You are in:
One small step forward for online gaming in the USA
If HR 2267 supplants UIGEA, it won't just be a case of one impenetrable abbreviation taking over from another. For behind the cryptic code beloved of bureaucracy lie two pieces of legislation – one in force, the other perhaps not far away from toppling it – which together govern the recent history and potential future of online gambling in the U.S.
UIGEA, of course, is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which in 2006 put a stop to online operators taking the bets of American residents. Cue, in millions of cases, hollow laughter: UIGEA didn't so much stop them gaming as join a raft of legislation that turned them into technical criminals.
And that's one of the arguments mustered by supporters of HR 2267, also known as the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, proposed by the controversially liberal Congressman Barney Frank.
Frank wants online gaming operators to be permitted once again to market their services to U.S. customers, and he found some support this summer from the House Financial Services Committee, which voted 41-22 to approve the bill, although not without amendments – and not without some vocal opposition.
Among its opponents speaking at a two-and-a-half-hour hearing were Congressman Spencer Bachus, who characterised online operators as “criminal offshore gaming interests”, and anti-terrorism consultant Michael Fagan, who warned that “anybody who grew up in America knows someone who went out and bought liquor [while under-age] and the same thing will happen on the Internet”.
While the logic underlying Fagan's prediction may have mystified many, it was persuasive enough to the committee that the modified bill it passed does require online gaming firms to take measures to exclude young people. It also places restrictions on marketing and payment methods, says that operations must take place in the U.S., and gives equal licensing and enforcement authority to states and tribes. And it still doesn't legalise online sports betting.
But for Franks's supporters, the committee's approval will be seen as a significant step ahead, and they are counting on a slowly but steadily spreading acceptance of gambling in the U.S. to ease its passage through the next legislative steps. After all, they reassure themselves, 37 states now have legalised non-lottery gambling, up from just 13 in 1988: surely online's time has come?
Perhaps. But there are still obstacles, including the power of Nancy Pelosi – the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who voted against online gaming in 2006 and who could scupper the Franks bill's chances – and the lack of a clear champion in the Senate. There's also the difficult question of fitting it into the legislative calendar: some predict that if it can't be made law in late September or early October, it won't have a chance until next year.
So it seems like we'll still be trying to pronounce UIGEA for a while. Ouija, anyone?
