First Step for H.R. 6870, the Payments System Protection Act of 2008

The Payments System Protection Act of 2008 (H.R. 6870) has made it through the initial committee consideration and markup phase and thus remains on the table to be considered further by the rest of the House of Representatives.

The Poker Players Alliance (along with many others) have come out to say how pleased they are about Tuesday’s affirmative vote of the House Financial Services committee (30 ayes, 19 noes, 21 did not votes). In his statement, PPA Chairman and primary spokesperson Alfonse D’Amato congratulates the committee and says “we look forward to enactment of this sound public policy during this legislative session.”

I was unable to watch the hearing or vote on Tuesday, but have caught up a bit during the week. Head over to the PPA site for its selected coverage of the hearing, if yr into that sort of thing.

Looking more closely at the bill itself, H.R. 6870 certainly does seem like something online poker players should indeed be enthused about -- much more so that some of the other UIGEA-related bills that have been proposed over the last 18 months.

I mentioned H.R. 6870 in passing on Tuesday, expressing a bit of cynicism about the vagueness of its expressed intention “to ensure...[the UIGEA] does not cause harm to the payments system.” The bill itself, however, is quite clear in the way it expresses its purpose.

There are three sections. The first gives the bill its title.

The second section specifically prohibits the Secretary of the Treasure and the Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System from finalizing those UIGEA regs, other than to “the extent as any such regulation pertains” to sports wagering (such as was already made illegal by the 1961 Wire Act) or to what the bill says in section 3. This is the section that makes online poker players happy, as it spells out that the UIGEA cannot specifically be used (right now, anyway) to make “financial transaction providers” stop us from sending money back and forth to online poker sites.

The third section looks to the future, providing a directive to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to keep studying all of this and “jointly develop and implement regulations...that shall include a definition of the term ‘unlawful internet gambling’...after conducting a full economic impact study of the propsed regulations.”

This little addendum, in fact, is where the title of the bill was taken. In essence, the charge to the feds here is for them to continue to try to assess how the UIGEA would affect the banking system should it be extended to apply to other forms of gambling than just sports wagering. What is only being implied here is that if it is determined extending the UIGEA to those other forms of online gambling would harm the banking system, then those additional regs wouldn’t be implemented. (That’s the vagueness I was talking about on Tuesday.)

As Pokerati Dan has alluded to a couple of times this week, the timing for the proposal of a bill called the “Payments System Protection Act” is perhaps fortuitous given the various crises that have recently befallen the stock market and, in particular, the American banking system. You probably heard about the government bailing out American International Group (AIG) this week, a company whose failure would gravely affect U.S. banks who are its clients. It certainly looks as though the payments system needs protectin’ these days....

By giving H.R. 6870 that title -- rather than, say, the “UIGEA Prohibition Act” or something (which is how H.R. 5767, which failed to get out of committee, was essentially presented) -- Frank emphasizes the dire practical consequences of the UIGEA as had been outlined quite extensively in that hearing back in April. A great strategy, really, to focus on how passing the bill will help alleviate stress on the banking system, and not to speak so directly of our rights to gamble online, an argument which never seems to appeal to a majority of legislators.

That change in emphasis may well help H.R. 6870 gather some momentum, although time is running out on this session. A bit amusing, actually, to see folks in the forums hoping it gets tacked onto some other “must-pass” legislation in the same way the UIGEA about this time two years ago. (Outrage at Bill Frist’s underhandedness there would surely be forgotten if the same tactics were used for our benefit, yes?)

That could happen, actually. In any case, we’re still a good ways away from seeing this thing through. Remember the song. We hope and pray that it will but today it is still just a bill.

What is Your Conceptual Continuity? (The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe)

Ended another six-day run of WCOOP live blogging yesterday. Day off today, then back to the grind tomorrow. Combined with my other “life” (which includes continuing to show up dutifully for my “real” job), Shamus is sapped.

Otherwise, I’d have lots on which to opine. I’d probably try (not necessarily successfully) to write something meaningful about the suicide last Friday of David Foster Wallace, author of The Broom of the System (1987), Infinite Jest (1996), and many other narrative delights.

Instead I’ll just send you over to Spaceman and the Poker Grump for their thoughts about Wallace’s untimely passing here in (what I think adds up to be) the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment.

And if the mental tank wasn’t so close to empty I’d also perhaps say something about what is happening this afternoon over in the House of Representatives, specifically the meeting of the House Financial Services Committee in which among other items on the agenda the committee will be “marking up” yet another newly-proposed bill from their chair, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) designed to counter the damage wrought by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

This bill, titled the “Payment System Protection Act” (H.R. 6870), appears another attempt to pull off what Frank and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) had previously undertaken back in April with H.R. 5767. That bill was a very straightforward, very brief bill designed to prohibit the feds from finalizing any UIGEA regulations. It died in committee, though, toward the end of June.

The new bill is also quite brief and to the point, and is also designed to stop the feds from moving forward with the UIGEA. This time the tactic is slightly different, though, insofar as the bill doesn’t expressly prohibit the UIGEA regs from being finalized and implemented, but is asking the feds “To ensure that implementation of proposed regulations... does not cause harm to the payments system.”

Not quite sure how one exactly makes a law out of a directive like that, really, but like I said, I’m tired. Perhaps after the markup session (in which amendments to the bill may or may not be proposed and voted on) I’ll have the energy to talk more about this one.

Finally -- again, if I weren’t so bushed -- I might say something about the 2008 Bluff Magazine Reader’s Choice Awards (sic) currently ongoing, specifically regarding some of the selections they’ve listed (and not listed) for certain categories. Again, though, maybe I’ll just save that for later and for now just wonder why they would place the apostrophe there. What, they got only one reader? (To be fair, they get it correct elsewhere on the site.)

Talk about a lack of conceptual continuity. From suicide to punctuation. Plus yr odd Frank Zappa allusion, destined to baffle most, I’d guess. Ah, Wallace wouldn’t have minded, I don’t think...

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy...