November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[PPAdc]

Congressional Hearing Dispels Internet Poker Myths

~ Annie Duke delivers impassioned testimony to the Judiciary Committee ~

Washington, D.C. (November 14, 2007) – Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee, which has key jurisdiction over Internet gaming matters, held a hearing to discuss the inconsistencies with U.S policy. On behalf of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), Annie Duke testified along with experts on international trade, age-verification technology and representatives from the Departments of Justice and Treasury.

“At its most basic level, the issue before this committee is personal freedom,” Ms. Duke told the Committee. “More than any other value, America is supposed to be about freedom. Except where one's actions directly and necessarily harm another person's life, liberty or property, government in America is supposed to leave the citizenry alone. Examples of Congress straying from this principle are legion, but few are as egregious as UIGEA,” Duke added.

One key outcome of the hearing was the acknowledgement by the DoJ witness, the Honorable Catherine Hanaway, that it is not illegal for an individual to place a wager on the Internet. This confirmation came during questioning from Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) and dispels a common misconception that an Internet poker player may be committing a crime by playing poker online.

Another myth that was dismissed was the misguided belief that Internet gaming sites are bastions for terrorist money laundering. Congressman Howard Coble (R-NC) asked Ms. Hanaway if there was any evidence of Internet gaming sites laundering money for terrorist financing. She responded unequivocally that there is no evidence to that effect.

Finally, the myth that it is impossible to provide protections to keep underage persons off gambling Web sites was completely dismissed by Michael Collopy of Aristotle a leading provider of verification services for child protection online. Collopy delivered compelling testimony outlining a number of products and services available today that are nearly 100 percent effective in keeping children of age-restricted Web sites.

All of the witness’ written testimonies as well as video of the entire hearing can be found on the Poker Players Alliance’s Web site, www.pokerplayersalliance.org.

###
The Poker Players Alliance www.pokerplayersalliance.org is a non-profit organization advocating on behalf of American poker players.

John A. Pappas
Poker Players Alliance
Executive Director

[whangarei]

Great write-up, John. And awesome work overall! I'm proud to say I'm a PPA member.

You may want to correct this typo in your press release:

[ QUOTE ]
Collopy delivered compelling testimony outlining a number of products and services available today that are nearly 100 percent effective in keeping children of age-restricted Web sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you meant to say "keeping children off age-restricted Web sites."

[Grasshopp3r]

You need to add in the real agenda of the FoF with the fun exchange. That would help frame the issue.

[flight2q]

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that it does take the US further out of compliance, if there is such a thing. The truth is you are in compliance or you are not. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

However, if the US's two options to be in compliance is eliminate all remote gambling, or open the US market to all remote gambling from Antigua, adding one more form of state sanctioned remote gambling to the US market does in a way take them further out of compliance.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have this exactly backwards. The WTO is going to need to settle for some opening up of the Internet gambling market. A trade war won't be avoided by moving in the direction of more restrictions.

The USA will take the trade war before they eliminate the lotteries. The USA will also take the trade war before they open up the gambling market so much that foreign entities are allowed to compete directly with the lotteries.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that it does take the US further out of compliance, if there is such a thing. The truth is you are in compliance or you are not. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

However, if the US's two options to be in compliance is eliminate all remote gambling, or open the US market to all remote gambling from Antigua, adding one more form of state sanctioned remote gambling to the US market does in a way take them further out of compliance.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have this exactly backwards. The WTO is going to need to settle for some opening up of the Internet gambling market. A trade war won't be avoided by moving in the direction of more restrictions.

The USA will take the trade war before they eliminate the lotteries. The USA will also take the trade war before they open up the gambling market so much that foreign entities are allowed to compete directly with the lotteries.

