Summary of the Legislation against Unlawful Internet Gambling [10.04.2006]
On September 30th, Congress passed the conference report for the SAFE Ports Act of 2006. Why am I writing about a Port Security Bill? Well, the benevolent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist managed to tack on a few pages about Internet Gambling to the end of the bill.
Much to my dismay, this is being referred to as the �ban on internet poker�, but this is not the case at all. Poker players are panicking like crazy, when this may actually be a reason to rejoice. I�ll explain why.
The document in question is actually titled the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. First and foremost, it is a �prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for unlawful internet gambling�.
�Rule of Construction � No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.�
This essentially means that, the bill does not declare anything to be legal or illegal. It is simply coming up with enforcement measures for what has already been deemed illegal. This is important.
Here is how Unlawful Internet Gambling is defined in the bill: �To place, receive� a bet or wager� which involves the use� of the internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.�
Again, it is important to note, that nothing new is being defined as unlawful.
The bill then institutes a �Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling.� Again, not much is new here.
The major part of the bill is the next section, �Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions.� Ok, this is the bad part, but it�s really not that bad. �Regulations � Before the end of the 270-day period� the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations� requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions in any of the following ways��
This sounds bad, but in reality, nothing has been done yet. Within the next nine months, these regulations will be written, but as of now, there are no regulations in place. There are several possibilities of what they can do.
1) They can require banks to check all online transactions and make sure none of them fall under the category of �Unlawful Internet Gambling�
The good news here is that these measures would be very expensive, and could possibly bankrupt some of the smaller banks, and would cost the larger banks even more money. This means that essentially every bank is on our side. They certainly don�t want to have to shell out all that cash. Expect major litigations to be filed if such a measure is passed.
2) They can require ISP providers to block links to sites involved in �Unlawful Internet Gambling�
This could be bad, but I just don�t see this happening. When is the last time you tried to access a site, and your access was restricted due to federal regulations? In my humble opinion, this is a blatant invasion of privacy. This is something that goes on often in other countries, especially ones in the middle-east to prevent them from seeing �United States Propaganda� and to encourage loyalty to their governments. Also, there will always be counter-measures to these blocks.
For the most part, I see the actual language of the bill as good news, however, the possibilities in the section entitled �Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions� are open-ended, and impossible to predict at this early stage.
Ok, now here is the worst news of all of this. Several sites have already publicly stated that once Bush signs the bill (which he is expected to do within two weeks), they will have no choice but to deny US players the right to play on their sites. This includes PartyPoker and Pacific/888 Poker.
PokerStars, Paradise Poker, and Poker Room have all announced that it is too early to tell, and they are undecided.
Most sites, including True Poker, Paradise Poker, Ultimate Bet, Absolute Poker, Full Tilt, and Bodog, have stated that they will allow US players to play on their sites. Some of these sites like Paradise are making statements in the short term, while other like Ultimate Bet are making very strong statements such as, �The new law does not change the legality of playing online games. The law does not impact people who play games from their computers� Our strong belief is that poker is a game of skill and therefore is not encompassed by this law... We do not undertake to assess the legality of play in any particular case as our users may access us from around the world.�
Also, virtually every site has assured its players that their money is safe and is in a segregated bank account. Although those specific words aren�t very assuring, I don�t find much reason to worry. Many players have been cashing out of PartyPoker in a frenzied panic, but this is not necessary. Don�t forget, PartyGaming is a publicly traded company, and any drastic move would kill their stock. Rest assured, your money is safe at PartyPoker, even when the time comes where they will no longer allow US players to play on their site.
Neteller has a somewhat unique position. But they have stated they will wait for the regulations to be written before making any decisions.
Now if you followed everything I have said so far, you should be asking one question, �Well, is internet poker legal, or is it considered unlawful?� Unfortunately, the answer to that is up for debate. There was a 20/20 special recently claiming it to be illegal, but I am not sure where any legal documents are backing that claim up. Many people reference the Wire Act of 1961, but that is obviously a bit outdated since it was before the internet was around. It is also worth noting that several state governments explicitly outlaw online poker. To me, that seems to imply that in the other states, it is still legal. I will continue to assume online poker is a legal activity until I see any documents stating otherwise.
If you didn�t read through all of this, I can�t really blame you. It�s a lot of information to absorb, so here�s a brief summary:
Good news: This bill only refers to Unlawful Internet Gambling, and internet poker has never been declared to be Unlawful throughout the United States.
Potentially bad news: Banks and ISP providers may be required to provide blocks on sites they deem unlawful. It is too early to tell exactly what this will entail.
Good news: We can expect to have close to nine months before those measures are set forth.
Better news: Since we have major banks on our side (as well as the billion industry of online gambling), we can expect major litigations to be filed, which are likely to at least delay these measures, if not prevent them indefinitely.
Bad news: Party has already stated that once Bush signs the bill, they don�t see how they can possibly allow US players to keep playing on there site.
Good news: Party�s stance is a gross overreaction intended to ensure their investors that they are not doing anything illegal. Most sites acknowledge the fact that this bill does not explicitly refer to online poker and will continue to allow US players.
In conclusion, things are looking just fine for online poker, and there is absolutely no reason to panic at this early stage. If you want to help out our cause, please call your senator, and express how important your freedom to do what you want in your own home is to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I would like to express my personal views on this issue, and the Republican Party in General. Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said it best when she called out the other Republicans by saying, �What does a ban on internet gaming have to do with Port Security? Absolutely nothing. This section was added to the bill in an attempt to fire up the far right anti-gaming element of the Republican Party in time for this year�s election. They couldn�t sneak it into the Defense Bill, so they put it into the Port Security Bill� To ensure that this provision stayed in, they actually prevented the conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking partisanship to a new low, even in this congress where partisanship is the rule rather than the exception. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it addresses important national security issues, but I hope that the American people� are aware of the partisan games that are being played with this bill by the republican leadership in this congress.� Berkley has also stated, �I continue to be amazed by the members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive federal government, and yet, when it comes to gaming, they are the first to call for more government intrusion� A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home becomes the province of the federal government.� Basically, as poker players, we have become victims of Republicans who care about nothing more than their reelection for the next term.
If you can�t tell, I�m very anti-republican, especially the Bush administration in particular. I feel like everything this administration has done is a giant step backwards. Banning gay marriage would be a step backwards in the civil rights movement. Why not just ban black marriage? Is there really much of a difference? In terms of foreign policies, going against the UN to invade Iraq was obviously a giant step backwards. In terms of medical advancements, Bush�s poor Medicare policies, as well as his stance against stem-cell research are again, huge steps backwards. I find it sickening, that the man gets reelected primarily because of his fundamentalist religious views. The man actually believes that planet earth is only 5,000 years old. Come on! The US government would be a lot better if we could actually do what we are supposed to and separate church and state.
/end rant
-Thanks for reading, and please don�t panic
� Justin Bonomo
