Poker Superstars
Phil Hellmuth
|
UEIGA, or Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement, the bill that famously got passed in Oct 2006 much to the chagrin of online gamblers everywhere, took a major attack last month in the courts as poker professionals and other outspoken individuals stepped up to defend our rights.
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing in early Novemeber, thenotorious UEIGA, which delivered a death blow to online gambling sites by (as summarized by Wikipedia) outlawing: "the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing."
This hearing allowed some of the backlash against the bill by pros like Howard Lederer and Annie Duke, as well as more citizen's rights oriented political figures. Such as Nevada's Democratic rep, Shelley Berkley, who stated: "There are 28 million self-identified poker players who want to play and bet online. They are adults who as American citizens have a right to play poker, a game of skill, in the privacy of their own homes on their own computers. There is a limit to how much government can interfere with our fellow citizens' rights to participate in a recreational activity of their choice."
Thank god for sensible politicians.
Congress's decision now is to decide whether to pull back on the ban, push it forward, or study further. Berkeley argued that a study on just how damaging online gambling is to the players is vital to this understanding. Rep. Robert Wexler, from Florida, suggested that games of skill and not total chance, such as poker, should be exempt from the bill.
Annie Duke went on to even more eloquently outline the difference: "The issue for me is that people make bad decisions all the time that create bankruptcy and problems in their family. For example, accepting a sub-prime zero percent down mortgage has created a lot of bankruptcies recently. Online shopping or shopping in real life has created a lot of bankruptcies. If we choose to ban every activity that creates financial hardship in a family, we are going to be banning basically every activity. If we choose to ban anything that hurts a family, we are going to be banning McDonald's, for example, because many fathers die prematurely from eating fatty foods and leave their children with no means to support themselves, and you know, a lot of ruining of lives occur because people are eating too many McDonald's' hamburgers. I would hope that we aren't going to ban that either."
Further arguments were laid out by both sides, showing, at the very least, that this issue is hotly contested and by no means a black and white picture that can be ruled on without further study.
Results of the hearing have yet to cause a change in the bill as of yet, but the open discussion and voices by now-respected icons of the poker world is both heartening and exciting. Hopefully it will be only the beginning of getting our right delivered back to us in full. |
|
