Yesterday was the first definitive win for online poker since Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced HR 2267 on May 6, 2009. After a few delays and pointless hearings, progress was finally made, and the bill may be going to mark-up and then a vote in the near future.
Perhaps the most notable speaker at yesterday’s hearing was UB Poker’s Annie Duke who was representing the Poker Players Alliance. Duke put opponents of a legal and regulated online poker environment on the defensive throughout the hearing, and along with Lynn Malorba of the Mohegan Tribe was able to refute (not “refudiate” as Sarah Palin might say) all of the main arguments against online poker.
First was the confrontation between Annie Duke and Representative Spencer Bacchus (R-AL) who is one of online poker’s biggest opponents. Bacchus confronted Duke on her affiliation with Ultimate Bet, which was embroiled in the biggest online poker scandal in history. To her credit Duke responded by saying the incident shows precisely why regulation and oversight are needed in the industry, and then defended UB Poker’s handling of the situation, and why further action could not be taken against the perpetrator Russ Hamilton:
“The site self-regulated and refunded all the money to its customers. I would prefer to have something like HR 2267 so that the government could oversee that regulation … The one individual who perpetrated the crime and breached the software has not been prosecuted because unfortunately there is no jurisdiction to do so.”
Next it was Lynn Malorba’s turn to disprove another popular falsehood about legalized online poker, this time from Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA). Baca claimed that Native American tribes would be forced to give up their sovereignty if they paid the federal government a 2% tax on online poker –assuming of course Indian tribes get into the online poker market.
Apparently Baca was unaware that Malorba, who represents the Mohegan Tribe and is in line to become the tribe’s Chief, might have a little expert knowledge on Indian Tribes, Gaming, and taxes! Malorba explained that Indian tribes already pay plenty in taxes on their gaming revenue, and that she would welcome a 2% tax, since they currently pay 25% tax on their slots revenue!
The final argument as always was the children: THE CHILDREN, will someone please think about the children!!! When the opponents of online poker played their trump card –the corruptible innocence of children– Duke and others were there to point out that other countries with legalized online gambling have implemented safeguards that are better than ID checks at land-based casinos. And Congressman Frank even got involved (in his straightforward way) saying:
“You can protect children, but this is not a protection of children. This is a ban on all activity…The poor children here are being used here by the people who don’t like gambling,”
And as I always say; you need money –a checking account/credit card–to gamble online, so where are these underage kids getting it? It’s obviously parents facilitating the activity, and this cannot be curtailed without a regulated online poker industry.
Related Posts
- The History of Online Poker – a Recap of the Last 12 Years - June 30, 2010
- The WSOP Academy Enters the Online Poker Training Market - July 12, 2010
- The Five Biggest Swingers in Online Poker History - June 10, 2010
Written by Steve Ruddock on July 23rd, 2010