Comments (18) | Add a comment
New bill would legalize, regulate online poker
Tools
See U.S. Rep. Joe Barton's online poker bill.
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- A drive to make it legal for casino corporations to embrace the lucrative business of Internet poker was given a fresh boost in Congress when lawmakers introduced a bill Friday to legalize and regulate poker betting online.
Sponsors said it would cast sunlight on the gray areas surrounding the $6 billion online industry that have not stopped millions of Americans from playing poker on their laptops.
While the casino industry did not immediately endorse the 101-page bill, the American Gaming Association applauded it as a step forward and said it would continue to take part in negotiations.
"The millions of Americans who are playing poker online deserve to know they are playing safely with law-abiding operators, but strong enforcement of illegal operators and unambiguous U.S. laws governing online gambling are equally vital," the association said in a statement.
The main sponsors are Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
"People are entitled to play poker from the privacy of their own homes," said Berkley, whose constituents include Las Vegas casinos that have approached online poker as a potential revenue source with varying levels of interest.
At a news conference, Barton, Berkley and other sponsors said the bill will ensure that online games are run fairly, are screened to prevent minors from taking part and contain protections for compulsive gamblers.
They also said it will reverse the 2006 law that make it illegal for U.S. banks from processing payments for online gaming, an effort that has caused confusion in the financial services industry.
Under the new bill the U.S, Department of Commerce would issue regulations and empower states that want to issue online gaming licenses. States could "opt out," which would block their residents from playing.
A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is negotiating a potential poker bill with other senators, said the House measure "does not address a number of key issues," including how companies that have been operating illegal sites should be penalized.
However, spokesman Zac Petkanas said, "It's another indication that there is growing consensus that it's time to take our collective heads out of the sand and recognize that Internet poker is here to stay."
The Commerce Department was chosen as the federal regulating agency partly for strategic reasons. It allows the poker bill to be assigned to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, rather than the House Committee on Financial Services, where similar bills have stalled in the past two Congresses.
Barton, who is a senior member of the Commerce Committee, said committee leaders have not yet committed to hold a hearing but want to see what kind of support there is.
"(The new bill) is a clear indication that there is interest in moving forward on this issue, and I'd expect it to be moved through the Commerce Committee," said Michael Waxman, spokesman for a pro-poker group, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative.
"I would have to believe that Rep. Barton would not be addressing this issue unless he feels it has a chance to get through," Waxman said.
Waxman said, however, that a provision in the bill that would prohibit the use of credit cards for Internet gambling activity may be going too far.
"If someone is interested in using funds from their credit card to gamble online, they are not going to be stopped from doing so," Waxman said.
Left unsaid in the bill is whether or how the online games would be taxed as a revenue source for the federal government and strapped states.
Barton said the tax issue will be confronted sometime, but lobbyists say that is sore point in the industry and it may be avoided as long as possible.
The debate in Congress follows the April indictments against the owners and founders of the three largest online poker sites -- PokerStars, FullTilt Poker and Absolute Poker -- on bank fraud and money laundering charges.
Rep. Barney Frank, who has sponsored bills to legalize online gaming, argued the indictments prompted a backlash as company assets were frozen and gamblers in some cases had trouble recovering money they had deposited with the sites.
"There was a great deal of unhappiness and unpleasant surprises that the U.S. attorney in New York of all places had nothing better to do than to harass people who want to play poker," Frank said. "That gave some energy to our move."
There are pitfalls ahead, according to a gaming industry executive who sees the future of legalized poker happening on the state level, and not set from Washington.
Richard Bronson, chairman of U.S. Digital Gaming, a California-based online gaming vendor, predicted fights over states rights, taxation of online poker and over how long overseas-based poker companies may be barred from entering the U.S. market.
"I have met with countless governors, legislative leaders, lottery directors, chairmen of Indian tribes and I cannot find one who is thinking there should be a federal bill," Bronson said.
"Do I think they are going to pass national gambling bill in our country, No I do not," Bronson said. "Do I believe there will be legalization of online poker in various states? Without a doubt.
