Debate Rages Over Department Of Justice’s Change Of Stance On Wire Act

Following the announcement of the decision last week by the U. S. Department of Justice that the Wire Act of 1961 did not apply to online gaming and poker, many in the poker community trumpeted the clarification of policy. That initial positive response, however, has been tempered over the past week as some of the notable names in the legal community have gone to battle against the top lobbying organization of poker as to the reasons for the change in stance.

The first salvo was fired by noted online gaming attorney I. Nelson Rose, the esteemed Senior Professor at the Whittier Law School and one of the most recognized authorities on online gaming law. Over the past few months, Professor Rose has been particularly harsh on Texas representative Joe Barton, who has the only bill currently in Congress to regulate and firmly legalize online poker in the United States. After the announcement by the DoJ, Professor Rose took to his blog to discuss the issue.

At “Gambling And The Law,” Professor Rose pointed out that, rather than allowing Congress to move forward with federal regulation, the DoJ position change makes it more likely that the states will be first to act. “The reality is that Congressional advocates, like Barney Frank and Joe Barton, have had some of the wind knocked out of their sails,” Professor Rose writes. “Since states are now clearly free to legalize intra-state online poker, and perhaps even interstate, there is not much reason to even bother with a federal law. Only the major operators, like Caesars Entertainment, need a federal law, because they don’t want to be competing with politically connected local gaming companies for a limited number of licenses in 50 states.”

In addition to these comments on his blog, there are accredited quotes from Professor Rose against Rep. Barton that indicate a difference of political opinion. These quotes, which have been heard on several poker podcasts, cast doubt on Rep. Barton’s sincerity in wanting regulated online gaming and his views on the political hot button issue of global warming.

After Professor Rose’s blog posting, the Poker Players Alliance escalated the war of words. They note that a key part of their strategy is to garner support from both Republicans and Democrats for a regulated poker industry in the U. S. and that Rep. Barton has been an advocate in that move. At the end of their statement on the PPA website, the million member strong organization chastises Professor Rose for his attacks on Rep. Barton, stating, “It is the opinion of the Poker Players Alliance that Professor Rose should keep his political attacks on Rep. Barton separate from activities where he is claiming to speak for the poker community.”

The latest continuation in the debate came from Professor Rose’s Facebook page, as he alerted his followers to a recent analysis of the DoJ’s stance by another attorney, K. Preston Oade. That editorial opinion, which appeared on calvinayre.com, took an extensive look at why the DoJ “became literate enough to read (the) words” of the Wire Act in that it only applied to sports betting and how the Barton bill could actually strengthen online poker laws against offshore operators.

Barrister Oade opines that the reversal of the DoJ’s stance on the Wire Act not only relieves the federal government of enforcement of any laws regarding online poker, it also prevents any existing offshore operations from being able to partake of a legalized American online poker industry. “The Barton Bill strengthens the UIGEA with a much broader definition of unlawful online gambling than the Wire Act or the current UIGEA,” Mr. Oade writes. “It defines “internet poker” as a form of “unlawful internet gambling” and would make internet poker illegal without a U.S. license. Unlike the vaguely worded UIGEA, this is fairly clear and enforceable.”

“The Barton Bill requires the government to create and maintain a list of all offshore gambling and poker websites targeted for shutdown,” Mr. Oade continues. “And, given the broader and clearer definition of illegal gambling in the Barton Bill, there would no longer be any significant legal doubt that those offshore sites are illegal under U. S. law.”

Mr. Oade also points out that any currently operating online poker sites, such as PokerStars, would have to commit resources to building a U. S. only operation, much like what exists in France and Italy. Additionally, states have the right to “opt-out” and forbid their residents from playing online poker, which would further reduce a potential player pool. “Because of its recent reversal on the Wire Act, which the UIGEA largely depends on to define what is illegal under federal gambling law, the DOJ needs the Barton Bill,” Mr. Oade finishes. “But poker players no longer need it and should oppose it.”

It is quite likely that the final word in this ongoing debate hasn’t been heard yet. As we enter into a New Year, the potential for online poker’s comeback in the United States is murky, at best.

Related Poker News:

Huge 100% Match Bonus up to $500 Free! Plus $75 Free Refer-A-Friend!

Full screen 3D animated & 2D ("bird's eye") view options, Extra games

Poker lingo:

TURN - The fourth community card in Hold'em.
FULL OF - Describes a full house. "Fives full of queens" is 5-5-5-Q-Q.
DRAWING DEAD - A draw in which it is impossible to obtain a winning hand for any of a variety of reasons: an opponent's hand is better than whatever you are drawing to, the card(s) that make your hand are out of play, or (in Hold'em) give an opponent a stronger hand even if it makes yours. Frequently used in the past tense, since one rarely knows it at the time.
JOKER - A 53rd card in the deck, distinct from the others, used as a wild card or as a BUG.
DEAD MONEY - Money contributed to the pot by players who have folded.
TABLE STAKES - A standard rule whereby during a hand players can only bet the money they have on the table. If the bet to a player is more than the player's stack, that player may call with all his chips and be eligible to win only that portion of the pot he contributed to equally. A side pot is created, for which only the remaining players may compete.

♥ Bookmark Us! ♠

Poker Information