November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[tangled]

Chairman Conyers:

I would first like to thank you for revisiting the issue of online gaming. This is an issue that deserves more attention from Congress.

I am a nurse and I have a family. I like to relax sometimes at home and play low-stakes poker online. I always play responsibly and in moderation. If I had to go to a casino to play, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my chosen past time, as traveling to a casino and the time spent there would take too much time away from my family. Also, the stakes offered at casinos would make playing irresponsible for me. As far as my situation goes, the UIGEA is anti-family legislation.

I resent with spitting indignation the idea of someone coming into my home and trying to tell me what I can and can not do there. The celebratory attitude and smug arrogance of many of the selectively anti-gambling proponents is convulsive.

I know that many allege that allowing online gaming will harm society in some ways. This approach is timeless. Enemies of the notion of personal freedoms for everyone have always argued this. There is not a single freedom that someone can not imagine some harm in some way for society. Our founding fathers proved that government can allow personal freedom and still be effective.

This is not to say that government should not prohibit some behavior from time to time due to the harm that it may cause. But it is to say that the onus is on the prohibitionists to prove that the harm really is significant, unavoidable without the prohibition, and that the harm can not be addressed in other, less restrictive ways.

Proponents of the UIGEA have not even come close to meeting these burdens. In reality, only a small percentage of people use the online gaming product in a destructive way. And those that do, would be better helped by professional treatment and effective self-initiated programs than by unenforceable restrictions. For the vulnerable, online gaming is not going to stop just because a law is passed. Many will find a way to play regardless the law. Indeed the only people who will stop using this product are the ones who use it responsibly. With the control that regulation brings, money can be put aside to truly help the troubled gambler. Also, sophisticated and effective technology exists to prevent children from playing online.

Society can be protected without violating the sanctity of my home.

Further, it has been alleged that terrorists might use online gaming as a method to launder money. I must concede this is a realistic threat, because even though there has not been one proven case of this happening to date, now - now -that this industry has been driven more underground with the passage of the UIGEA, the possibility does exist. One of the best reasons to regulate this industry is so it can be monitored and policed by the good guys, and the terrorists can be forced back into their cold, damp caves.

There is more I could say on this issue, but I think this enough for now.

Thank you again for reading and considering.

[oldbookguy]

Very good and effective letter.

obg

[TheEngineer]

Very nice letter.

[Uglyowl]

Very nice letter Tangled:

I used the framework for mine:

Thank you for taking the time to look at the online gaming issue in more detail and give it the debate that it richly deserves, unlike when the UIGEA was tacked onto an unrelated bill.

I have always enjoyed playing poker and online poker has been my preferences for different reasons at different times in my life:

- In 2004, I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and was unable to drive the 100 miles to and my immune system was too weak to visit a casino. Online poker was a great avenue to continue to enjoy the game I love.

- Today I am cancer free, and continue to enjoy this avenue of playing. I work full time and am married with a 3 year old son. My family is the most important thing in my life and there is not a more important responsibility in the world than bringing my son up the right way. After he goes to bed at night, I am able to play a half hour to 45 minutes before going to bed for work the next day. If I was forced to go to a casino, in that same time, I would have only started my car and been on the road for 20-35 miles of a 100 mile trip.

To go further, my wife even plays a couple times per month, usually tournaments where the entry fee is $1. It is very hard to find tournaments under $100 in the casino.

Technology has offered a lot of great things in our country which makes activities cheaper, more convenient, and with more choices. Poker is like any other activity in that there is risk and a very small percentage of people who abuse it. The answer is not driving the game underground and making criminals of the millions who play the game responsibly. These problems and risks need to be addressed and safeguards put in place.

In closing I would like to thank you for taking the time to review this and taking into account the freedoms of Americans.

"Uglyowl's real name"

[Skallagrim]

For the sake of encouraging others, here is my letter:

Dear Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee:

I am writing concerning the upcoming hearing on internet gaming and the UIGEA.

First, a little about myself and why I am concerned. I am a 48 year old practicing attorney in NH. All my life I have enjoyed playing games of skill. From chess and checkers, to video and computer games, to highly complex military simulation games, the intellectual challenge presented by such activities has helped me pass many an hour in a manner far better, I believe, than the passive watching of entertainment. With the advent of the internet, I am now able to play skill games against competitors from all over the world, in the comfort of my own home, with my family close by. I do not want to lose that ability, and that is why I am concerned enough to write this.

Please note that I have used the words “skill games” above. I have very little interest in gambling online. Indeed, other than the occasional Las Vegas vacation, I have no interest in gambling at all.

A few years ago I, along with much of the rest of America, rediscovered the classic American skill game of Poker. I was aware that many folks consider poker gambling, but after watching professional players on TV consistently win, and after doing a fair bit of research, it became clear to me that poker was a game of skill, quite so in fact, as the need to employ math and psychological reasoning to a series of changing, random events in order to achieve success at poker makes it a game of fascinating skill.

