-
25 October 2011, 9:33 am
#1
Live blogging the Internet poker bill House Subcommittee hearing
I'll be live blogging the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee Hearing on Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) bill that would license and regulate Internet poker in the United States right here.
The hearing is scheduled to start, well, now. Will post updates once the action begins.
-
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GPWA Aaron For This Useful Post:
Anthony (25 October 2011), vinism (25 October 2011)
-
25 October 2011, 9:34 am
#2
You can watch the proceedings live here, if you're interested: http://www.ustream.tv/channel-popup/...ndcommerce2123
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:42 am
#3
Mary Bono Mack, the Chairwoman (R-Calif.) opens the hearing.
Compares the debate on online poker to the game of Hold'em itself. Lots of terrible poker puns.
"Clearly the stakes are high, and a showdown is headed on Capitol Hill ahead."
"The purpose of our hearing is to look at the face up cards."
Does say this, however: "One thing we do know is this: The vast majority of Americans have gambled at least once in their lives."
Goes on to say that tribal gaming has been great for her district.
She's giving a pretty good summation of the arguments on both sides of the issue.
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:48 am
#4
Thanks for keeping us informed Aaron, let's hope for some good news!
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:48 am
#5
Rep. Butterfield (D-N.C.) now giving his opening statement. He is more clearly on the side of regulation.
"The debate shouldn't be whether gambling is moral. Instead we should acknowledge that Internet gambling is how happenning all over the world ... Americans are now turning to offshore entities ... there is often no legal recourse for Americans ... last year Americans wagered $16 billion just on Internet poker. While some of that money came back to players as winnings, the vast majority of it remained offshore."
"Our inaction has allowed Americans to spend their own money offshore and in their own peril."
"We would have the opportunity to create and implement strong consumer safeguards."
"Hundreds of millions of new revenues could be realized by states, and tens of thousands of jobs could be created."
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:49 am
#6
Joe Barton, the sponsor of the bill is now up.
Mentions that Nixon financed college with poker, that Obama is reputedly a good player. Says he learned how to play in the Boy Scouts.
"If you learn something in the Boy Scouts, it's got to be a good thing, right?"
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:50 am
#7
"I will postulate that if you've got a bill that Joe Barton, Barney Frank and Ron Paul are all for, how can you be against it? You've got the whole spectrum."
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:52 am
#8
Barton just held up a printed confirmation from someone who deposited $50 on Bodog to play poker.
"At some point in time in this Congress I hope we can move this bill or something like it through."
Talks about how his bill allows states to choose to opt in.
"Future President Nixons and Obamas can play on the Internet."
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:53 am
#9
Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) now up, talking about how Internet gambling will affect horse racing, says it's going to cut on horse racing revenues. (my own feelings here - seriously?)
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:55 am
#10
Panelists now up. Former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, Perry Aftab, Keith White, Kurt Eggert, Ernest Stevens and Dan Romer are all on the panel (spelling may not be perfect here, sorry).
D'Amato, chairman of the Poker Players Alliance is up first.
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:56 am
#11
Here's the witness list with titles ...
Parry Aftab
Member, Board of Advisors Chairman
FairPlayUSA
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
Ernest L. Stevens
Chairman
National Indian Gaming Association
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
Keith Whyte
Executive Director
National Council on Problem Gambling
Witness Testimony
The Honorable Alphonse D’Amato
Chairman
Poker Players Alliance
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
Kurt Eggert
Professor of Law
Chapman University School of Law
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
Dr. Dan Romer
Director, Adolescent Communication Institute
The Annenberg Public Policy Center
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:58 am
#12
D'Amato says the UIGEA has endangered people who choose to play Internet poker.
"Congressman Barton, you've stolen my speech! And you've done it much more eloquently than I ever could."
"Internet poker has not gone away, and it's hard to envision a scenario where it will. What's taking place now is that it takes place under the radar, without taxation, they operate in the public and the government can't do very much about."