[/ QUOTE ]


There will be no "trade war" unless the US congress both refuses to pass a compliant bill enabling foreign access to the domestic gambling market, and also responds in kind to the WTO approved trade sanctions that will result from such non-compliance. So there are actually 3 choices here for the US:

1) comply
2) don't comply but accept sanctions without reprisal (but the bill for which will be footed by various US industries)
3) neither comply nor accept sactions (retaliation that is equivalent to a trade war)

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So there are actually 3 choices here for the US:

1) comply
2) don't comply but accept sanctions without reprisal (but the bill for which will be footed by various US industries)
3) neither comply nor accept sactions (retaliation that is equivalent to a trade war)

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it is nit-picking but there are mutiple variations of 2 and 3. As Prof Rose suggested, as Horseracing is perhaps the only "legal" unrestricted private run form of gambling and Antigua's potential claim shrinks to nothing thus becoming a "resolution" issue not a obstinance issue in world opinion the price for 2 becomes much cheaper.

The US has for years lead the effort to open up trade and many more conutries benifit than really back the current "piling on" to the point of using trading "force." I am not a trade expert, but I have slept in a Hilton bed in foreign countries, and remain fairly skepitical of the WTO as a silver bullet for on-line poker and even less for those with hopes of unrestricted on-line gaming, let alone the "pipe dream" IMO of unrestricted profesional sports betting.

But hey, I have had and do have teenagers, I'm used to being told "I don't have a clue..."


D$D

[Legislurker]

3 will not happen. The costs are too huge for such a trivial
matter as remote gaming. Open-ended not complying can't happen because you cannot have any negotiated settlement on the withdrawl of committments until Antigua agrees the US complies or a panel does. Until then, the IP sanctions or whatever is granted are in force. Unless a trivial amount of damages is granted the issue will have to be dealt with.
Whats going to happen? I don't know, but it can't be ignored. Its a cost/benefit thing. Small damages would lead to negotiated withdrawls. Large damages would leave Antigua starting sanctions and Congress maybe forcing the Executive's hand. The Executive will drive what happens in the short run. Congress doesn't have the will or inclination to pass a WTO compliant bill, lets be frank about that, pun intended. The decision from the WTO is likely to be during recess anyway. So the DOJ, Treasury, and FOfuckers in residence in the White House will make all the calls. Party et al won't come back without a nod from the gangsters there.

Horseracing is not central at all to the negotiations. It served only to undermine the morals defence. The committment was to cross-border gaming. Forms and internet or not do not matter. Theres a gaming market thats being withheld that was committed open.

So we are left with Bluff's 1 or 2, and thats entirely dependant on the size of the damages. I dont think any of the negotiated settlements are binding. 3bn to Antigua and Japan and Australia will say [censored] you to the USTR. Its a magic number that determines what we get. I dont think its a pipe dream to think we will have free access to gaming providers. The US has forfeited any chance of a redacted settlement. Letting it go this far, they have made Antigua's game all or nothing. The EU, India, and China(via Macau) elephants in the room give them unprecedented bargaining power with anything resembling their level of damages. The WTO will either be a silver bullet or a big [censored] letdown. I can't even handicap it. But there won't be a muddle in its relevance to us.

[PPAdc]

Yes, I accidentally posted an earlier draft of the release, the final release that went out to media, posted to our site, etc. was correct and edited.

John A. Pappas
Poker Players Alliance
Executive Director

[JPFisher55]

IMO, the WTO will either grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions which will cause the Democrats in Congress to force compliance with WTO on the Bush Administration and the states or the WTO will not grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions in that event the WTO will become as worthless as the UN, most medium to small members will leave the WTO or ignore it and even the large members will ignore it. If the latter occurs the international trade system might break down. The last time that happened the world suffered a Great Depression and Adolf Hitler rose to power. Now the economies of most nations are much more interdependent than in the 1920's. But that might make a resolution much quicker and less costly.
I hope that the WTO chooses to enforce its rulings unlike the worthless UN.

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
Shelley Berkley is so awesome that I think I could convince my wife that a divorce would be a good idea so I could marry the esteemed Congresswoman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, she's so awesome that she voted FOR the UIGEA. See http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll516.xml. Now she wants to "study" whether it should be revisited. Oh yeah, that's political courage, all right.