Online poker advocates lobby Congress to lift federal ban

Jul 22, 2009 By Carrie Wells

Poker players are gambling on Congress seeing things their way.

Advocates for legalizing online poker have descended on Washington this week for a lobbying blitz that's supposed to last until Friday. They're betting they can overturn or at least ease federal laws that generally bar Internet .

They're seeking regulation of Internet gaming, a change they say would reduce compulsive and underage gambling, according to John A. Pappas, the executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, whose slogan is "Poker is Not a Crime."

Members of his organization plan to meet with 100 members of Congress from 35 states this week and were to host a charity poker tournament Tuesday night benefiting the USO and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They've enlisted the help of famous poker players such as Annie Duke, Andy Bloch and Howard Lederer.

Among those pushing legislation is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who sees the measure as consumer protection and a potential source of revenue, since winnings could be taxed.

Pappas kicked off the lobbying effort Monday by hosting a panel to promote the benefits of lifting the gambling ban. Many American poker players have been getting around the ban since it was instituted in 2006 by using sites based in the Caribbean or the United Kingdom. The sites make up more than a third of all online players.

However, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the top Republican on the House committee, condemned the gambling legislation in the works. Bachus helped write the 2006 bill, which made it illegal for banks or credit card companies to process money earned through online gambling, although it doesn't specifically define online gambling.

Bachus, in a statement, said he'd continue to support efforts to discourage online gambling.

"Illegal off-shore Internet gambling sites are a criminal enterprise, and allowing them to operate unfettered in the United States would present a clear danger to our youth, who are subject to becoming addicted to gambling at an early age," he said. "In fact, studies have shown that earlier one begins , the more likely it is he or she will become a compulsive problem gambler."

Regulation, however, wouldn't only protect children by instituting age identifying software, but also would keep players from being defrauded by shady sites or other players, Pappas and other panelists said.

"I really see this as a consumer protection issue," said Parry Aftab, who was on Monday's panel and serves as the executive director of Wired Safety, an Internet safety charity organization. Online players "can't go to the (Federal Trade Commission) and say 'someone defrauded me.' You can't get any help," she said.

Pappas, whose organization has spent $400,000 in the past three months alone on lobbying efforts, agreed.

"It's a marketplace based on trust," Pappas said. "There is no business if people don't trust them. It's a bottom-line business issue that they have the safest, securest site out there."

___

(c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com

Explore further: Teens love vacation selfies; adults, not so much

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Group says poker winnings are frozen

Jun 10, 2009

(AP) -- An advocacy group for online poker said Tuesday that the federal government has frozen more than $30 million in the accounts of payment processors that handle the winnings of thousands of online poker players.

Gambling industry pushes efforts to legalize online betting

May 13, 2009

Backed by a powerful House member, the online gambling industry is waging a campaign in Congress to legalize Internet betting, saying it will continue regardless of its legal status and can be regulated and taxed if not outlawed. ...

Gambling bill moves to full House

May 26, 2006

In a 25-11 vote Thursday the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill banning gambling over state lines and Internet technologies.

High hopes turn poker machine players into problem gamblers

Aug 14, 2007

There are around 300,000 problem gamblers in Australia. For gambling researchers, one of the biggest questions is why so many people seem unable to control their gambling behaviour, despite the harmful impact on their lives.

Online gambling ban reintroduced

Feb 21, 2006

A bill reintroduced in Congress that would crack down on illegal, offshore gambling or interstate gambling via phone or Internet technologies is expected to pick up momentum, now that a 115 members from the U.S. House of ...

Recommended for you

Teens love vacation selfies; adults, not so much

34 minutes ago

(AP)—Jacquie Whitt's trip to the Galapagos with a group of teenagers was memorable not just for the scenery and wildlife, but also for the way the kids preserved their memories. It was, said Whitt, a "selfie ...

US spy agency patents car seat for kids

3 hours ago

Electronic eavesdropping is the National Security Agency's forte, but it seems it also has a special interest in children's car seats, Foreign Policy magazine reported Wednesday.

Country Web domains can't be seized: regulator

6 hours ago

The Internet's regulatory authority said Wednesday that country-specific Web domains cannot be seized in court proceedings, as it sought to quash an effort to recover assets in terrorism-related lawsuits.

User comments : 9

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
While this should absolutely be legal for common sense, freedom reasons, it still doesn't address "poker bots."
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
poker bots are under the TOS which is enforcable as a fiscal contract. Well outside the purview of the federal government.

However, how there's a ban on online poker at all confounds me. It's not as though you can paypal them the money. You need a credit card, which makes any access to the online poker site a fiscal contract, also outside the purview of the federal govt.
earls
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
I did not mean to suggest I want the government regulating the bots or the like... Only that even with legality out of the way, there are still major hurdles for online gambling.

From my brief research, it's actually not illegal for an individual to gamble online (minus sports betting). It is illegal however for the "casino" to make money (take a rake) and also illegal for banks to transfer money to online "casinos." Such explains why most (if not all) are out of the United States and have third party financial intermediaries.

