Bill Moves Forward To Re-Legalize Online Poker

from the ante-up dept

Thu, Sep 18th 2008 6:02am — Mike Masnick

Looks like having poker lobbyists setting poker tables at both presidential conventions this year was effective. A new bill is successfully moving its way through Congress that would effectively re-legalize online poker, reversing a law passed two years ago that made it illegal for financial institutions to accept payment for online gambling (all in the name of national security, of course). Of course, the new legislation would also add some regulations to online gambling, banning wagers on sports -- though, of course carving out an exception for the time of sports gambling that politicians engage in: jai-lai, horse racing and dog racing -- which would remain legal). Rep. Barney Frank who introduced the bill, noted: "Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do." Of course, if that's the case, why can't they also wager on sports? Either way, considering the number of folks who have jumped through all sorts of hoops to continue playing poker online, this seems like a step in the right direction.

Filed Under: barney frank, online poker, poker

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Nick, 18 Sep 2008 @ 6:20am

Good for Copyright Owners
Great news. If it goes through then maybe the US can get rid of that ridiculous WTO judgment that gives Antigua the right to infringe $20 million in US copyrights a year. Yay for creative types.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kiba, 18 Sep 2008 @ 6:31am

Yay. The lobbyists are actually doing something right for once.

Damn the government for restricting a voluntary activity that harms no one.(unless one gamble too much but that's your own fault)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanC, 18 Sep 2008 @ 6:44am

Re: Good for Copyright Owners
maybe the US can get rid of that ridiculous WTO judgment that gives Antigua the right to infringe $20 million in US copyrights a year. Yay for creative types.

The judgment wasn't any more ridiculous than the US basically retroactively changing the terms of a treaty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NeoConBushSupporter, 18 Sep 2008 @ 7:07am

Who Cares . . .
Have you seen the market recently, who the hell has money to gamble with anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Sep 2008 @ 7:12am

Re: Who Cares . . .
Have you seen the market recently, who the hell has money to gamble with anymore?
Uhhh, what the hell is "the market" other than legalized gambling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JB, 18 Sep 2008 @ 7:24am

Adults and their money
"Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do," Frank has said in explaining his effort to enable citizens to engage in some forms of gambling online.

Well then shouldn't this bill also allow credit card companies to process payments for prostitutes and marijuana?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
derr., 18 Sep 2008 @ 7:27am

He meant the economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DarkDancer, 18 Sep 2008 @ 7:49am

Re: Adults and there money
"Well then shouldn't this bill also allow credit card companies to process payments for prostitutes and marijuana?"

Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris S, 18 Sep 2008 @ 8:00am

Re: Adults and their money
Right on! As long as no one is getting hurt more than they want, the government should stay the f@#k out of the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger, 18 Sep 2008 @ 8:09am

Re: Re: Adults and there money
They allow payments for marriage and cigerets and they're much worse than prostitutes and marijuana.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bb, 18 Sep 2008 @ 8:16am

Re: Adults and their money
that's the point of the bill. payment systems shouldn't be the ones policing the activities of citizens. i personally don't want my bank or CC provider to have to be the cop here. banks are having a hard enough time right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HFC, 18 Sep 2008 @ 8:55am

A step in the right direction.
This is a step, but a small step. Why restrict gambling at all? The bill should allow for all types of online gambling. Why can't I bet on a football game, if I want to? Why horse and dog racing, but not human races? I should be able to place a wager on outcomes of TV game shows, golf tournaments, jai-lai, elections or the weather if I want to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mischab1, 18 Sep 2008 @ 9:29am

Vote on this bill
Is it just me, or do people automatically vote against a bill without paying much attention.

This is the 2nd TechDirt article I've seen recently that was for a bill, where the majority of the comments were also for the bill, but the vote survey was against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 18 Sep 2008 @ 9:36am

Re: Vote on this bill
Is it just me, or do people automatically vote against a bill without paying much attention.

Heh. I was just noticing the same thing... Who knows...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 18 Sep 2008 @ 9:58am

Re: Vote on this bill
The kneejerk reaction doesn't really surprise me, given that so much legislation over the past few years has been so completely anti-consumer, anti-freedom, anti-citizen. If you don't feel like wading through the legalese, voting "No" seems like a safe bet.

