HR 6663: A Good Bet for Poker
Related Articles
Recently, Republican Congressman Pete Sessions introduced HR 6663, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act. The bill, which was introduced a few weeks ago before Congress adjourned for its August recess, puts the brute force of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) squarely on online sports books. In layman’s terms, HR 6663 interprets the UIGEA to mean that only online sports books that operate in the United States are against the law. It’s one of the first attempts to provide guidance to the U.S. Attorney General’s office as to what should be illegal and legal in the UIGEA era. Recently, several groups have come out against the legislation, among them the Poker Players Alliance. However, PokerSourceOnline.com supports Congressman Sessions’ efforts.
First, it’s worthwhile to discuss HR 6663 itself. The main text of the proposed law states, “To effect the purposes and intent of the UIGEA, it is the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General should focus any prosecutorial efforts on those persons who (A) offer Internet sports betting in the United States or (B) process payments for illegal Internet sports betting in the United States.” In essence, if you’re a company such as Bet on Sports or Bodog, operate an online sports book, and accept real-money customers from the United States, you are in strict violation of federal law. It’s as simple as that. Unlike the UIGEA, HR 6663 states explicitly what is allowed and what is not allowed.
Moreover, HR 6663 grants an exemption from prosecution to online poker sites like PartyPoker and Pacific Poker that accepted U.S. customers prior to the UIGEA’s passage in October 2006, but have since pulled out of the American market. Here’s the text to prove it: “In light of the foregoing and in deference to long-standing constitutional requirements of fair notice and transparency in the criminal law, the Congress finds it necessary to clarify that criminal statutes applicable to gambling do not apply to any person who offered Internet gambling services that did not include sports betting prior to October 13, 2006, and who ceased offering Internet gambling services to persons in the United States upon passage of the UIGEA.”
The passage I just quoted from HR 6663 is critical. Remember that Party Poker and 888 (which is Pacific Poker’s parent company) are both publicly traded companies on the London Stock Exchange. You, as a consumer, can actually purchase shares of these two entities just as you would any major company like 3M or Ford. Each company is, for all practical purposes, in limbo concerning its relationship with the U.S. Government. If either wants to forge any strategic partnerships, doubts can be raised concerning their status in the eyes of the U.S. Attorney General’s office. I can tell you first-hand from poker rooms that work with PokerSourceOnline.com: This is a major issue.
One of the highlights of HR 6663 is its Rule of Construction, which is given at the very end of the document: “No provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as clarifying or implying that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers, which were accepted subsequent to October 13, 2006, are in violation of Federal law.” If you’re a fan of legalizing online poker in the United States, HR 6663 is a real winner.
However, you’d think organizations like the online poker industry’s main lobbying group, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), would be gung-ho about the prospects of bringing HR 6663 to the floor of the House of Representatives for discussion. You couldn’t be further from the truth. The PPA disagrees with the following statement given mainly as background information in HR 6663: “To date, all Federal Internet gambling prosecutions have involved sports betting, creating a lack of authoritative court decisions on the applicability of other federal criminal statutes to Internet poker and casino-style gambling.”
A press release distributed by the PPA and authored by its Chairman, Alfonse D’Amato, stated, “The PPA remains concerned with the implication HR 6663 asserts in that the UIGEA has made Internet poker an unlawful activity that needs special protection from prosecution.” I’ve done dozens of radio shows about the issue and every time, my comment is that the little piece of language inserted in HR 6663 has literally divided the industry.
I really don’t see a major piece of pro-online poker legislation passed without the PPA’s help. The organization is composed of over one million members from all walks of life. Its membership is spread out throughout the country. The PPA even launched a political action committee, Poker PAC, to influence Congressmen’s wallets directly. You can see what a challenge it would be to try to pass legislation without this powerful force behind it.
In case you’re wondering, the PPA cites a case regarding MasterCard in 2002. D’Amato claims that the Wire Act of 1961 was interpreted as applying “only to Internet sports wagering, and not to Internet poker. Thus, HR 6663 only confuses a clear judicial standing on this matter.” The UIGEA’s basic premise was that any activity that was illegal before it was passed remains illegal; no new illegal activities, such as online poker, were introduced.
However, I ask, is it worth it? Is it worth dividing an entire industry over a few words? HR 6663 clearly takes aim at sports books. Sure, our business at PokerSourceOnline.com would suffer somewhat, as we’d have to pick and choose what rooms we could offer to our American customers. However, in the process, online poker would essentially be free from prosecution by U.S. authorities. We could once again actively market to the largest group of poker players on the face of the Earth.
In the end, let’s work together. Encourage your Congressmen to support HR 6663.
Jay Lakin is Co-Owner and Vice President of PokerSourceOnline.com