So I began playing poker online to develop those skills and meet the challenge that is a poker game. First, of course, I researched the legality of playing online poker. I discovered that the Federal Courts seem pretty convinced that online poker does not violate the Federal Wire act (see, e.g., 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)) and so the only way online poker could be illegal would be if it violates state law. The law in my state of New Hampshire defines “gambling” as risking anything of value “on a future contingent event not under one’s control or influence....” NH RSA 647:2, II, (d). Some unfamiliar with the game think this applies to poker because a player cannot influence the cards. The problem with that reasoning, though, is that THE CARDS DO NOT ALWAYS OR ALONE DECIDE THE WINNER. In poker, as those familiar know, its not the best hand that wins, its the best hand of those left at the end of the betting, and if only one is left at any time he or she wins regardless of the cards. So while the players may not influence what the next card is, the players certainly and undeniably influence (through betting, raising and folding) who is there at the end to see the cards, and whether the cards are seen at all. Poker is clearly not gambling under New Hampshire law. (See, also: Opinion of the Justices, 73 NH 625 (1906) (distinguishing, under old law, wagering amongst players in a contest, and wagering on the contests of others, finding only the latter to be “gambling”).

Which brings me to the main point: the UIGEA as it is currently being finalized through the regulation process is almost certainly going to have a significant negative effect on my ability to continue to enjoy my legally playing skill games for money on the internet. This is so because the UIGEA regulations as proposed fail to include any specific definition of what is and what is not “unlawful internet gambling.” At the same time the regulations have a specific exemption for financial institutions to prevent them from consequences for blocking legal internet gaming, and specify penalties for allowing unlawful internet gambling. In the regulations themselves, the writers note the extreme difficulty of defining “unlawful internet gambling” due to the open questions regarding state laws and the specific activity they may or may not cover. Obviously, if the regulation writers believe its too difficult to specifically define what is or is not “unlawful internet gambling” how can anyone reasonably expect the financial institutions to do it? In accord, The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has recently issued an opinion indicating that such an endeavor is well nigh impossible for a financial institution.

So what will the financial institutions do if the current law and regulations are not changed? Obviously they have every incentive to block ANY transaction that might even remotely be labeled “unlawful internet gambling” and that will almost certainly include blocking transactions to any of the skill games internet sites I enjoy playing legally on from the state of New Hampshire. I truly doubt any amount of writing, explaining and legal reasoning will convince any financial institution to leave their safe haven and venture into continuing to fund my playing just because I as a New Hampshire lawyer can present them with the argument that my funding of play at Bridge sites, Chess sites, Wargaming sites, and, yes, Poker sites, does not violate any law.

Therefore, Chairman Conyers and members of the committee, I must turn to you for your help if I am going to be able to continue my internet skill gaming. The Honorable Representative Wexler has introduced H.R. 2610, the “Skill Game Protection Act.” I strongly urge the committee to support this legislation so that I, and all others whose spouses enjoy having them home in the evenings as opposed to going to places of gaming, can continue our favorite pastime(s).

I would also note that I am not unmindful that any game, especially one where the potential for profit is significant (like poker, due to its singular popularity) may become a problem for certain individuals. Although in my experience it is clear that people who develop problem gambling (a serious addiction as I well know from my work) rarely find themselves at risk in skill games (they almost always prefer race and/or sports betting and games of pure chance), that does not mean there will not be some problem players out there. But it is also clear to me that the best way to identify and help a problem player is through site regulation, not prohibition. The criminal bookie has no incentive to help the problem gambler; a legal, regulated site has every incentive because preserving that legality is paramount to continuing to exist and profit. The same is true for preventing juveniles from gaming for money.

Please, members of the committee, support the Skill Games Protection Act and include in it the appropriate means to minimize the problems of addiction and underage participation. That would be, in my opinion, the best possible result for everyone concerned.

"Skallagrim"

I also intend to use this basic format to write my comment to the regulations (due by 12/12/07 remember) and to my Representatives in the next few weeks.

[TheEngineer]

Very nice letter as well Owl. I've mentioned it before, but congrats again on beating the cancer.

[TheEngineer]

Awesome letter Skallagrim. Thanks for posting it.

[tangled]

Thanks to all the kind words expressed here and in the pm from Deadmoney. But frankly, Owl, yours is better. I wish every news org. could get a copy of it.

I must admit I don't know that much about the condition you struggled with -I'll have to do a little research- but I wish you great luck and continued courage.

[oldbookguy]

Finest letter I beleve I have read.

obg

[whangarei]

Here is the lineup for the hearing:

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Catherine Hanaway, US Attorney, Missouri
-- she has been an active opponent of ours, prosecuting the BetOnSports case and the Sporting News gambling ads case
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Professor Joseph Weiler, NYU School of Law
-- expert on the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Michael Calopy, Aristotle, Inc.
-- he testified last time on technology to prevent underage IG
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Valery Abend, Treasury Department
-- adviser on IG ( US Treasury - Valerie Abend)
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Annie Duke