March 19, 2012
Dear Mr. Nerney:
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act and the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act. I appreciate hearing the input of avid poker players, like you, on this matter.
As you also know, on December 23, 2011, the Department of Justice announced that the Wire Act only applies against sports betting and, therefore, does not prohibit online poker. In states that ban online poker, however, the Department of Justice is able to prosecute gambling businesses that engage in online poker under theUnlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006. States that allow online gaming, are allowed to regulate it within their borders—so-called intranet gaming.
I have heard from a number of constituents who argue that legalizing and regulating Internet poker on a federal level, across state lines could put gambling providers in a position to set limits on wagers and restrain excess gambling. Additionally, proponents of online poker argue that regulating Internet gambling, instead of criminalizing it, could help reduce fraudulent activity associated with the industry.
In response, Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) introduced H.R. 1174, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act, on May 17, 2011. This legislation would establish a licensing and regulatory framework for various forms of Internet gambling. H.R. 1174 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for further review.
Additionally, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) introduced H.R. 2366, the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act, on June 23, 2011. This legislation would explicitly legalize and regulate poker.H.R. 2366 has also been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security for further review.
With that being said, I understand your support for legalizing Internet poker. I have heard from a number of constituents who argue that legalizing and regulating Internet gambling could put gambling providers in a position to set limits on wagers and restrain excess gambling. Additionally, proponents of amending the bill, argue that regulating Internet gambling, instead of criminalizing it, could help reduce fraudulent activity associated with the industry. I believe that the concerns raised in your correspondence deserve consideration.
On the other hand, as Delaware's former governor, I have concerns that these bills could have adverse effects on the First State. Congressman Barton's bill, for example, includes a provision that gives a two-year monopoly on Internet poker operations to established "brick and mortar" casinos. Delaware's state lottery, which generates up to one fifth of the state's revenue (over $287 million) and operates three casino properties, could not enter the market. At the end of the two-year period, then it is up to the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine if a state lottery can be licensed. Additionally, Congressman Campbell's bill would reduce state revenues by 10 percent because there would be less incentive to participate in traditional state gaming.
Should I get the chance to consider measures that would legalize and regulate Internet gambling in the 112thCongress, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting my office regarding this issue. Please feel free to contact my office in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
