Home
October 30th, 2011
Feds Discuss Online Gambling in America
This week saw a discussion and hearing on American online gambling and the possibility of federal regulation held by a subcommittee of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee. Overall the hearing is being viewed as a positive step forward.
After opening statements by the Subcommittee's chairwoman, the subcommittee on Commerce Manufacturing has six people with different gambling related backgrounds speak about the state of American gambling and what steps should be taken to move the country forward.
Parry Atfab, Chairwoman of the Board of Advisors of FairPlayUSA was the first speaker who used her unbias and logical argument to explain that the present gaming laws needed to be strengthened to protect American consumers. Regulation at a federal level would help prevent such things as Black Friday in the future. As Atfab explained the lack of American laws has players using out of country sites that give them little protection as American consumers. Indeed by not having regulation we were getting all the problems associated with online gaming without being able to do anything about it.
Ernest Stevens, Jr., Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA). spoke next. His focus was the history of tribal based gambling in America and overall offered a negative view of legalizing online gaming. Stevens seemed to be advocating for tribes to reap the benefits of online gaming. He advocated for initial exclusivity to give tribes a leg up before everyone else became involved in the online world. Stevens did state that he thought online gambling should be a tax free pursuit.
Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling offered a neutral opinion on the matter. He did advocate for treatment programs for gamblers in trouble.
Alfonse D’Amato current Chairman of the Poker Players Alliance made it clear that the decision before the federal government was not a moral one but a practical one to protect American consumers. His emphasis was on player funds and preventing minors from online gambling. He did advocate for a state opt out if they so wished.
Kurt Eggert, Professor of Law at the Chapman University School of Law focused his argument on consumer protection. Eggert offered a neutral stance on online gambling but advocated for full disclosure for casino games on and offline. Meaning sharing with gamblers up front their chances of winning on a particular game.
Concluding the witness list was Dan Romer, Associate Director of The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the Director of its Adolescent Communication Institute. Romer voiced his co+ncern regarding underage gambling.
The hearing had no legal outcome but it does provide a foundation to build upon for positive and well research consumer protection laws and Internet gaming regulation. 
