PokerGob
08-05-2008, 11:04 PM
Pete SessionsRepublican Pete Sessions (R-Texas) introduced a bill to amend the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) to better define illegal online gambling.
The bill, H.R. 6663, is titled the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008. Its function is to revise the language in UIGEA to better shed light on what is unlawful online gambling.
The bill is intended to adjust the definition of illegal online gambling to sports betting, which is prohibited in 49 out of 50 U.S. States. It also suggests that that the uncertainty in the classification of illegal online gambling has caused genuine companies to depart the U.S. online gambling market and made it impractical to execute UIGEA.
Image of Rep. Pete Sessions
Here is a response to the bill from PPA Chairman, Alfonse D'Amato:
"Congressman Pete Sessions has been and continues to be a good friend to poker players who want the freedom to play America's greatest card game. His dedication to the conservative principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility are unparalleled in the U.S. Congress.
We are, however, puzzled by the introduction of H.R. 6663 and by the purpose of this legislation. While we agree with several findings in the bill that correctly identify the illegality of sports wagering, the PPA remains concerned with the implication H.R. 6663 asserts in that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) has made Internet poker an unlawful activity that needs special protection from prosecution.
Previous federal case law (re: Mastercard 2002) made it clear that existing federal criminal law (WIRE Act of 1961) applies only to Internet sports wagering, and not to Internet poker. Further, the UIGEA itself states, 'No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law.'
Thus, H.R. 6663 only confuses a clear judicial standing on this matter.
American poker players and American financial institutions were not well served by the ambiguity and unclear nature of the UIGEA passed two years ago, and H.R. 6663 does nothing to clarify the UIGEA.
At this critical time for one of America's great pastimes, it is unfortunate that H.R. 6663 in its current form only adds to the existing confusion and contradicts its own rule of construction by implying in its findings that the sites on which millions of Americans currently play are offering poker services in defiance of federal law.
The PPA cannot support this bill in its current form. We will however, continue to advance other legislative priorities that Rep. Sessions supports, such as H.R. 2610, which recognizes poker as a game of skill and preserves the right of adults to enjoy poker on the Internet."
The bill, H.R. 6663, is titled the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008. Its function is to revise the language in UIGEA to better shed light on what is unlawful online gambling.
The bill is intended to adjust the definition of illegal online gambling to sports betting, which is prohibited in 49 out of 50 U.S. States. It also suggests that that the uncertainty in the classification of illegal online gambling has caused genuine companies to depart the U.S. online gambling market and made it impractical to execute UIGEA.
Image of Rep. Pete Sessions
Here is a response to the bill from PPA Chairman, Alfonse D'Amato:
"Congressman Pete Sessions has been and continues to be a good friend to poker players who want the freedom to play America's greatest card game. His dedication to the conservative principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility are unparalleled in the U.S. Congress.
We are, however, puzzled by the introduction of H.R. 6663 and by the purpose of this legislation. While we agree with several findings in the bill that correctly identify the illegality of sports wagering, the PPA remains concerned with the implication H.R. 6663 asserts in that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) has made Internet poker an unlawful activity that needs special protection from prosecution.
Previous federal case law (re: Mastercard 2002) made it clear that existing federal criminal law (WIRE Act of 1961) applies only to Internet sports wagering, and not to Internet poker. Further, the UIGEA itself states, 'No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law.'
Thus, H.R. 6663 only confuses a clear judicial standing on this matter.
American poker players and American financial institutions were not well served by the ambiguity and unclear nature of the UIGEA passed two years ago, and H.R. 6663 does nothing to clarify the UIGEA.
At this critical time for one of America's great pastimes, it is unfortunate that H.R. 6663 in its current form only adds to the existing confusion and contradicts its own rule of construction by implying in its findings that the sites on which millions of Americans currently play are offering poker services in defiance of federal law.
The PPA cannot support this bill in its current form. We will however, continue to advance other legislative priorities that Rep. Sessions supports, such as H.R. 2610, which recognizes poker as a game of skill and preserves the right of adults to enjoy poker on the Internet."