On Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the merits of HR 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. UB.com pro Annie Duke was one of five witnesses to appear in front of the assembled Committee and, afterwards, shared her thoughts on the event with Poker News Daily.
As a sponsored pro of UB, Duke has seen the power of mining online poker data in the site’s and the community’s investigations of the Russ Hamilton-led cheating scandal. Whereas casinos rely on more subjective estimates of whether a person is intoxicated, underage, or a problem gambler, online poker rooms can take a long, hard look at the data. Duke explained, “I have never in 15 years in a casino seen someone removed for being too drunk. Casinos have cocktail waitress walking around with trays of alcohol 24/7. It’s much easier to identify the patterns of a problem gambler by looking at data rather than looking someone in the eye.”
Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) asked Duke if she was a sponsored pro of Ultimate Bet, which he noted had a multi-million dollar cheating scandal erupt on its felts. Duke corrected the Congressman, saying that she was affiliated with UltimateBet.net: “I would have liked to emphasize more that [the scandal] happened because of a lack of regulation and a lack of licensing. I would have liked to have said more of that. I would like to see consumers have recourse against an individual who did wrong against them.”
Duke’s theme throughout her testimony and responses to member questions was that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was merely a “banking law.” Consequently, it fails to protect consumers that still engage in the industry: “The UIGEA is not about consumer protection. It’s a banking law. I hit that point so many times. There’s no protection for consumers.”
Also debated at length during Wednesday’s two-and-a-half hour marathon session was whether sites that continue to operate in the United States should be eligible to receive licenses if and when internet gambling is legalized and regulated. Duke gave her insight into the question: “If a site is licensed by a reputable licensing body in a country we are friends with, are you really going to say that you can’t license them here? Besides, companies don’t get licensed, individuals do. You can’t ban an asset. You have to look at the individuals getting licensed.”
Duke spoke on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the 1.2 member strong lobbying organization for the live and online poker industries. The PPA has been instrumental in setting up this week’s hearing on HR 2267 and next week’s markup of the bill.
Although Duke had to hightail it to the airport following Tuesday’s appearance, she told Poker News Daily via phone, “The PPA got very positive responses. I’m not there representing myself. My interest comes from being a good representative for poker.” Duke found out last Friday that she was set to appear in the Financial Services Committee and Tweeted on Tuesday, “Heading to DC tomorrow. Testifying Wednesday at 2pm in front of Chairman Frank’s Committee on his new legislation to regulate online gaming.”
Duke has been busy responding to her followers on Twitter, chirping to Pokerati on Wednesday after the hearing, “Regulation and licensing would have allowed prosecution of Russ Hamilton. I wish we had that now. Make him pay.” She added, “Thx everyone for all the kind words. Proud to have represented the poker community on The Hill today. Thanks @PPAPoker for the opportunity.”
A markup hearing of HR 2267 is scheduled for Tuesday, July 27th at 10:00am ET in the House Financial Services Committee. The bill is one of six that will be addressed.