Oh well.
RFC
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
The right to contract does not preclude federal or state regulation of the activity under the contract. If it did, you would be able to contract for illegal services (which you are not). Remember, a "contract" means nothing without the ability to enforce the contract, and enforcement comes from the government (i.e. the courts). The government is not going to enforce contract provisions for conduct it has otherwise deemed illegal (except in extremely rare cases).

The problem here is that countries cannot effectively prevent or stop online gambling, except through the most extreme means. So the idea here is to legalize online gambling on the federal level (because online gambling qualifies as interstate commerce). By legalizing it, the expectation is that more people will gamble and that profits will increase, even though there will be costs associated with complying with government regs. If taxes and reg costs cut too far into profits, gambling sites will stay off-shore.

Now, there are a ton of issues to work out before this actually becomes viable federal legislation, not the least of which is the fact that several states will have seizures over federal legalization because (a) they fear it will cut into their own state gambling or (b) they fear it will legalize gambling in states that have resisted legalizing gambling.

Oh, and the debates on this issue promise to be painfully moralistic and uninformed. Think a bastard cross between Bible-thumping, internet "tubes," typical misunderstanding of constitutional law and (for good measure) a host of difficult-to-predict economic effects. No matter what side you're on, the numb-skulls will be out in force.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
RFC, unless there is a specific local, state, or federal statue making gambling illegal, your argument against my statement is moot.

Gambling is not illegal in the US, so on what grounds is there a legality restriction imposed on the medium over which a lawful activity is performed?

Effectively this is going to become, as you said, a "vice debate", much like the marijuana foolishness at play.
RFC
not rated yet Jul 22, 2009
Velanarris - I'm no pro at local and federal gambling laws, but there are plenty of state laws that make gambling illegal. Even Nevada (where gambling is famously legal) actually regulates casino type gambling (which is to say, follow the regs or your gambling business is illegal).

Gambling laws across the states vary widely, but most make typical forms of profitable gambling illegal. (Most states do not prohibit social or charitable gaming or gambling, but that's not what we're talking about here.)

You say that "Gambling is not illegal in the US." That is simply untrue. The whole premise of the article is based on the fact that online gambling is illegal under federal law. Every day in Ohio, I hear about the debate to legalize casinos or slot machines... why? Cuz it's presently illegal.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 23, 2009
Velanarris - I'm no pro at local and federal gambling laws, but there are plenty of state laws that make gambling illegal. Even Nevada (where gambling is famously legal) actually regulates casino type gambling (which is to say, follow the regs or your gambling business is illegal).



Gambling laws across the states vary widely, but most make typical forms of profitable gambling illegal. (Most states do not prohibit social or charitable gaming or gambling, but that's not what we're talking about here.)



You say that "Gambling is not illegal in the US." That is simply untrue. The whole premise of the article is based on the fact that online gambling is illegal under federal law. Every day in Ohio, I hear about the debate to legalize casinos or slot machines... why? Cuz it's presently illegal.


RFC, can you cite the federal statute that mandates all gambling is illegal in the US? THere isn't one. So gambling is not illegal in the US. Online gambling is federally illegal. Now what is the difference between gambling in person or gambling online? Other than the medium, the mechanics are the exact same. So the medium makes the activity illegal.

What if it was illegal to sell books online? Sure you can go to the library, or Barnes and Noble, but Amazon.com, not a chance.

That make my point clearer? If it is illegal in your state or city, that's fine, you shouldn't be able to gamble online and if yuou're caught doing it you're going to be subjected to whatever punishment is on the books. Same thing if you're running blackjack tables in a town or city where unregulated gambling is illegal.

But if my town, state, region, and country have no problem with me going to a casino, why do they mandate that I have to drive there and place my bets in person, especially when casinos encourage alcohol consumption. So now I've had a few drinks, lost some cash, and I'm ready to go home. Now I'm unsuited to drive and guess where I am, the casino hotel.

It's a partnership between government and established physical casinos.
RFC
not rated yet Jul 23, 2009
Well, if you think that your statement that "Gambling is not illegal in the US" is correct despite the fact online gambling is illegal under federal law (the Wire Act, to name one law), and numerous localities and states have laws against gambling... then go your own way. You consider "gambling" to be categorically distinct from "online gambling." I consider "online gambling" to be a logical sub-set of "gambling." I'm sticking with my interpretation... my bet is that it will cause far less confusion.

earls
not rated yet Jul 23, 2009
There's no confusion now, except on the governmental level where they're trying figure out a way to outlaw something unenforceable.

Regardless of how you feel about gambling, it should be obvious that the governments failed on a multitude of levels and any positions they're holding on to are quickly eroding.

If you'd like a really interesting debate, check out the state of Delaware - they want to make sports betting legal. Sports betting is illegal nation wide, but the state falls under a grandfather clause allowing them to do so. Many leagues, associations, and even senators have already rallied against them to prevent this even though they're clearly permitted by law.