On Wednesday, Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz took his – and donor Sheldon Adelson’s – pet project, the Restoration of America’s Wire Act of 2015 (or “RAWA” as it has derisively become known as), in front of the main stage of a House committee in Washington, D. C. That hearing, in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was important for Chaffetz on a couple of areas. One, this was a hearing in front of the main House committee, not some subcommittee that gets lost in the droning of Congress, giving Chaffetz a main stage to show his “abilities” in moving pet legislation along the road to passage. Second, it was a payback to Adelson (despite Chaffetz’s protestations, the bill was virtually written by Adelson’s lobbyists) and an attempt to move the legislation to the main floor for a vote that the billionaire has wanted for well over a year now.
But what happens when you try to show you are being “fair and balanced?” Your pet project gets run out the door and probably won’t see the light of day again unless it is as a rider (more on that in a bit).
Chaffetz tried to stock a hearing earlier this year with anti-online gaming advocates and sycophants in a subcommittee of the Oversight Committee, but was roundly derided for those efforts (let’s be honest, there wasn’t even anyone from any of the trio of states – Nevada, New Jersey or Delaware – to testify about how their states were doing with regulation). This time around, Chaffetz thought he had that under control.
He invited law enforcement, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), whom Chaffetz probably thought was going to talk as if their viewpoint from 2000 was still their mantra (a letter from back then worried about online gaming’s impact and usage for money laundering; after further examination, that letter has since been rescinded as FBI policy). He had a Republican State Senator from Nevada, Mark Lipparelli, there to state how “awful” the business of online poker was doing in the Silver State; Chaffetz probably should have looked a bit deeper into the fact that Lipparelli, as the former head of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, was responsible for many of the regulations that brought online poker to life. Finally, there were a couple of attorneys on the dais, but they would prove to be disappointing in their overall knowledge of the subject.
Honestly, there hasn’t been a worse battle set up since General George Custer chose Little Big Horn as the spot to fight off the Indians. Chaffetz was continually raked over the coals in the hearing, not only by those that support regulation of online gaming and poker, but also by those who believe that online gaming is a 10th Amendment issue (whatever actions are not given to the federal government’s jurisdiction are under the control of the state government). Even those that supported Chaffetz couldn’t muster sound arguments in the questioning of the witnesses that were fully prepared to discuss this issue in the light rather than in a smoky room. It finally reached the point that Chaffetz, after a break to attend to House votes, didn’t return to his own hearing before it concluded.
First, many kudos must be handed out to the staff at the Poker Players Alliance, Executive Director John Pappas, VP of Player Relations Rich Muny and the members a million strong. There has been tremendous heat put on the organization – and admittedly this writer has applied some of that heat – that their “text and Tweet” strategy was doing nothing to push the drive for regulation. The change of heart that some of the representatives in the House have shown – even from members of Chaffetz’s own party who would normally have backed him – can be at least partially the result of the efforts of the PPA and Muny; without the bombardment of e-mails, texts, Tweets and Facebook posts from the members, I am sure that the hearing on Wednesday wouldn’t have gone as well as it did. I will not be deriding the PPA for using this approach in the future and even may get more involved with it myself.
The hearing should also deal the death blow to RAWA, at least as a piece of stand-alone legislation. Chaffetz has been shown to be a fool for taking up this piece of toilet paper as legislation, letting the “crony capitalism” that Adelson and his ilk still love to employ while Chaffetz tried to sit back and say that RAWA was a “states’ rights” bill (I still don’t know how Chaffetz chokes that one down). The problem is that Adelson isn’t going to back away from the fight as quickly as you might like.
This is why it is a great day for online gaming and poker and its future federal regulation, but it isn’t time to sip champagne from goblets just yet. The bill could be tacked onto any piece of legislation that would come out of the House and, if Chaffetz has half a brain under that mop called hair, he would eagerly look for someone to take the ball out of his hands by tacking it on as a rider. Additionally, there is still that specter of a “moratorium” out there until a “study” is done, something that may receive a bigger push from Chaffetz.
There is also still Senator Lindsey Graham’s version of RAWA floating around in the Senate. If Graham – once he gets done with his Quixotic dream of being the 45th President of the United States – is able to come back to the Senate in 2016 and get his version pushed through either by the stand-alone measure or by rider, then Chaffetz would have the power back in his court. It wouldn’t take much for Chaffetz to dust the House RAWA off and try again.
All in all, however, Wednesday was the best news that online poker supporters have had in some time. Now it is back to the state-to-state battle, because winning a few more of those states (including Pennsylvania and California, two keystones in the online gaming and poker regulation battle) will force the hand of the federal government potentially to the point of passing regulation on the federal level so they get their piece of the pie. Yes, Wednesday’s win might be the turning point in online gaming and poker regulation, but let’s not celebrate yet.