Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 30 July 2010 / Leave a Comment

As Matthew Pitt recently reported, this week saw what could turn out to be an historic day for online gambling in the United States. On Wednesday, legislation that would allow U.S.-based sites to offer online gambling in the U.S. received a favorable vote on Capitol Hill. Still a long way to go, of course, before we'll see any change in the law over here on this side of the pond -- if we do, that is. But a noteworthy moment, nonetheless.

I thought I'd add a few comments here about this week's vote and its significance to Americans who play online poker.

First off, what exactly happened this week?

A bill proposed by Barney Frank in the House of Representatives -- H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act -- was discussed, "marked up" (i.e., amendments were added to it), and voted upon by members of the House committee that Frank chairs, the House Financial Services Committee. By virtue of the favorable vote (41-22-1), H.R. 2267 now gets forwarded to the entire House of Representatives for its consideration.

Frank first proposed H.R. 2267 over a year ago. In fact, it is a version of a similar bill he'd proposed back in 2007 to introduce a mechanism to license and regulate online gambling in the U.S. (That 2007 bill never made it out of committee, which is why Frank introduced a new one in 2009.)

The House is made up of 435 representatives coming from all 50 states. At some point amid its already full schedule of legislative activities, H.R. 2267 will have to be brought up for discussion by this large group, where it will also potentially undergo more modifications before they vote upon it.

During this House debate, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) will be given equal time to voice their views. The House Financial Services Committee vote was mostly partisan; that is to say, Democrats on the committee (like Frank) voted for it and Republicans voted against it, although there were a few on each side who went the other way.

The fact is, online gambling -- and gambling, generally speaking -- is one of those issues that sometimes inspires liberal-leaning Democrats and conservative-leaning Republicans to find common ground. Some view gambling as a moral issue. Others as an economic issue. Still others see it as about individual liberty. Thus while there does presently exist a Democrat majority in the House, there's no way to know how a vote on H.R. 2267 might go.

If the entire House of Representatives votes in favor of the bill, the Senate then must also vote in favor of it as well. The 100 senators (two from each state) will also get a crack at debating and possibly modifying the bill before voting on it. Then, if the bill gets a favorable vote there, the President still has to sign it into law. The President could decide not to sign it -- to veto it -- at which point the bill would get sent back to Congress and the process would start anew.

Even after the President signs a bill into law, a lot more work has to be done before the law gets implemented. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 provided a lot of us an example of how long this process can take. Signed into law on October 13, 2006, the UIGEA -- which prohibits banks and other financial transaction providers from allowing U.S. citizens to deposit funds on online gambling sites -- took nearly four years to be fully implemented. Indeed, it wasn't until June 1, 2010 that compliance with the UIGEA was made mandatory.

In other words, we are obviously a long, long way away from seeing U.S.-based sites offering online poker or other forms of gambling. One might say the House Financial Services Committee voting in favor of Frank's bill is like doubling up early in a multi-table tournament. Sure, we have chips with which to play. But a lot still has to happen before we can even start thinking about winning the sucker.

One might say the House Financial Services Committee voting in favor of Frank's bill is like doubling up early in a multi-table tournament. Sure, we have chips with which to play. But a lot still has to happen before we can even start thinking about winning the sucker.

What's the significance, then, of this week's vote to American poker players?

Some who play online here in the U.S. did take note of what happened this week, with a few -- including the Poker Players Alliance -- expressing great enthusiasm over the vote.

Others are wondering how the online poker landscape might change should the bill become law, and whether or not currently popular sites like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker would be granted licenses to operate in the U.S. and thereby remain major players here.

And there are also some (including your humble gumshoe) who are hoping new legislation might mean we'll get to play on Betfair one day, too!

Still, while I can't claim to speak for an entire country, I think it's safe to say there isn't a lot of urgency at present over here about H.R. 2267. Truth be told, most U.S. players are more concerned about what that next river card is going to be.

Right now, most Americans can play online poker legally. A few states do have laws on the books concerning online gambling -- for example, the state of Washington passed a law in 2006 making it a felony to gamble online -- although these laws have not been enforced and many believe it is doubtful they'd hold up if challenged in court.

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the UIGEA does not make it illegal for U.S. citizens to gamble online. For example, a New York Times article just this week referred to the UIGEA as a "federal ban" on online gambling, which it is not. As noted above, the UIGEA prohibits banks from facilitating U.S. citizens' transactions with online gambling sites, but has nothing to do with the legality of actually playing online.

Since June 1, 2010, when it became mandatory for banks to comply with the UIGEA, we still haven't seen much effect on Americans and their ability to play online poker. But it could happen that U.S. players will begin to find it difficult to deposit into their accounts, at which point I suspect many would welcome new legislation making it possible once again for Americans to play.

All of which is to say, this week's House Committee vote was significant, to be sure. But we can't get ahead of ourselves. As poker players well know, it pays to be patient.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: