Michael Hiltzik, writing for the Los Angeles Times, put up a piece on Monday blasting the federal Internet gambling ban and any attempt to regulate payment transfers through banks. Hiltzik is a Pulitzer Prize winner and was awarded the Gerald Loeb Award in 2004 for his contributions to financial journalism.

I have to wonder if the recent advertising campaign has succeeded in catching the eye of the right people. The article is well written and covers several important points. Press like this will always be beneficial to the online gambling community. Excerpts below.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have both introduced bills in Congress to lift a federal ban on much online play and clarify the law, which is even murkier than it is for physical casinos, if that's possible. Their goals include taking a piece of the action for the U.S. Treasury, on the political principle that sins always seem less deadly when there's money to be squeezed from them. The consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated in 2007 that legalization could yield as much as $43 billion in tax revenue over 10 years if it includes sports betting, $34 billion even if it doesn't.

[...]

That federal law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, has numerous flaws. It saddles financial institutions with the duty of enforcement by barring them from "knowingly accepting payments" derived from "unlawful Internet gambling." But it doesn't define what is unlawful.

It exempts fantasy sports and "skill" games, for example. But where does that leave the most popular online game, poker? The new regulations seem to outlaw the game, although its aficionados contend that it's a game of skill pitting player against player. They contend it's been swept into the gambling ban by lax regulation-drafting.

The whole article is well worth a read.

The man in the photo is playing poker, you can too, at Full Tilt Poker

The lobbying effort against the UIGEA is ramping up as the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative has launched an online advertising campaign in support of H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009. This is the legislation that would permit licensed gambling operators to accept wagers inside the U.S. The group estimates that $62.7 billion in revenue could be collected by the government in the first decade alone.

This legislation, which has numerous bipartisan co-sponsors and enjoys the support of several powerful Committee Chairmen, is being touted by the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative as a good way for Congress to raise extra money for healthcare reform and other government programs. Maybe raising the prospect of starting a war with a small country would get Congress interested. At the same time, the campaign expresses support for letting people make their own decisions, carrying Libertarian tones and comparing Internet gambling prohibition to alcohol prohibition. This tactic will hopefully have the benefit of appealing to a much wider segment of viewers.

CNBC reports that the ads will appear on the websites of the Washington Post, The Hill, Politico, The Huffington Post, Political Wire and Talking Points Memo.

Fore more information on this new campaign, please visit the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative.

Safe Online Gambling at Cherry Red Casino

Almost everyone who places bets online has known for a long time that our friend in Congress is Rep. Barney Frank, but Frank will eventually need his bill to get through the Senate before we're really looking good. And today I'm hearing that Senator Menendez (D-NJ) is introducing a bill designed to regulate and tax online poker rather than ban it altogether.

It would establish a regulatory framework that would allow online poker companies to register in the U.S. It would put in place consumer protections such as ensuring an individual is logging on from a jurisdiction where gambling is legal, and having accurate age-verification procedures.

Unfortunately Menendez's bill only deals with poker and neglects the rest of online gambling, but it's a start. I've always known taking care of the UIGEA would be tougher in the Senate as opposed to the House, and Frank hasn't exactly been having an easy time of things. It was the Senate the initially steamrolled the UIGEA in by attaching it to a Port Security Act after all. But Menendez has given us more hope that common sense may prevail when it comes to online gambling legislation.

Like I said the other day, things are definitely moving in our direction, and now we have a point man in the Senate and we can start putting some pressure on other Senators to follow suit.

Rep. Barney Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, has reached a total of 54 co-sponsors. The bill is designed to regulate the online gambling industry under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Treasury. Most of the co-sponsors are Democrats but the Republican party has offered a few supporters as well, among them Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

This bill has gained stronger support than any previous attempt at regulating online gambling, it seems to be only a matter of time before it passes the House and then it's on to the Senate.

In early June, the U.S. government seized more than $30 million from several accounts of payment processors who were acting as middlemen between two online poker rooms, Full Tilt and Poker Stars, and a small portion of players who had accounts with those poker rooms. The seizure was unexpected and there have been no significant updates concerning the government's next move.

Now a payment processor who handled some of those accounts is trying to get back $14 million through a court order that it says the government seized illegaly. The Poker Players Alliance says this is part of the $30 million and is planning to file a motion to participate in the case on the side of the payment processor.

Online Poker is still estimated to be a $16 billion a year industry, with more than half of that coming from players in the United States. What has this latest move accomplished? The poker rooms are still open (and thriving), and players (after a few hiccups) can still withdraw money from their accounts. The government exercised its' power, took some money, but accomplished nothing. Will this happen again and should it simply be considered a way of taxing the poker rooms? Or perhaps the government will realize the futility of its' actions.

What I do know for sure is that the poker rooms are still open and taking bets. Visit either of the two largest poker rooms and feel safe with the knowledge that these poker rooms will always be able to handle your deposits and withdrawals.

Full Tilt Poker
Poker Stars

Politico has a piece up highlighting the latest details in Rep. Barney Frank's attempt to see common sense laws on the books when it comes to online gambling. So far, all of Frank's attempts at passing legislation which would nullify the UIGEA or otherwise create a new regulatory framework for online gambling websites have run into opposition, but this time around the buzz on the hill is that the bill has a much better chance.

