As expected following the Fourth of July Congressional recess, Texas Representative Joe Barton has reintroduced his online poker legislation to the House of Representatives, joining another bill for consideration by the body.
Entitled HR 2666, the “Internet Poker Freedom Act of 2013,” Barton is looking to take his second shot at passing legislation for the regulation of the online poker industry. His last effort, the “Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011,” was notable in that it was the first effort from a member of the Republican Party to put forth such legislation.
At that time, there were strong movements in the drive for online poker’s regulation and Barton was expected to be at the forefront of the movement. Barton was able to get his 2011 bill to a couple of House subcommittee hearings, but it was never heard on the floor of the House. When the last Congress ended in December 2012, Barton’s previous effort died with its close.
With HR 2666 joining New York Representative Peter King’s bill HR 2282, the “Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2013,” there are two tracks that online poker regulation can take. The two tracks, however, are quite different.
Rep. King’s bill proposes that online gaming as a whole (and not just poker) would be allowed under a federally regulated system. There is an apparent opt-out clause for states that do not want to participate in the nationally regulated system (leaving a loophole for states such as Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware that have already passed online gaming legislation) and creates a new office (the Office of Internet Gambling Oversight) that would be administered by the Department of the Treasury. There are also stringent regulations on eligible players, taxation and penalties for “unlicensed operators” who would try to circumvent federal regulation.
Rep. Barton’s bill is very much like his 2011 effort in that it seeks a carve-out for online poker only. Several of its components are comparable to Rep. King’s efforts in seeking to criminalize unlicensed operations and set guidelines for participation, but Rep. Barton believes that his online gaming bill should be the one that passes through the House.
In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Howard Stutz, Barton said that the poker only bill is a much more palatable option for the entire Congress than Rep. King’s entire online gaming bill. “(This bill) will accomplish my goal of protecting the integrity of the game and the rights of those who play it,” Barton is quoted by Stutz. “Poker is an all-American game; I continue to be supportive of the Americans who play poker online. They deserve to have a legal, on-shore system that makes sure everyone is playing in an honest, fair structure.”
The debate over online gaming/poker is going to be a difficult one again for supporters. The Republican-led House of Representatives will be a tough sell for either Barton or King to push their proposal through due to several members’ anti-gaming stance (both Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have been strong anti-gaming advocates).
In the Senate, there doesn’t seem to be a drive for online gaming/poker regulation. After he floated a bill (never introduced) with now-retired Arizona Senator Jon Kyl in 2012 that would have complemented Barton’s legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada hasn’t pushed forward with any such legislation during the new Congress. In interviews, Reid has stated he “didn’t see” anything happening in the Senate regarding online gaming despite the actions in the House by Reps. Barton and King.
While it may seem to be a “Groundhog Day” type situation once again for online gaming/poker, the proposed legislation at the minimum keeps the discussion regarding regulation by the federal government on the front burner while individual states move forward with their own online regulations.