asked what we should be doing we should be telling Congress to leverage the executive to make a deal with Antigua, and be prepared to back it up with legislation to decriminalize offering gaming services from locations where gaming is legal. Force states that offer gaming to not erect monopolies or criminalize players using the Commerce and Supremacy clauses. Antigua has offered that route, ban all gaming in a state and they won't push, and thats beyond where I think the WTO would go if they have to rule. Im not sure what carrots there are to offer up as a bone to the psuedoChristians, except a compulsive player tax, treatment taxes, and age verification. If we can make some Senators see immediacy, they may opt for a common sense compromise where they can get some perceived concessions. Rangel is in the Caribbean now and should be familiar with what it takes to comply with the WTO. Im still not sure anyone beyond 4 or 5 Reps are taking this seriously.