Anti-UIGEA Bills & the Presidential Veto

Been catching up on podcasts here lately. Speaking of, the second episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show is in the works. Should see the light of day before too long. By the way, you can now subscribe via iTunes.

A couple of days ago I listened to the Pocket Fives podcast from last week (the April 10 episode) featuring a brief interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Wanted to share a little of what he said there as it relates to H.R. 5767, the new bill he and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) proposed late last week “to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation” pertaining to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

When asked about the April 2nd hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Frank said he thought “hearing was very helpful” insofar as it illustrated quite comprehensively how the various entities comprising the American payments system do not see the UIGEA as workable. Thus, no matter one’s views on gambling per se, the fact that the banks, credit unions, and other financial transaction providers don’t see the UIGEA as practically enforceable itself constitutes “a good argument for getting rid of that part of the bill.”

Frank was then asked about the current status of his bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), which he introduced just about one year ago. The interview was clearly conducted prior to Frank and Paul introducing H.R. 5767, and thus no references were made to the new legislation. I do think, however, Frank had this new UIGEA-blocking bill in mind when answering David Huber’s questions.

In response to a question about whether or not our being in an election year might hurt the chances of his IGREA from moving forward this year, Frank answered that “it does hurt our chances . . . not so much because of the politics, but particularly because of the time factor.” Since it is a presidential election year, Frank explained, Congress will be taking a couple of weeks off toward the end of the summer for the party conventions, and with the campaigning that will surely follow, he doesn’t believe they’ll even be in session after October 1.

“On the other hand, while I wasn’t too optimistic about some of the votes [for the IGREA], that hearing was very helpful. The hearing was so critical of this approach that was taken and so many members joined in the criticism, that I now think something might be possible,” Frank continued.

He then addressed the question I had posed last weekend about whether or not an anti-UIGEA bill would make it beyond the president’s desk. As Schoolhouse Rock taught us, any bill that makes through the House and Senate must also be signed by the president before it becomes a law.

“I doubt that we’ll get it all the way through and I think President Bush frankly has promised the right-wing . . . religious coalition that is so important to him that he would veto any change. But I think we can move. We can make some progress here so that next year we’ll be closer to being able to do it fairly quickly.”

Like I say, Frank is ostensibly referring to his IGREA here, but I think his words might also apply to the new H.R. 5767. The new bill may well have a chance, but only if it is not passed through the House and Senate before January 20, 2009.

And even then, the fate of H.R. 5767 will depend a lot who is sitting in that chair in the Oval Office.

One (Ex-)Member Inspires PPA to Alter Its Mission Statement

Still in S.F. Vera and I ended up at Fisherman’s Wharf last night for a wind-blown walk up and down the bay. Stopped off for some seafood and a glass of Anchor Steam (supersized), then took a rowdy bus back to our hotel. Along with my Oaks Card Club excursion earlier in the day, I probably walked at least six miles altogether yesterday, and so I was fairly zapped when we made it back last night.

Wanted to weigh in briefly on Frank Frisina’s interesting interview with John Pappas, the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance. Frisina posted the interview on Life’s a Bluff yesterday, along with his own comments regarding some of Pappas’ answers. There have also been a number of comments by others added there as well, including some from Rich “The Engineer” Muny, a PPA Board Member and frequent (& helpful) contributor to the 2+2 Legislation forum.

If yr interested, you should check out the interview and subsequent discussion. I just wanted to touch on a couple of items I found intriguing.

One point of interest concerns the issue of PPA’s funding. I had not previously realized the PPA wasn’t solely maintained by those dues some of us have sent to the organization. (By the way, I sent ’em my twenty bucks back in October 2006, shortly after the UIGEA was signed into law. My member number is 16,290, although I think there were actually over 100,000 members when I signed up.) According to Pappas, “the PPA receives its funding from member dues, merchandise sales, individual contributions, and financial support from the Interactive Gaming Council.”

The Interactive Gaming Council is a not-for-profit outfit located in Vancouver whose interests cover not just online poker, but all forms of “interactive” or online gaming. According to their website, the IGC’s purpose is essentially twofold -- (1) to establish fair trading guidelines and practices so players can be sure the sites they play on are legit ; and (2) to be a public policy advocate (e.g., fight things like the UIGEA).

