Advocates of online gambling are feeling pretty good after the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the proposed Restoration of America’s Wire Act, which would ban online gambling.
Reports on sites that cover online gambling are focusing on a number of instances in the hearing when witnesses testifying in support of the bill were questioned and challenged by committee members—something analysts did not expect.
The hearing also heard from some witnesses who oppose the ban.
According to CasinoNewsDaily.com, the hearing focused on whether in-state online gambling options would present more risks to gamblers and as well as creating more law enforcement challenges than land-based casinos. There was also discussion on whether geolocation software—which prevents people from playing in areas outside of state’s where online gambling is legal—have been effective.
What surprised many observers was the fact that some committee members seemed to challenge witnesses who said online gambling was a threat and seemed very knowledgeable about the issues.
Pokernews.com, for example, pointed to an exchange between Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Joseph Campbell, assistant director for the Criminal Investigations Division of the FBI. Coleman challenged Campbell for detailing problems with unregulated gambling sites without noting whether regulated sites in New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware have seen the same issues.
According to the site, she then asked Campbell for any record of instances of online gaming being used for illegal activities in a regulated U.S. market, to which he said he did not have any specific details.
“The evidence clearly demonstrates that with proper regulation, in-state online gambling poses no more challenges to law enforcement or risk to consumers than brick and mortar casinos,” Watson Coleman said.
Other committee members also challenged witnesses on the issue of whether a federal ban would infringe on state’s rights.
Pokernews.com also reported that the bill’s sponsor, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz had a heated sidebar with some of his Republican colleagues, according to Poker Players Alliance (executive director John Pappas, who attended the hearing.
“It’s very unusual to see the chairman of a committee lose such control over an issue that he cares about,” Pappas said. “For us, that was very gratifying to see. We went into his home turf and we beat him every which way. I think our team and our side’s preparation and knowledge helped educate a lot of members to ask tough questions, and it led to a hearing I don’t think Mr. Chaffetz expected.”
Chaffetz, however, repeated his opposition to online gambling.
“The result is now anything connected to the internet—desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones—no matter your age, potentially becoming a casino,” Chaffetz said according to PokerNews.com. “I’ve got a problem with that. I think the country’s got a problem with that, and it certainly needs vetting and discussion. And, again, if you want to make a change, come to Congress, introduce a bill, and make a change.”
Online gambling was seen as being outlawed in the U.S. under the Wire Act of 1961 until a decision by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2011 that the act only referred to gambling across state lines and that individual states could allow legal online gambling within their borders. New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware then approved online gambling.
If Chaffetz’s bill and a companion bill in the U.S. Senate introduced by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham become law, online gambling would be banned throughout the country, including states that have already approved it.
RAWA is seen as the brainchild of Las Vegas Sands owner Sheldon Adelson, who is personally financing a lobbying effort for the bill. Adelson—who is a substantial contributor to Republican candidates—has said online gambling will lead to underage and problem gambling and hurt land-based casinos.
Chaffetz had titled the hearing “A Casino in Every Smartphone – Law Enforcement Implications,” but most reports—almost all of which came from online sites that cover gambling—said the committee members seemed to have been more informed and more critical of witnesses than expected.
The bill was not voted on by the committee and is not expected to move forward by the end of this year.
In some other developments, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt sent a letter to the committee ahead of the hearing saying he still wants Congress to review the Wire Act, but lawmakers also must also account for “Nevada’s robust regulated and licensed gaming manufacturing and casino resort economy,” according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Law enforcement organizations—which have opposed the bill saying it will only aid unregulated and illegal sites—also continued their opposition.
“Passage of RAWA would put consumers at risk and undermine the efforts of law enforcement as we seek to protect our citizens from Internet-related crimes. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose the bill,” said National Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury. “Our members have followed the success of regulation in a number of States with legal online gaming marketplaces and as a result we remain resolute that regulation and associated technologies provide the necessary safeguards to protect vulnerable populations like children and problem gamblers, enforce state decisions on what gambling is permissible within their borders, and crack down on fraud and other consumer abuses.”
State Chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police in California, Ohio and Virginia have also come out against the bill.
