News

Sunday, 05 December 2010 10:56

Working behind the scenes, Senator Harry Reid is now pressing hard to push through a bill to allow poker to be played online but with some unpopular restrictions.

For over four years, online gambling operators have been prevented from providing an online gambling service to US players because of the 2006 UIGEA, a bill that was passed into law by attaching it to the back of a more prominent bill. Many would call that an underhand tactic, but that is exactly how a great many smaller bills get through Congress and is a commonplace occurrence. It is almost an act of poetic justice then that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader from the State of Nevada is using a lame-duck legislation tactic to get his bill rushed through and into the law books before the current session ends in a month's time.

The bill itself does not cater for all forms of online gambling, nor does it open the floodgates for foreign operators to once again legally open their doors to US players. In fact, it is based on allowing US players to enjoy online poker and will only license race track and casino operators and only those that have been a minimum of five years in business.

The draft legislation that was circulated to Senate offices the overseeing of the regulation of license holders for online poker sites would be in the hands of individual states as well as Indian tribes.

The push for this bill by Reid comes as no surprise for the big Nevada casino owners who would naturally qualify for a piece of this particular action that could turn their currently flagging fortunes around. The current estimate is that the Internet gambling industry as a whole could be worth an eye watering $5bn annually, with most of that presently flowing out of the US to illegal offshore operators.

Naturally, the bill has its opponents amongst Republican politicians, some of whom wrote a stiff letter to Reid's office to voice their concerns about the perceived problems that legalizing online gambling could bring. This included the well worn lament that such freedom would bring hardship to poorer families. This argument was easily countered by Barney Frank who maintained that this bill will provide US gamblers with the proper protection by regulating and legislating this form of gambling where presently there are few, if any controls. He added that the decision to gamble is one that is made by adults who have the right to decide just how they spend their money.

To add to the argument in favour of permitting a regulated form of online gambling, supporters in the House are saying that prohibition did not work when it was attempted with alcohol. Neither is it working with gambling over the Internet as people will continue to participate. They will just do it in an unregulated, underground market instead.