Commending the US Congress Hearings

Monday, April 07, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Written by Daniel O

Of all the recent news stories and developments that we have reported on our news pages recently, one stands out. Whether we be located in Europe, South Africa, China or the moon, last week's Congress Hearings in Washington, DC are significant. They are also worth our response, here on this blog entry.

First off the bat, we would like to commend the House Financial Services Committee and its Chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, for holding this important meeting. The subject is far too important, not only for the millions of online gamblers in the United States, but for reasons that include free speech and trade.

The discussion, at this level, was long awaited. That is even more obvious today, after we got the chance to hear the banking industry officials, who complained about the unfair burden laid on them under the current ban.

(For quotes from the witnesses visit my summary of the day article.)

While their criticism is directed at the regulations that were on the Congress table that day, well over a year since the ban itself was passed in late 2006, our criticism is on the law itself.

As for the hearings themselves, the topic of today's blog, they served us, the gambling community, well. From allowing a mainstream stage for the establishment - feds and banking officials - to voice its aversion of the ban and the way it is handled, to the widespread media coverage that brought the contested subject to the public's computer screen (and TV and newspapers), especially after the ban was passed stealthily under the Safe Port Act at the time.

Several other questions were raised thanks to the hearings. What with horse racing? How come it was excluded from the ban? Is it not a form of gambling? We thought it was... And poker? Is it a game of skill, thus more appropriately legal than, say, state lotteries, or is it a form of chance game strictly?

As things went until last week, the details were, well, "ugly" in the words of our friend J Todd. Which leaves us a little scared to ask for more. But at the end of the day, we encourage debate and believe the hearings were an important, if first, step.