Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Barney Frank Discusses Internet Gambling Bill’s Defeat[ return to main articles page ]

By: Dan
Published on Jun 26th, 2008
On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee defeated HR 5767, a bill proposed by Barney Frank and Ron Paul that would have likely opened the door for the return of legalized and regulated online poker in the United States. Instead, it’s back to square one for the internet gambling industry, which must continue to navigate turbulent waters. The question of what is and what is not legal under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act remains. Just one day removed from this historic mark-up hearing, PocketFives.com spoke with Barney Frank to discuss what happened in the Rayburn House Office Building.

An amendment to HR 5767 was offered up in the mark-up session by Republican Congressman Peter King. To many, the measure seemed to address the shortcomings of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The amendment would have required that the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve work with the U.S. Justice Department to decide what the UIGEA interprets as legal and illegal. Questions such as, “Is [online betting on] horse racing legal?” and “Is online poker legal?” would finally be answered. The amendment would have also required that a list identifying legal and illegal online gambling companies be kept. It was even introduced by a high-profile Republican Congressman, which seemed to indicate that it would be passed with flying colors.

When it came up for a vote, King’s amendment was defeated as a result of a 32-32 tie, with only three Republicans voting for the bill. Frank explains, “King's moderate amendment brought some sense to the UIGEA. We have a real problem where people who want to ban gambling also want to hijack the banks. They can’t figure out if horse racing is illegal or legal. If you’re a bank, how do you decide whether or not to process a transaction? How can you tell whether the check is written out to a legal or illegal company? The King amendment said that we shouldn’t regulate until we know what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is disrupting the banks. There were no drawbacks to the amendment. It would just annoy the religious conservatives.”

Headed into the hearing on Wednesday, Frank recruited King to help gain bi-partisan support for an amended HR 5767. He explains why: “I know Peter King well. He’s a friend of [Poker Players Alliance Chairman] Alfonse D’Amato. Peter was good for another reason. One of the phony arguments that people gave to ban internet gambling is saying that these sites are being used for terrorism. King has as good of a record at opposing terrorism as anyone else. Having Peter on the amendment took away any questions anyone would have had regarding terrorism.”

Only three Republicans voted for the amendment: Peter King (NY), Ron Paul (TX), and Dean Heller (NV). In contrast, four Democrats voted against it: Maxine Waters (CA), Gregory Meeks (NY), Brad Miller (NC), and David Scott (GA). Frank talks about his expectations before the vote occurred: “I talked to the people who were doing the lobbying on the Republican side. They were expecting to get six Republicans and we got three. Some of those who voted against us were even Republicans who we tried to recruit to sponsor the amendment.”

On the future of the financial services industry’s enforcement of the UIGEA, Frank claims that banks will have to “overreact” to each transaction to make sure that they aren’t processing “illegal” transactions. The fact remains, however, that formulating the definition of illegal and legal, along with the actual enforcement of the UIGEA, still rests wholly with the U.S. financial services industry. To Frank, this is unacceptable: “This is what happens when you try and tell people not to do what they want to do voluntarily. There’s nobody to complain. We don’t need a regulatory scheme to make it illegal to murder or rob people; someone will complain if a crime is committed. Internet gambling is a case where no one is complaining and so you have to tell people what they can and cannot do.”

On the future of any legislation in Congress that may be amenable to online poker, Frank offers up the following words of advice: “What I’m hoping that is that people understand that they have to mobilize. I know that a lot of people watch poker on television. Maybe they need to watch poker and a little bit of C-SPAN. If you look at the vote (32-32), it was better than it was before [when we passed the UIGEA]. I think that there will be reaction, but the Republicans are being squeezed between the economics of the situation and social conservatives. I’ll wait and see what happens.”

Comments

  1. 2Slick4u 2Slick4u is offline

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 4,767
    Joined: Jun 05

    Jun 27th, 2008 (6/27/2008 7:56am)

    <p>The fight to save on-line poker is going to have to be waged by every player, individually and collectively. Start making waves with your national-level senators and reps. Otherwise, the right-wing extremists will continue to have free reign to take away our freedoms and treat us like criminals.</p>
  2. tiltyjoker tiltyjoker is offline

    Asbury Park, NJ
    United States

    Posts: 3,337
    Joined: Jun 05

    Jun 27th, 2008 (6/27/2008 9:21am) in reply to Dan

    <p>this is such b/s!!!!!</p>
     
  3. creekhouse creekhouse is offline

    Live Oak, CA
    United States

    Posts: 278
    Joined: Oct 06

    Jun 27th, 2008 (6/27/2008 1:24pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>OH CANADA</p>
     
  4. ksssholdem ksssholdem is offline

    Posts: 341
    Joined: Apr 06

    Jun 27th, 2008 (6/27/2008 2:56pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>another raeson why u should keep supporting the idiototic republican party......such donks</p>
  5. JKamikazeKid JKamikazeKid is offline

    Dayton, OH
    United States

    Posts: 1,178
    Joined: Sep 07

    Jun 27th, 2008 (6/27/2008 9:04pm) in reply to Dan

    <p>The unfortunate reality of this is that the world bends and forms under the flawed leadership of politics.  We have candidates in office now who, for the most part, are more concerned in implementing ideas/laws that will serve their own personal interests and agendas instead of doing what's in the best interest for us.  Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with this.  If we do not make them understand that what the government is doing is no different than what any other repressing government does, then the US will be doomed to a sociological society and will no longer be considered a democracy.  It's ironic that the very thing our troops are fighting for around the world, is the very thing that the US is becoming....</p>
 

Return to Articles

Quick Navigation