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.

Bill to Block Finalization of UIGEA Regs Proposed

Then again, the day some people might want to call one of the worst for online poker players may well turn out to have been one of yr better days, all things considered. Check this out . . . .

Yesterday we also learned that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) together have introduced new legislation specifically designed to block the federal government from finalizing regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The new bill, H.R. 5767, has but one, specific purpose, namely, to stop the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from forcing banks to implement the UIGEA.

As yesterday’s press release from the House Financial Services Committee (which Frank chairs) puts it, the proposed bill forbids the feds “from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.” Says Frank, “These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact.”

That last point was demonstrated persuasively in last week’s House hearing, “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?” That hearing ultimately provided an overwhelming, hard-to-refute argument against finalizing the UIGEA regs, and it is clear Frank and Paul’s bill has appeared as a response to the hearing.

The actual bill is wonderfully succinct. It’s no Gettysburg Address, but Frank and Paul get to the heart of the matter right away. I quote it in full:

“A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, whether acting jointly or separately, may not propose, prescribe, or implement any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or otherwise give effect to such subchapter or any such regulation, including the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on 6 October 4, 2007.”

And that is that. If H.R. 5767 were to pass through the House and Senate -- a possibility that seems much more real to me at this moment than does the idea of Frank’s IGREA or other bills working their way up the Congressional ladder -- it will be very interesting to see what happens once it lands on the President’s desk. Could a Bush or McCain veto the sucker? If not, the way would certainly be paved for the IGREA to be more seriously entertained. (Whether that is a good thing or not is another issue altogether.)

In any event, a mighty interesting little intersection of poker news here this morning.

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?