Congress Sat on Their Hands While the World Passed Online Gambling Laws

The incompetence of the United States Congress might be almost endearing if it didn’t have such significant real-world consequences.

Observing Congress fumble over the simplest issues is comparable to witnessing the slightly dim-witted boy next door attempting to construct a makeshift ramp in front of his basketball hoop. As he explains his plan to dunk a basketball while on his BMX bike to his younger sibling, it’s more or less certain you’ll be shaking your head in disbelief shortly. I can neither confirm nor deny the occurrence of the aforementioned scenario.

But what if it wasn’t the neighbor’s kid? What if you managed your household like Congress governs the country?

Can you picture a domestic scenario where, rather than planning your bill payments ahead of time as most people do, you choose to delay until the eleventh hour for all your bills, pay them physically, and sometimes even request unnecessary extensions?

Suppose you ask your spouse whether they want chicken or steak for dinner, and they reject both options. It’s as if whatever you decide to cook is always overruled or deliberately blocked, much like your spouse constantly switching off the stove every time you turn it on.

Consider this, if your home functioned like Congress, any significant decision would simply be postponed until the following year. Decisions such as attending Aunt Martha’s wedding, taking a vacation, or buying a new TV.

This would be a place where nothing is ever accomplished. When temporary solutions are adopted, like picking up a discarded TV from the roadside instead of buying a new one, they often lead to further complications, such as your “free” TV being a wasp nest.

This is the situation with Congress and online gambling.

They’ve had chances

Congress had ample opportunity to take action on this issue through regulation, prohibition, or a compromise such as a poker-only bill. However, they chose to complicate matters with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and have since failed to make any significant moves. This lack of action prompted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to intervene and rule that states could make their own decisions on the matter as a temporary solution.

As we find ourselves in 2014, we’re witnessing countries such as Mexico, Portugal, Bulgaria, the Bahamas, and numerous others, taking a definitive stance on online gambling – be it for or against. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress remains idle, not taking any action. In John McCain’s case, he even plays a free-money online poker app during hearings.

It makes no sense.

Online gambling has garnered both support and opposition, making it a substantial matter rather than a trivial ‘should we build a Death Star’ debate. This issue pertains to a multi-billion-dollar industry and poses questions such as, ‘how should we regulate online gambling?’ This is precisely why we elect legislators – to make these complex decisions.

Regrettably, they are hesitant to tackle such issues (issues that tug their ideology in diverse directions) due to their fear of losing even a single vote. In the perspective of Congress, it’s preferable to stay idle and not please anyone, rather than take measures and pass a law that would satisfy some and infuriate others.

Here’s a glance at some of the overlooked opportunities.

Congress could have acted anytime from 2008-2011

Following the UIGEA, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) emerged as a strong advocate for the poker world. He proposed a series of online gambling bills in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

From 2008 to 2010, Frank’s bills progressively gained more support each year. His Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (HR 2267) was passed by the House Financial Services Committee, which he chaired, in 2010 by a vote of 41-22-1.

Regrettably, the bill never made it to the House of Representatives for a vote, and since then, online poker/gambling bills have never progressed beyond this stage.

Congress should have acted in 2011/2012

After the de facto cessation of online poker due to Black Friday, and the formation of the Department of Justice’s new interpretation of the Wire Act and online gambling later that year, Congress was virtually given a carte blanche to legalize or prohibit online gambling. The DOJ essentially circumvented Congress (since they were not addressing the issue) and challenged them to act if they disagreed with their proposal.

With Black Friday clearing the deck, everything was perfectly aligned for them. Joe Barton even introduced a bill (HR 2366) that could have been considered.

They decided to knock the silver platter from the host’s hand and abruptly leave the room.

Congress could have acted in 2012

In 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), the architect of UIGEA, proposed a poker-only bill. However, the idea never progressed beyond the discussion phase.

Congress could have acted in 2013

In 2013, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) succeeded Barney Frank as the Congressional advocate for online poker. He introduced the Internet Poker Freedom Act of 2013 (HR 2666), a poker-only bill.

Barton’s bills have received little attention in Congress, unlike those offered by Rep. Frank.

Congress could have acted this year

Currently, there are two bills (Sheldon Adelson’s RAWA bills) in the Senate and the House of Congress, proposing to ban online gambling. Given that Congress appears hesitant to enact bills legalizing online gambling, can we get a vote on these banning bills instead?

Even the two men who introduced the bills, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), don’t seem very eager to have a vote. Despite frequently discussing the need to ban online gambling publicly, no additional co-sponsors have been added since the bills’ introduction.

I understand that I may not be pleased with the result of a RAWA vote, but the likelihood of that bill getting approval from both houses and the president is extremely low. My preference is for RAWA to be decisively defeated, enabling us to progress towards legalization.

I expect Congress to fulfill their duties, even though the result might not be in my favor. After all, any issues with RAWA could potentially be resolved in the courts.