-
-
25 October 2011, 9:58 am
#13
D'Amato shows that it was John Pappas who made the depost at Bodog yesterday.
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:01 am
#14
Now talking about Full Tilt, says it was a terrible situation; "A terrible betrayal of people."
"There are those internet sites that operate where they do have a trust account for those dollars, and that's what Congressman Barton's legislation does."
"I understand that the genesis of this was a genuine concern (for young people) ... how do you keep them from doing it? By passing legislation that will require verifiable identification. How do you keep the deadbeat Dad from becoming a problem gambler? You pass legislation that stops it."
"The situation (UIGEA) may have been well intended. It's missed its mark."
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:06 am
#15
Parry Aftab, representing FairPlay USA, is now up.
"It's very much a matter of protecting our kids and our families as well."
"It's not a matter of whether gambling is moral or not. I think that issue was dealt with many years ago when state lotteries were put into effect. We can safeguard people that we're not safeguarding right now ... Because of the laws we have it's really a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil situation."
She brings up an affiliate site that lists all the sites where US players can play, shows the printout of the page. That's interesting - though the nature of the affiliate site (other than information) was not discussed.
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:12 am
#16
Ernest Stevens, Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association is up now.
Now giving a brief history of the Indian Gaming Rights Act.
"For many tribes, Indian gambing is about jobs. Indian gaming provides about 600,000 jobs."
"Legalized Internet gaming provides significant concerns. Tribal leaders nationwide have unified behind several principles."
Want Indian tribes to have similar rights that they have under IGRA.
Legislation must not be taxed by states or the federal government.
"Internet gambling bills that have been proposed under the current Congress (do not meet these standards), so we oppose them in their current form."
Looks forward to moving forward to make sure that any further movement to regulation will meet the principles NIGA outlines.
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:18 am
#17
Keith Whyte, National Council on Problem Gambling, says the organization is neutral on Internet gambling.
Wants a portion of any revenue dedicated to the social costs of problem gambling. The estimated social costs of problem gambling top $7 billion a year.
Not clear what the impact of the availability of legalized Internet gambling will be. Rates of online gambling don't change much whether it's legal or not. However, people who gamble online are more likely to be problem gamblers.
Since online gamblers are known to have higher rates of problems, it's important to provide protections.
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:22 am
#18
Kurt Eggert, professor of law at Chapman University School of Law, is up next.
"Gamblers used to be looked down on, but now they're just consumers, as they would be in any other industry."
"The purpose of consumer protections is to make consumers good shoppers ... as long as they are given the information they need to make good decisions, then companies will have to compete on quality of product and price."
Wants "accurate price disclosure" in gambling. "The real average price of a slot machine is the amount that a casino retains from a gambler's bets ... for slot machines, casinos know exactly what percentage the hold percentage is ... the problem is, that information is not disclosed to gamblers. They might be sitting at a 2 percent hold machine or a 15 percent hold machine and not know the difference."
Not sure why he's talking about slots, this legislation is all about poker and only poker.
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:24 am
#19
Now talking about poker ...
"Here the problem is that professional players have new tools that they can use that would far exceed anything they'd have in a casino ... recreational players may find themselves playing against professionals and have no idea what they're getting into. There's even computer software that will allow strong gamblers to identify weaker players and follow them to the tables."
"Any legislation needs to think about how to provide a level playing field for Internet poker."
(Editorial note - as a player, I LOVE this and would be thrilled if player tracking was banned)
-
-
25 October 2011, 10:28 am
#20
Dan Romer is here to talk about how regulation will affect young people.
"Most of the attempts to restrict online gambling haven't been particularly effective ... We think that age restrictions and laws that would encourage age-restricted responsible gambling may be an approach that would work, but we're still in the very early phases and I think we need some research to understand it better."
"Gambling operators should not receive disproportionate income from people who would not be able to control their habit."
"This country is actually way behind the U.K. in understanding what happens when young people go online and gamble."
"We also need prevention messages online, and we need to regulate and monitor that advertising that's presented to young people."
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules