Online gambling prohibition: How powerful is the Poker Players Alliance?

Boasting a membership of approximately 30,000, The Poker Players Alliance represents online gambling's best hope of support against online gambling opponents in light of a bill banning the activity which passed the House floor Tuesday.

The Christian Coalition will also have its say in regard to the various exemptions a la horse racing and lotteries, having saved the day for internet gambling during previous years. The Christian Coalition refuses to support any bill to ban online gambling that includes exemptions, making this group a rather odd "friend" to the internet gaming industry.

As The Poker Players Alliance continues to grow, it too should become a major force within political circles, though there are questions concerning whether the non-for-profit organization at this time has enough clout to overcome recent attempts at deriding online gambling.

US legislative moves that could make it illegal for American citizens to play online poker will deprive the government of over $3bn in federal and state revenues, according to The Alliance.

A new study by the Poker Players Alliance, prepared by Judy Xanthopoulos, an economist with Quantria Strategies, noted that the US government would collect a "significant potential source of revenue" if it were to incorporate online poker into the national economy.

"This study validates that the benefits of regulating online poker in the US far exceed the value of prohibiting the activity," said Michael Bolcerek (pictured top left), president of the Poker Players Alliance.

"Internet poker is an incredibly popular pastime for millions of Americans. Keeping Americans away from this game is not only unfair but, as this study shows, would deny state and federal coffers an important source of revenue."

The Poker Players Alliance analysis, which only looks at the impact of regulation and taxation on internet poker, supports the bi-partisan effort in Congress to create a federal commission to examine all online gaming and determine how best it can be regulated within the US.

"Our organisation enthusiastically supports regulation and taxation, rather than an outright ban," said Bolcerek.

Internet gambling is now regulated in over 80 countries and jurisdictions. The UK passed legislation in 2005 to regulate and tax internet gambling.

The House easily approved a bill Tuesday to curb online poker games, sports betting and other forms of Internet-based wagering that have become increasingly popular.

The bill seeks to restrain the booming but difficult-to-regulate Internet gambling business. Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, including by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. None of these opinions have ever been proven.

Critics said the bill overreaches and will be difficult to enforce. The bill also needs to be approved in the Senate, where it is not a priority at this time.

At its heart are two provisions. One would update the 1961 Wire Act, which bars gambling entities from using wire-based communications for transmitting bets, to include the Internet. The other aims at cutting off the money flow from players to Internet gambling sites by barring the use of electronic payments, such as credit-card transactions.

For years now a number of credit card issuing banks have already stopped allowing card usage for online gambling activity. Intermediaries such as NETeller.com and Instadebit work to process failed transactions.

The bill carves out exemptions for horse and dog racing, online lotteries and other games, including fantasy sports leagues, that are legal within state boundaries.

Republican Shelley Berkley was quick to point out the "hidden agendas" contained in the latest proposed legislation to ban internet gambling.

Via AMERICAblog, Berkley issued the following statement:

"When the House considers the poorly-named Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act (Tuesday), I will offer an amendment to eliminate the special exemptions contained in the bill. Regardless of your position on the issue, there is no reason for Congress to pick and choose which types of gaming should be exempted from what is being described as a ban on Internet gaming.

"The bill’s advocates proclaim the immorality of online gaming and shout that it will destroy our society - unless you are betting on horse races. They assert that the bill is neutral on the subject of interstate online pari-mutuel betting. But there is no getting around the fact that this bill very clearly and specifically states that online betting on horseracing is not prohibited.

"The bill also includes another hypocritical exemption - for intrastate lotteries. This is highly ironic because this exemption is exactly what the notorious felon Jack Abramoff wanted when he reportedly orchestrated the defeat of a similar bill several years ago because it had no exemption for lotteries. Mr. Abramoff must be smiling about this turn of events."

Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts said he thought the bill was "outrageous."

"If people want to do something, and it doesn't hurt anybody else, we ought to mind our own business," Frank said on Monday. "This is a bill to tell adults not to do something because people in this body disapprove of what they do."

House lawmakers will debate one proposed amendment, which would eliminate the exceptions in the bill for horseracing and state-owned lotteries. "Let's get rid of all of this if we are going to do it," said Democrat John Conyers of Michigan.

The measure's chances in the Senate this year are unclear, given the Senate's crowded work schedule and its limited amount of time in session before the November elections.

Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said the Republican leadership hoped to bring a similar bill to the floor by the end of this year.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has long championed such a ban, but he has no measure pending this session.

On the Democratic side, minority leader Sen. Harry Reid, a former gaming commissioner from Nevada, has expressed reservations about the ability to regulate Internet gambling.

The Justice Department has always considered online gambling illegal, and the Bush administration expressed overall support for the House bill.

Missing in action is disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff who derailed a similar bill six years ago.

Tom DeLay, who ranked third in the Republican House leadership at the time, voted against the bill, saying that it had unacceptable loopholes to placate regional lawmakers, such as exemptions for horse racing.

Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit Americans from playing poker on the Internet.

"We are disappointed that the House of Representatives would assail the rights of Americans to enjoy the great game of poker on the Internet. It is unconscionable that a skill game like poker gets swept into the net of prohibition, while online horse betting and Internet lotteries get free passes," said Mr. Bolcerek.

"The United States should follow the lead of the United Kingdom by regulating and taxing online poker, not banning it. An economic analysis just released by our organization shows that U.S. regulation of online poker has the potential to raise more than $3.3 billion in annual revenue for the federal government, in addition to another $1 billion for state coffers. We hope that this analysis will give a fresh perspective for U.S. Senators about the benefits of regulation.

"The Poker Players Alliance is undeterred in its mission to promote and protect the game of poker and we will continue to advance the cause on behalf of poker players in the United States."

The Poker Players Alliance is a young grass-roots organization that last month claimed to have just over 27,000 poker-playing members and says it won't be counted out.

Bolcerek says the alliance generated 15,000 protest letters to the Hill, and he continues to lobby lawmakers against the legislation and for another measure that would create a federal commission to study the impact of Internet gambling.

"I know we'll have a stronger voice in a year. We've been building our membership for only five months," Bolcerek said.

The alliance has had some interesting help in that effort.

PartyPoker.com, an online poker site, offered an incentive to its players to join the alliance. Bloggers said the deal was if they paid the $20 membership fee, they would get $25 in their online account -- effectively repaying their fee and giving them a $5 bonus, along with a T-shirt. There was some Web chatter about the deal, with a number of players deciding to join.

"Forgetting whether you get money out of it or not, it's a good thing to do," one player wrote in a poker blog. The player was impressed that he received an e-mail about the legislation and giving the phone number of his congressman.

Bolcerek said PartyPoker.com and some other Web sites "give bonuses for a lot of reasons" and that the issue of online poker legislation is one of them. He said Card Player magazine has also been promoting membership in the alliance, as have some poker tournaments. "It's nice they feel strongly about what we're doing," he said.

Individuals are encouraged to join the Poker Players Alliance Here Membership is just US$20.