Tension Rises at Congressional Hearing on Poker Bill

Sparks flew Wednesday at a Congressional hearing on Representative Barney Frank’s (D-MA) online poker bill, a piece of legislation that would regulate and legalize the online gaming market in the United States.

Discussion on the bill, named HR 2267, featured a panel of experts, including Annie Duke, who appeared at the hearing to represent the Poker Players Alliance. Duke spoke out in favor of the bill, which drew the ire of Representative Spencer Bacchus (R-AL).  Bacchus, perhaps the most stringent opponent of the bill, at one point compared poker players to heroin addicts.

The tension reached its highest point when Bacchus pointed out Duke’s affiliation with UltimateBet.com, as well as the scandal that effected UB and Absolute Poker several years ago. Duke responded by correcting Bacchus on the details of the scandal, and by pointing out that federal regulation may have prevented the situation from becoming as damaging as it had.

“The site self-regulated and refunded all the money to its customers,” said Duke. “I would prefer to have something like HR 2267 so that the government could oversee that regulation. I think that the customers of that site were lucky that they were playing under a site with new management that behaved in an honest way and refunded them.”

Several issues were brought up by opponents of the bill, and those who were uncertain about certain aspects of the legislation. Several legislators, including Bacchus, were concerned about age-verification methods that would be used to prevent underage gambling. Panelists pointed out that while the methods weren’t fool proof, many industrialized nations such as the United Kingdom had implemented systems that were largely successful. Frank questioned the motives of those bringing up the protection of children as an issue, claiming that they were using children as a politically convenient excuse to ban all gambling for adults.

Frank’s bill, which currently has 69 co-sponsors, is expected to be brought back to committee for a mark-up and vote in the near future. Should the committee vote in the bill’s favor, it would then potentially move on to the full House of Representatives for consideration.