"Here is a certainty," Bronson said. "Nothing is going to happen quickly. This is something that needs to be held under a bright light of public scrutiny. This is not going to be a quickie backroom deal."
Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Gehrig continues to be master of the false analogy and the unfounded conspiracy theory. I'm sure that makes him a big hit at parties, but it doesn't do much to advance real rational discourse.
Hmmm... Drug Czars,arms dealers and bribe recipients.....sounds like Washington to me LOL
what does "asbestos" have to monitoring with in house gaming ? perhaps the poster would condone the obvious money laundering, tax avoidance scheme of "offshore" grifters ? why does the poster think that those grifters set up offshore in the first place ? try, tax avoidance, zero third party game integrity oversight, and of course, avoidance of those pesky money laundering regs. seems to me that if roulette were offered, the drug czar, arms dealer, bribe recipients could wager all sides of the bet, eat the vigorish, netting 95% of the "laundered" money. what does it cost to do that on the sly through bribing otherwise regulated banking officials. even swiss banks are being targeted by u.s. banking officials. those drug czars who still have big action with those offshore money launderers/"casinos" best look for other angles.
As long as the "legal mafia" in the District of Criminals gets thier "tribute" money, then suddenly it's a good thing,moral etc.
I hope EVERYONE can clearly see this was the goal/plan from the beginning when they outlawed it by tacking it on to a defense bill. (sneaky b@st@rds). I hope everyone boycotts it when they "take it over". It's THIER game or no game! I for one will NEVER play online poker again. Much better to organize home games or play at the casinos. NO TAXES!!!! (in cash games and some tournaments I've played and won)
I love how the article ends with "This is not going to be a quickie backroom deal."
But they should have went on to say "Like the first gambling bill"
LOL
Does Caesars Palace have the level of integrety nessecary to be involved in online gambling ? Mr. Loveman , CP is required by law to conduct proper due dillegance before violently demolishing the walls that were built prior to 1980 .For 16 months you have failed/refused to release the data to rebut PACM . Internal co. documents prove ASBESTOS present . Employees WEREN'T protected or informed .Give me the data to rebut presumed asbestos containing material 29CFR1926.1101 , for the Flamingo and Caesars Palace .Your delay is unacceptable , by law you had 15 days ,it has been 16 months . Have a nice day ...
the logical, safest for all concerned, players and taxpayers alike is to eliminate the offshore parasites. they pay no u.s. income taxes, employ no u.s. citizens other than greasing the "poker greats" [read, shills]. and certainly do not have to jump through the most laborious obstacle course regulations/oversight imposed on [at least], nevada licensees. but again any remote access to an otherwise age-controlled activity cannot be assured via the internet, telephone, or snail mail.
A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is negotiating a potential poker bill with other senators, said the House measure "does not address a number of key issues" --especially--and in particular--exactly how his masters at MGM will control this whole operation and license the internet rights to gambling online to others who don't happen to have have their own, personal, rent-a-senator..
the spin is that since other avenues exist to bypass any regulation then all such methods should be facilitated. that's amusing. were that concept applied to the judicial/penal system, then any class of crime could be rationalized because it exists. the taxpayers could save plenty if the convicts were simple released. internet commerce, where the product or service is legally permitted, that's just another medium of commerce. again, using any medium to bypass laws is illegal. perhaps the poster would suggest that trafficking in narcotics or automatic weapons should be permitted if the transaction were initiated via the internet ? huh ?
From what I have read about this legislation elsewhere, the sites which are currently under indictment could eventually be licensed to operate in the US, after sort of a probationary period. Meaning that the big three could become the big three again.
gehrig, a teenager can just as easily run up a $10,000 bill at Amazon as they can register at an online poker site, if they get access to a parent's credit card. (At the poker site, because you don't play until the money is in your account. So as another poster asked, are you suggesting that we should outlaw all internet commerce? By the way, how nice for you that you had a key at a playboy club when you were underage. You must have loved your parents and had such respect for the way they raised you to have done such a thing.