Early last week the federal government seized $34 million in online poker room bank accounts that were used to pay players who withdrew from their individual poker accounts. This move did not achieve the government's desired result. It has failed to effect the games at either of the two poker rooms targeted, Full Tilt or Poker Stars, and both poker rooms have since resumed paying out withdrawals to players. It has also reminded people what a powerful and murky law the UIGEA really is.

The recent bank seizures, which targeted accounts managed by two companies that process payments for online poker sites such as Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker thrust the issue back into the news and renewed old questions about the clarity of the existing law.

"It was terrible idea," Frank said last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), a gaming advocate whose staff is drafting a formal response to the administration, argues the seizure "shows the inappropriate excess of government power."

The EU has called out the United States on its' 'gambling ban'. While the UIGEA does not specifically ban online gambling, it does make transferring money to and from a betting service much more difficult. What the EU is talking about here is the ban on foreign companies being able to operate in America.

The EU says it could seek compensation from the World Trade Organization because the 2006 ban unfairly prevents foreign Internet gambling sites from operating in the United States.

But it said it would hold off launching legal action until it had the chance to negotiate a solution with President Barack Obama's administration -- another sign of a thaw in EU-U.S. relations since President George W. Bush left office.

The European Commission said the U.S. ban shut out gambling sites such as Britain's PartyGaming PLC and Sportingbet PLC from the lucrative $4 billion U.S. market, causing companies to lose revenue and stock market value.

And now we wait to see how the new administration in Washington responds to the Europeans.

The New York Times has a piece up on Representative Frank's newest bill, H.R. 2267, which is designed to regulate the online gambling industry. The bill, if it becomes law, would give people the opportunity to decide for themselves on this issue and provide the government with a new source of revenue.

It makes both the people and government happy, but a few special interest groups led by social conservatives have so far put up strong resistance to allowing any form of online gambling.

At a news conference announcing the legislation, Mr. Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pointed out that the federal government could collect increased tax revenues if Internet gambling was regulated. But he said online gambling should be legal as a matter of personal liberty, calling it an activity the government should neither encourage nor prohibit.

[...]

"Congress kind of sneaked up on the American people," Mr. Frank said of the online gambling ban. "The people woke up."

Good luck to Rep. Frank and common sense.

Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced two new bills on Wednesday designed to stop the implementation of the UIGEA and establish a framework for gambling operators to obtain federal licenses and take bets from Americans.

The Internet Gambling Regulation Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act would establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S., on the condition that they maintain effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, and Indian Tribes.

Click the link to read Frank's full press release.

A division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has instructed 11 ISPs to block access to nearly 200 gambling websites by Minnesota computers. Officials in the Department claim a 1961 law prohibiting phone companies from accepting bets over the telephone can be used in this manner to stop people from placing bets online.

The good news for those of us who enjoy placing bets online, and in general making decisions for ourselves, especially on the Internet, is that:

Twin Cities attorneys specializing in Internet law are skeptical about whether Minnesota could use that law to force the blocking of gambling websites.

"This is an old law put in place before the Internet, and there may be an argument that it doesn't cover Internet service providers," said David Axtell, an attorney at Leonard Street and Deinard in Minneapolis.

I will keep on top of this issue, but for now, everyone can continue placing bets online, even residents of Minnesota. Try Full Tilt for poker and Cherry Red or Golden Casino for casino games.

Back in late February Reuters reported that Representative Barney Frank was going to be introducing a new bill to stop the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act from being implemented some time in March. The date has already been pushed back once, and word is that the bill will now be introduced in early May. No one is entirely certain what specifics would be in the proposed legislation, but Representative Frank has been clear in his disdain for the UIGEA and now that he is chairman of the House Banking Committee the possibility of a bill at least getting out of committee and being voted on by the entire House of Representatives is much higher.

Congressman Frank has always taken the position that the UIGEA is a burden to the financial industry that was harmful to progress even before the current economic crisis. Several public European firms that handle bets had to pull out of the lucrative American market after the UIGEA was passed, angering European countries that saw tax revenues fall. Democrats hold a sizable lead in the Banking Committee and Republican Ron Paul has supported anti-UIGEA bills in the past so his support is assumed.

Let's all hope that the bill is well written and Americans will see common sense legislation come out of the House. I will update when the bill is released.

...or lack thereof, as the case happens to be. The Harvard Crimson is reporting on a study recently put out by the Harvard Medical School suggesting that the availability of online gambling has not increased the likelihood of becoming addicted. People who are addicted to gambling exhibit the same signs wherever they are, but with Internet gambling players are more likely to show proper self control.

A recent study conducted by the Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions suggests that the widespread availability of Internet gambling has not led to an increase in the number of people addicted to gambling.

The study actually found that gamblers who visit gaming Web sites are more likely to self-regulate their betting behavior based on their pattern of wins and losses.

Following that other report released earlier in the month stating that Poker is a game of skill, the Harvard report adds steam to the idea that the UIGEA should be repealed. Poker, a game of skill, casino games, not addictive. In this day and age a person can gamble almost anywhere in the country, it's time that Internet gambling was regulated as well.

These reports simply confirm what has been obvious to everyone with common sense, this excludes at least half the members of the U.S. Congress, that gambling is a fun activity exercised almost exclusively by people with solid judgment who are looking for a fun thrill. The research continues to build that the UIGEA should be abolished, will Congress listen?