Like a lot of us, Frisina was interested in having Pappas explain why the PPA hasn’t bothered to speak publicly about the various scandals that have plagued online poker over the last year or so, including the Absolute Poker insider “super-user” scam from last year. From an outsider’s perspective, it seems that the PPA would be very interested in talking about such scandals as they could be used to further their case for the passage of bills like Barney Frank’s H.R. 2046 -- a bill that would invite governmentally-run, industry-wide regulation.

Frisina suspects the IGC’s support of the PPA may have something to do with the PPA’s reluctance to weigh in on the matter. He points to the presence of Mohawk Internet Technologies on the IGC’s member list as potentially significant here. Mohawk Internet Technologies is that server farm where something like 60% of the world’s online gambling sites are hosted, and it is owned by the Kahnawake Mohawk territory (located just outside of Montreal). That’s where you’ll also find the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, the group that adminsters licenses to 400-plus online gambling sites.

You remember the KGC. They’re the ones who made public that report back in January telling how Absolute Poker had violated four of their regulations, and so the Commission put AP on a kind of probation (the site is subject to random audits for two years, and if they fail any they’re no longer a KGC permit holder), made the site get rid of the guilty guy(s), forced them to pay a fine, etc. (Here’s the full report.)

Of course, Absolute Poker is owned by Tokwiro Enterprises ENRG, which is located there in the Mohawk territory and is owned and run by the tribe. Tokwiro is presently headed by Joe Norton, former Grand Chief of the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake. Norton has also served as the CEO of Mohawk Internet Technologies, though I don’t believe he presently holds that position. All of which means it isn’t obvious how separate Absolute and the KGC really are, thus making the Commission’s $500,000 fine of AP more than a little suspect-seeming. (Who was paying whom?)

So what we have here is a lengthy, possibly-curious chain linking the PPA to the IGC to Mohawk Internet Techologies to the KGC to Absolute Poker, all of which makes it reasonable to wonder (as Frisina does) whether there might be something in the way the PPA is funded that prevents them from weighing in on the AP scandal. I can’t really say one way or the other here -- the web of obligation and influence is too tangled for me to see through clearly. However, something else came up in the interview that perhaps explains even more directly why the PPA isn’t interested in being involved when online poker cheating scandals erupt.

In the context of asking Pappas about the AP scandal, Frisina asked the PPA’s Executive Director to comment on the organization’s mission statement, specificially its reference to wanting to “ensure the integrity” of the game. Pappas responded by saying “Admittedly, our mission statement overstates the PPA’s interest in serving as the ‘integrity police’ for the poker industry.” Rather, said Pappas, the organization is more directly focused on “providing the legal/legislative framework for licensed and regulated poker to prosper,” thereby establishing “a secure and safe place for poker players to enjoy the game they love.”

Sort of a weird, unexpected response here, I thought, to say the PPA isn’t going to act as the “integrity police” while also saying the PPA wants to make poker not just legal, but “safe and secure” for everyone.

Even more eyebrow-raising, the PPA has apparently altered its mission statement in the wake of the Life’s a Bluff interview. Up until this week, the PPA described itself as a group “who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity and protect the right to play poker” (emphasis added). If you go to the PPA website today, you’ll find the organization now consists of people “who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and protect the right to play poker in all its forms.” The reference to “integrity” has now been removed.

Perhaps it makes sense, on a practical level, to get rid of the “integrity” stuff. Hell, I don’t know of any group, now matter how big, who can do that for online poker at present. Even so, doesn’t it strike you as just a little bit disingenuous to alter your mission statement after nearly a million people have joined your group?

The PPA definitely should have made it clear from the outset it was simply a lobbying organization looking to keep poker legal (“in all forms”), and not anything more than that. Easy for me to say that now, of course. Then again, it isn’t clear to me that supporting bills like H.R. 2046 really is going to result in accomplishing that goal, either, as discussed here previously (“Do We Want Online Poker Regulated? (1 of 2)” & “Do We Want Online Poker Regulated? (2 of 2)”).

