Wall-to-Wall Coverage
2007-11-15 18:30:34
By:
Gene Bromberg
Yesterday was a big day for
online poker. As I mentioned in my
previous post there was a Congressional hearing yesterday that discussed the inconsistent laws and regulations surrounding online gaming. Annie Duke was among those who testified before Rep. John Conyers' committee, and if you want to watch the whole hearing it's
available at the Judiciary Committe website. I confess that I haven't watched the whole thing myself (there's actually a long recess in the middle of the video, that's when I stopped), but from what I saw and what I've read about the testimony it was a big win for the good guys.
Some of the highlights included Annie taking a jab at Rep. Bob Goodlatte who questioned the morality of online gambling. Annie said, it's moral to gamble in 48 of the 50 states but immoral to gamble online? Rep. Steve Cohen (a Democrat from Tennessee) had perhaps the best line of the hearing when he asked Tom McClusky, from the Family Research Council, if he was against gambling in general or just online gambling. When McClusky said the FRC is opposed to all gambling, Cohen asked, "Is there any fun you ARE for?" Cohen asked sharp questions, didn't grandstand, and actually showed a sense of humor. How come the non-buffoon members of Congress never get any national media exposure? Or have I already answered my own question?
Another highlight was when Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, conceded that there is NO evidence that online casinos have ever been used to launder money. So much for the ludicrious Mafia-terrorism angle that anti-gaming zealots like to trumpet. Hanaway also said that if online casinos came under U.S. jurisdiction it would be much easier to police money laundering, fraud, etc. Well, why then would a law enforcement official want to make it easier for unscrupulous operators to prey on Americans??
And Joseph Weiler, a professor at the New York University School of Law, took Rep. Goodlatte and Ms. Hanaway to task for their ignorance of or disdain for the repercussions if the U.S. ignores the WTO ruling about it's gambling laws. I'm paraphrasing here, but at one point Weiler asked Hanaway, "What happens if China arrests a U.S. citizen who is obeying international law, and who is participating in an activity that is legal in China? What does the Department of Justice do if it complains to the Chinese government that they're breaking their WTO pledge and the Chinese response is, 'We're interpreting the law this way today, and, by the way, we learned this from you.' " Hanaway dodged by saying that she didn't want to deal with hypotheticals, and Weiler said fine, but if the U.S. decides to scrap it's WTO obligations over something as trivial as trying to ban online gaming, it might not be a hypothetical for long. Actually, it's a bit of a stretch to say that what I just wrote was a "paraphrase", but I believe I've conveyed the Professor's point.
After the hearing Annie Duke participated in a chat with Washington Post readers, and NPR
ran a story about the hearing this afternoon (the audio will be available shortly). Lots of good stuff, and today also came the interesting news that Harrah's and MGM might be both be thinking about entering the
online poker ring. During a panel discussion at the Global Gaming Expo MGM Mirage CEO Terry Lanni and Harrah's CEO Gary Loveman both said that they think
online poker will be legalized within the next year or two.
When you consider how dark the skies were in the days following the passage of the UIGEA, it's hard not to be optimistic. Capitol Hill seems far more receptive to listening to the facts about online gaming, the WTO rulings have put the federal government in a bind, and now it looks like some of the biggest gaming companies in the world think the time is ripe to invest online. There's still a long, long way to go, but the tide has definetely turned.
Permalink:
http://www.ultimatebet.com/poker-blog-post/WalltoWall-Coverage/2336
