November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[Berge20]

As many of you know, the House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Wednesday, November 14th at 10am, entitled "Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers"

House Judiciary Committee Hearing Notice

Please post material, comments, thoughts, questions, etc here.

Hopefully the hearing will be available via streaming webcast for everyone to watch.

It is my understanding that Rep. Berkley and Goodlatte will testify, effectively one on each side of the issue. Generally they will only give statements and do not get questioned by the committee members. The second pannel will include Annie Duke, among others.

[oldbookguy]

At this time is is not a Web Cast and I see no listing on C-span, though that may change Monday.

We should, I already have, used the contact link asking the committee to Web Cast it and added a comment as well.

Contact:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

The great thing here is you do not have to have a rep to contact them, this is the committee itself.

obg

[Berge20]

Additionally, if your Member of Congress serves on the committee, you should give them a call and encourage them to attend.

Democrat
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
(D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

Republican
Hon. Lamar S. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

[TheProdigy]

I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[Berge20]

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.

[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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker terms think of it as a series of MTT like FT does for PAD or the WSOP. Round 1 is freeroll entry you "get" to write or call your Comgressperson. Round 2 you may get a piece of legislation circualting. Round 3 if you can make an impact like the fly-in, you get a hearing. And so on.

If you bust out of any round you can either go back to the begining for free or use your points to play in that round again. Use up all of your points and you have no choice.

Each round of this legislative series just like the poker in these events the "buy-in" gets higher and the skill of the players improve.


D$D

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope there is some kind've webcast posted.

I would love to watch this.

Berge(or anyone else) can you share with us the implications that this could have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully this is the webcast link???

http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx

[TheEngineer]

They just added an FoF guy:

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council