Internet Gambling in the US: The Battle Continues
Interview by J. Phillip Vogel
When the US took a stance opposing online gambling, it rocked the gaming industry worldwide. In a matter of days multi-billion dollar companies based in the UK, Canada, Antigua, Costa Rica and every other legal gaming jurisdiction were sent scurrying for cover as they suddenly faced both financial ruin and potential criminal prosecution. In the 18 months since America declared war on the Net, many online gaming advocates have rallied to fight for the cause and overturn the law. Among the most vocal proponents of Internet gaming is Jay Lakin, Co-Owner and Vice President of the popular poker portal PokerSourceOnline.com.
Casino Player: Internet gambling in the U.S. is shaky as a result of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Can you explain how the UIGEA came about and how it affects online gamblers in the States?
Jay Lakin: I think it came about because Republican members of Congress decided that they knew what was better for you than you did. In the case of Bill Frist, I think that he thought this it would be a platform to the Presidency. That pretty much backfired on him.
|
|
 |
CP: Why is it that online horseracing is fine—but not poker?
JL: Well it’s obvious to me that lobbyists lined people’s pockets, took people to lunch, flew them to Ireland for golf games, and got their respective carve outs. I was born and raised in Washington, I know how it works. Prior to iMEGA, the online poker rooms had no lobbyists working for them. They all have their own little fiefdoms and nobody would cooperate. And that’s the one positive thing that’s come out of the UIGEA for the online poker rooms: they’ve come to the realization that there’s strength in numbers. Rather than fighting each other, they’re working together for a common cause: to get the UIGEA overturned.
CP: What is being done about the UIGEA? Who supports online gambling in the U.S. government and what are they doing to change the law?
JL: First, I’d like to discuss the Internet Gambling Regulation And Enforcement Act sponsored by Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts. The IGREA would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept wagers online and implement protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering, and fraud.
Next, we have the Skill Game Protection Act authored by Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), which would carve out any game of skill, which most intelligent people consider poker to be.
We also have the Internet Gambling Study Bill from Congresswoman Shelly Berkley of Nevada and Congressman Jim McDermott’s Internet Gambling Tax Act, which would amend the IRS code to regulate Internet gambling and somehow tax it.
CP: According to a tax revenue analysis announced by Congressman Jim McDermott, it’s estimated that regulating Internet gambling would generate as much as $42.8 billion in federal revenues over its first ten years. Why is the U.S. government so determined to disregard this source of revenue?
JL: Don’t say the U.S. government. It’s the Bush administration and it’s the Republican Congress. This wouldn’t have been passed had there been a Democratic Congress. The Republicans want to take care of you. It used to be that the Republican Party was about less government and people taking care of themselves, but that changed somewhere. All they care about now is trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
If someone wants to sit in the privacy of his bedroom and play poker or blackjack, as long as he’s of legal age, he should be able to do it. Congress should keep their noses out of it. I have yet to have anybody explain to me why it’s not okay to play poker on my computer, but yet I can participate in fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horseracing. Either get rid of all of it, or allow it all. Don’t tell me I can’t play poker, but can bet on a horserace.
I truly believe that the UIGEA is unconstitutional. You can’t carve out one element of gambling and not allow another. It’s like having a liquor store that can sell gin, but not Vodka.
CP: What’s it going to take for things to change?
JL: It’s going to take a change in the White House. It’s going to take a lot. The average bill, from what I’ve been told, takes about five years to overturn. So it’s not just going to be Franks’ Bill or McDermott’s Bill. There has to be a change in Washington and a groundswell from the public. Most [people] are ignorant of what’s happened. The online poker community has done a really poor job of letting the public know what the UIGEA did.
CP: Is there anything U.S. gamblers can do to bring online gambling officially back to the country?
JL: They can join the Poker Players Alliance—again, there’s strength in numbers. They can also tell their elected officials how they feel about online gambling legislation. They can vote out the people who are opposed to it. Senator John Kyl almost lost re-election and I think it was because Arizonians were upset about it. Bill Frist is a great example. It blew up in his face.
In the State of Washington, it’s a Class C felony to gamble online, which means that if arrested, charged, and convicted, you would face the same penalty as a child rapist. Somebody needs to explain to me how, in a state where there’s a lottery and casinos all over the place, you can go to jail for playing poker on your computer and serve the same amount of time as someone who rapes a child.
I also don’t know how the Chairman of a publicly traded company, David Carruthers, is still sitting 18 months later in a St. Louis hotel room for doing something that was perfectly legal in his country. He still doesn’t have a trial date. Imagine if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs was doing something perfectly legal in the U.S.A., but upon landing in Heathrow, they were arrested because what they were doing was illegal in England. What would our response be as Americans?
CP: Is there pressure from foreign governments for the U.S. to repeal the law?
JL: As far as the World Trade Organization goes, there is. The U.S. government is trying to cut deals with foreign countries and is basically thumbing their nose at the WTO. They were just found liable against Antigua, which is basically a slap on the wrist—$20 million dollars—but others are lining up to do it.
The bad part about all of this is the precedent it sets. If the U.S. says, “We signed this, but are not going to abide by it because we’ve changed our mind,” then what does that mean to another country if they come across something they don’t want to abide by?
CP: Do you foresee a decision—one way or the other—anytime soon?
JL: I really think that, come November, when there’s a seat change in Washington, it bodes well for the overturning of the UIGEA. You know it only takes some little thing, like the WTO making a major ruling against the U.S., for the Justice Department to back off.
CP: Why should our readers visit PokerSourceOnline.com?
JL: PokerSourceOnline.com is one of the largest poker affiliate sites on the planet. We provide incentives to online poker players, rewarding them with their choice of a dozen gifts. They can be Nevada Jacks poker chips, which are casino quality ceramic chips. There’s a 12 month membership to StoxPoker, where players can watch videos and improve their game, along with free poker software and Amazon.com gift cards. We also award PSO points, which are kind of like airline mileage points. Upon compiling them, you can go into the PSO store and purchase items with points.
Again, the idea behind PSO was to incentivize online gaming. You can go to PokerStars.com and can get your sign up bonus or you can go to PokerSourceOnline.com and you’ll get the same sign up bonus as PokerStars.com offers plus get poker chips or a poker table or one of a dozen other prizes.
CP: Thank you for your time and valuable insights into the current state of online gaming.
JL: You’re very welcome.