On Saturday, Marco “AgentMarco” Valerio, one of the preeminent reporters in the poker industry, posted on his site the draft of an anti-online gaming bill that is supposedly strongly backed by Las Vegas Sands CEO and staunch opponent of online poker, Sheldon Adelson.
The bill, designed to be introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives, appears to be in its early stages. It has not been assigned a number and has no sponsors (though considering the weight Adelson can throw around in the halls of Congress, it would be shocking if a sponsor couldn’t be found). It is also very short, just three pages, making it one of the easier bills to digest.
Called the “Internet Gambling Control Act (IGCA),” it aims to primarily to “restore long-standing United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits Internet gambling.”
Legal arguments against online gambling, including poker, were often made based on the Wire Act of 1961, which outlawed the use of telephone lines to place and accept sports bets. It was instituted to clamp down on illegal interstate bookmaking. Opponents of online gambling argued that the Wire Act encompassed all remote gambling, not just sports betting over phone lines, whereas supporters said it was limited in scope to just what it said it was. In late 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice changed its stance on the Wire Act, saying it only applied to sports betting and not poker and other casino games. This approval of internet gambling opened the doors for states to begin the process of legalization and regulation and to date, three states – Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware – have launched internet gambling industries.
The IGCA looks to amend the Wire Act to make “wire communication” include the internet and not just phone lines, something that may very well make sense, considering advances in communication technology. Where poker players are really going to get miffed, though, is the desired expansion of the definition of “any sporting event or contest” to include “…games in part or predominantly subject to chance, including games in which players compete against each other, and not against any person, entity, or fellow player hosting the game, the outcome of which, over any significant interval, is predominantly determined by the skill of the players…”
In part subject to chance, players compete against each other, predominantly determined by skill…yes, that’s poker.
The bill also requires that the FBI produce a report within two years that addresses potential problems with online gambling, such as the ability for people to cheat, the ability for minors or people outside of legalized jurisdictions to play, and of course, the thing that online gambling opponents always bring up, the possibility of terrorists to use online gaming sites to launder money.
With that definition isn’t fantasy football illegal? The NFL has spent millions lobbying to prevent the legalization of online poker.
well, what about using the old satt. dish? thats not “wire”