Last week, Congressman Joe Barton’s (R – Texas) online poker bill, H.R. 2366, gained five more co-sponsors. The haul upped the number of co-sponsors 25 percent to, coincidentally, a total of 25, and included Representatives from both sides of the aisle.
Representative Howard Berman (D – Calif.), sometimes referred to as “the representative from Hollywood” because of the support he gets from the entertainment industry (and because his district includes North Hollywood), is the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He also sits on the Committee on the Judiciary. When he was ranking member of the House Ethics Committee, he served on the subcommittee that investigated the House page program scandal.
Representative John Larson (D – Conn.) sits on the Committee on Ways and Means along with Rep. Jim McDermott (D – Wash.), who himself has previously introduced online gambling legislation.
Representative James Himes (D – Conn.) is an interesting Congressman. He was born in Lima, Peru to American parents and split his early childhood between Lima and Bogota, Colombia. After his parents divorced, he moved with his mother and sisters to New Jersey. Rep. Himes graduated from Harvard University in 1988 and then attended Oxford University of a Rhodes Scholar and graduated in 1990 with a Masters in Philosophy. He sits on the Committee on Financial Services along with one of poker’s greatest supporters, Rep. Barney Frank (D – Mass.) and one of poker’s greatest enemies, the Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R – Ala.).
Representative Peter Welch (D – Ver.) is on two Committees: the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Rep. Welch is someone who one might expect to support online poker, as he is considered one of the most progressive Democrats in Congress.
Representative Jim Gerlach (R – Penn.) is the lone Republican to sign on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 2366 last week. He is also on the Committee on Ways and Means along with Rep. Larson.
H.R. 2366, titled the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011, aims to legalize and regulate online poker in the United States. Some of the highlights of the bill include:
- Prohibition of credit cards for transactions.
- Minimum age of 21.
- Cheaters would be charged with a federal crime.
- Only residents of the U.S. would be allowed to play on licensed sites.
- Individual states would be able to choose whether or not they want their residents to be able to play online poker.
When the bill was first introduced in late June, it had just 11 sponsors, including the aforementioned Rep. Barney Frank. At the time, Rep. Barton said in a statement, “Poker is an all-American game, and it’s a game that requires strategy and skill. Millions of Americans play poker online. Although it’s legal to play for money, it’s illegal to process the transactions that allow players to collect their earnings.
“We want to have an iron-clad system to make sure that those who play for money are playing in an honest, fair system where they can reap the benefits of their winnings. To put it simply, this bill is about having the personal freedom to play a skill-based game you enjoy without fear of breaking the law.”
Why do we never hear the argument that Poker is a game between people versus gambling “against the house”?
House games give the house an incentive to cheat. With Poker the casino doesn’t care who wins. Poker gives the house an incentive to guarantee the game is fair.
I think it is a better argument than skill versus chance.
We would want to make it good, safe and go conservatively. We don’t want to have the houses give out liars loan and parent gamble away the childrens’ college savings. We need to tax it higher and put the money toward problem gambler and childrens’ school. Ah! this is going to be good so we should do the same thing for pot.
The worst of it is ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PLAYING ONLINE POKER NOW….Including China, Russia,etc,etc,etc….U.S. gov is so bad…Want to tax your winnings at 29% in one of the bills,and then take years of discussion and committees to set “regulations”,etc.etc…Why not a simple sentence admitting it is legal ?? Poker sites already exist, and the good and honest sites get all the players…Simple economics, but why take something so simple to fix when you can ,in typical U.S.gov fashion,muck it up good and proper !!!!
“Individual states would be able to choose whether or not they want their residents to be able to play online poker.”
So if NY decides to opt out I’m screwed?
yes a little common sense and sense of fair play… due here.
“Ah! this is going to be good so we should do the same thing for pot.”
agree wholeheartedly with that statement. but one fight at a time.