Just the same, though, if you don't have an informed opinion, maybe voting ain't your bag?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser, 18 Sep 2008 @ 10:20am

Re: Vote on this bill
This is the 2nd TechDirt article I've seen recently that was for a bill, where the majority of the comments were also for the bill, but the vote survey was against it.

Don't take this the wrong way but the oversimplified "for/against" mentality is one of the more dangerous aspects of politics. It's what leads to pithy sound bites rather than substantive statements.

For example, you can be against online gambling restrictions and still not be for this bill because you disagree with the exceptions. If you vote yes for what you consider to be a fatal compromise, then you basically give up on your chance to get the bill you really want passed.

Maybe there's already a way to do this, but I would like the ability to not only look up how my representatives vote, but their reasons. How hard would it be to allow for a (short) optional Reason field when voting? (I know. I know. Harder than you'd think.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill, 18 Sep 2008 @ 10:28am

On Line Gambling
Oh great. . .another avenue for our money to go offshore and turn around and cry foul. Who is sponsoring the bill? We as a country are doomed.
Bill
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mischief, 18 Sep 2008 @ 10:36am

Really Frank?
Where does a socalist like Barney Frank get off saying that adults can spend their money as they wish while he wants to tax the shit out of us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no more bills (profile), 18 Sep 2008 @ 11:11am

Re: On Line Gambling
Or you could see it as an attempt to ON-SHORE a multi-billion dollar industry, instead of driving it offshore and underground.

Just saying the major online poker providers started out as US companies, and moved to "friendlier" climes to circumvent the laws only after they were forced to.

Again, I'm struck by a realization (that I'm sure NO ONE has EVER had before): "Prohibition creates crime!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
greg, 22 Sep 2008 @ 10:37pm

You can play this but not that
Just let people do what they want with their money, bodies, property, and everything else they own. Let them wager on the amount of preciptation in the upcoming season if they so choose. Unnecessary rules and regulations are unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyryl, 23 Sep 2008 @ 10:46pm

Re: Who Cares . . .
Ummm... Doesn't it occur to you that the reason NO ONE has any money...is because there is no economy?

And WHY do you suppose that is?

STUPID SHIT such as banning gambling. Especially online. What you don't seem to know is that a good deal of that money actually goes into our now-shitty economy.

You're putting the cart before the horse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyryl, 23 Sep 2008 @ 10:49pm

Re: Adults and their money
Ummm... NO.

Because those are COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES.

Idiot. Don't be so ignorantly opposed to something that DOESN'T HURT YOU in ANY way; but you can actually BENEFIT from when money is flowing back into our economy.

You WREAK of conservatism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyryl, 23 Sep 2008 @ 10:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Adults and there money
Umm... Last I checked...

...people GENERALLY try to AVOID marrying people who have venereal diseases. HOW is a prostitute any better than marrying someone you [should be able to] trust?

Wow. Plenty of stupid people out lately...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2008 @ 10:11am

anyone know when this damn bill would take affect if passed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 29 Sep 2008 @ 4:27pm

Bill Moves Forward To Re-Legalize Online Poker
I'm all for it as lone as gambling winnings are taxed just like the lotto and casino winning. Land of the free but you can't play online poker??? Talk about big government.
The states rip citizens off every day with their lotto and scratchoffs but we can't play online poker?
Where is the justice? Power to the people...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam C, 19 Nov 2008 @ 12:11am

Re: Adults and their money
Absolutely. Even though It seems you were just after some sort of clever quip, you hit on an important topic. People have every right to do what they want, as long as it does not harm themselves. Certainly playing poker online fits within this category.

If prostitutes wish to sell their body for money, that is their business. Who are you to judge.

And by the way, tobacco deaths this year were over 440,000. Marijuana deaths were 0, just as they were for each of the previous 5000 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darmo, 19 Apr 2009 @ 5:21pm

Talking
"If prostitutes wish to sell their body for money, that is their business. Who are you to judge"

Yes , evan prostitutes (not all) may be good woman :) ..and she "sell" only body , but this is questionable at all.

Tabacco vs Marijuana is not questionable , Tabacco kill me and all people who smoking that ... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2009 @ 11:16am

I dont know how they could say no to legalizing online poker. Legalizing online poker could potentially generate up to $52 billion dollars for the U.S economy in the next 10 years. Not to mention our freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]