Update on Regulation

Hey guys, thought I'd post this update I read the other day. Looks like lots of interesting bills floating around. I suspect the tide is changing and internet poker will soon get the excemption it deserves.


Washington: The Mood Turns toward Regulation

by Mark Balestra
Less than eight months after the enactment of a federal law prohibiting the funding of most types of Internet gambling in the United States, an industry in mourning has reason for optimism: With the introduction of two I-gaming-related bills Thursday in the House of Representatives, federal legislators are now considering four pieces of legislation that could ultimately lead to the regulation of some or all forms remote gambling.
The bills are as follows:

1. The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046)
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass
The Bill - Introduced April 26, 2007, The Internet Gambling Regulation & Enforcement Act would establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the United States, on the condition that they maintain effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, Indian tribes and sporting leagues.
View a copy of H.R. 2046.

The Latest - The U.S. House Financial Services Committee heard testimony on Friday pertaining to H.R. 2046. Advocates of the legislation argued that the UIGEA is an infringement on civil liberties; that regulating Internet gambling fixes the problems cited by proponents of prohibition as reasons to ban the activity; that the government should focus its enforcement efforts on greater dangers than Internet gambling; and that the prohibition bill was wrongfully snuck through the legislature as a subset of a larger bill. Opponents argued that Internet gambling leads to great social harm as a result of gambling addition and that technology for regulating Internet gambling--namely geo-location and age verification systems--is inadequate.

Read about the latest activity related to H.R. 2046. (Posted June 9, 2007)

2. The Internet Gambling Study Act (H.R. 2140)
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

The Bill - Introduced May 3, 2007, the Internet Gambling Study Act proposes a one-year study on Internet gambling to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. The bill would, among other things, assess the impact of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and analyze the recent rulings on Internet gambling by the World Trade Organization. Berkley co-sponsored a similar bill submitted by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., on May 24, 2006; however, the bill died in session.
Read about the latest activity related to H.R. 2140. (Posted May 4, 2007)

3. The Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act. (H.R. 2607)
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.

The Bill - Introduced June 7, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act is the tax counterpart to H.R. 2046. It would create a 2 percent tax on deposits, with half earmarked to federal government and half earmarked to the state government.
Read about the latest activity related to H.R. 2607. (Posted June 9, 2007)

4. The Skill Game Protection Act (H.R. 2610)
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
The Bill - Introduced June 7, 2007, The Skill Game Protection Act bill would exempt skill games like poker, mahjong, bridge and backgammon from the UIGEA. Such an exemption would theoretically allow for the return of online poker providers, exiled after the legislation was enacted in October, to the U.S. marketplace. The legislation, according to Wexler spokesman Josh Rogin, "allows Americans to play poker online as they should have every right to do."

That's good news. It does seem to be getting more and more support all the time. Hopefully it's just a matter of time.

i love the only taxing on deposit. 2% is reasonable i suppose.

As a US citizen, I loath the idea of the government getting its greedy fracking fingers into the poker pot. As a necessary evil, I will accept it though. On this topic I take a Libertarian POV.

As for keeping the game honest, which most government action will pretend to do, the Libertarian POV would be that the marketplace will decide. Sites, with gazillions of $$$$$s at stake in the long term will do more than the government ever can to keep the game fair and honest. Todays moral Republicans tend to favor the moralistic POV, which decries poker as purely a game of chance, with dire consequences. The Democrat POV will be to tax and regulate.

The peculiar POV is the Republican one. A big part of the Republican Theory is non government intrusion. Especially in commerce. Somewhere along the line the silly moralists decided they got more favor with the Republicans and switched from a primarily Democratic majority to the New Republican side. So now the New Republicans find themselves at loggerheads with themselves.

What I fear is that the New Republicans will create a defacto filibuster preventing honest discussion of the bills.

What they need to do is attach these bills onto another bill that CANT get shot down.