Anyhow, lots of stuff to ponder. Gonna meet up with Tim Peters (of “The Literature of Poker” and CardPlayer) later today -- looking forward to that. There is a possibility I might get over to Lucky Chances tomorrow; I’d say the odds are about 70-30 against at the moment . . . .

Looks like another windy day out there. Better take my hat.

On the Poker Haters

Was thinking a bit about why so many folks find poker such an objectionable activity. Probably because I heard the fellows over on PokerRoad Radio talking about the issue over the weekend (on the 3/1 episode).

In a brief “Poker News” segment they mentioned how Barney Frank had managed to secure a 46th co-sponsor to sign on to his Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046). I’d heard that last week. Incidentally, I’m not sure why Julia Carson’s name continues to appear on the list of co-sponsors (She died in December.) I suppose the deceased still count as co-sponsors (?).

Anyhow, co-hosts Joe Sebok, Gavin Smith, and Ali Nejad mentioned that bit of news, then goofed around a little while, trying unsuccessfully to determine just how many individuals actually comprise the House of Representatives. Such information would be helpful when trying to determine whether 47 supporters of the IGREA (including Frank) signified a meaningful number. (Answer below.)

Then they briefly lamented the UIGEA, the general prejudice against gambling, and the particular demonization of poker. Sebok pointed out how a segment of society believes “gambling -- it’s evil, it’s wrong.” Gavin Smith brought up the old bingo argument, asking why bingo is okay when poker is not. “Because it’s socially acceptable,” answered Sebok.

What makes poker socially unacceptable for so many? There are probably other explanations, but off the top of my head I came up with three different reasons why. Incidentally, all three arguments assume poker is gambling (a view with which I don’t happen to disagree), although all three also minimize or altogether fail to acknowledge poker’s skill component (a view with which I take issue).

The first objection comes from those who believe playing poker indicates the possibility of some kind of psychological disorder -- a symptom, perhaps, of a serious malady in need of correction. Those who make this objection tend not to distinguish between poker and other forms of gambling. I’ve written about this idea before in a post where I talked about mentioning to a co-worker that I played poker and his response was to ask if I thought I could develop a gambling problem. In the documentary No Limit: A Search for the American Dream on the Poker Tournament Trail, Mike Sexton says he believes “gambling is inherent in our blood.” Those who believe the person who gambles is exhibiting a psychological disorder may in fact agree with Sexton; the difference, though, is that while Sexton accepts this condition as a part of who we are, those others believe it a flaw that needs to be rectified.

The second objection is the moral one -- that poker playing is an example of an activity that fails to conform to societal codes of conduct. This objection also frequently is made with regard to other forms of gambling, although as Sebok suggests, one is more likely to see it directed toward poker than toward bingo or the lottery. There are various factors potentially in play here (including faith/religion), but it is the law -- the most patent influence on our notions of “codes of conduct” -- that has the most relevance in this context. Whereas poker is legal in certain places and under certain conditions, other forms of gambling enjoy a great deal more legal sanctioning, thereby causing them to be viewed as conforming to society’s mores -- to be morally unobjectionable.

The third objection is the ethical one, and I think this is the one that more often applies to poker than to other forms of gambling. With ethics we start talking more particularly about “good” and “bad” conduct. There are some who view all forms of gambling as “bad” because of the potential for it to cause harm to those who gamble and to others. Then there are those who especially object to poker because of how the game is played. To succeed, we must take money from other poker players; thus is our welfare dependent on others’ suffering (in a sense). Unlike the lottery or other games where we all play against the house (a faceless, unsympathetic foe), poker pits us against one another, encouraging what some believe to be “bad” forms of treating one another. An irony: that which we poker players might say makes poker more of a skill game than other forms of gambling -- the fact that we are competing against others, and not solely subjecting ourselves to chance -- is precisely that which some say makes poker ethically dubious.

By the way, there are 435 members of the House, meaning at the moment Frank still needs another 171 of the remaining 388 Congressmen and women to come along to have a majority. A long, long way to go . . . .

And, to be realistic, I gotta believe most of those remaining 388 are gonna be held back from supporting the IGREA by one or more of these objections. Don’t you?