Frank introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA) in April to modify the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).
The UIGEA was quietly passed in October 2006, attached to the Safe Port Act that President Bush signed to enhance U.S. port security.
“What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security? Absolutely nothing,” said Republican Shelley Berkley at a House meeting.
She still voted for the bill because she said it addressed other security issues of actual importance. But she said the gaming provision was a partisan game that far right Republicans played conveniently right before an election.
The act affects credit-card and money-transfer companies more than individuals, since it does not prohibit online betting but rather makes funding those bets illegal.
Some say the bill addresses concerns like age verification, money laundering issues, tax collection, and gambling addiction, a view that is supported by the government funded study Internet Gambling, an Overview of the Issues.
As it pertains to gambling addiction, the law does no harm but it doesn’t help either, said Keith Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling in an interview with PBS. He said if you’re trying to help somebody with a gambling problem, as many backers of the legislation say, making it harder for them to gamble is not the solution because they will find a way.
“This is a health issue and we need funds for prevention education,” which is not provided by the act he said. “It’s a way to address a serious problem on the cheap.”
Lawrence Walters, a lawyer for online gambling companies, has gone further to say that yes it does do harm.
“Prohibition has never worked to address any kind of compulsion or addiction and it isn’t going to work here,” he told PBS. “In fact it’s going to reduce the amount of money that’s available for problem gambling programs.”
Large companies used to donate money to problem gambling efforts, but are now being replaced with smaller companies that can’t afford to do that, he explains.
At a press conference, Frank said he is concerned that the act violates America’s obligation under the World Trade Organization. “It's interesting, some of my colleagues tell us we can’t interfere with the WTO for global warming or the rights of workers, but are perfectly prepared to ignore it on behalf of interfering with people’s right to gamble,” he said. We have no right to censure the leisure time of individuals, he added.
Last month Frank chaired a hearing by the House Financial Services Committee called "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?" Expert witnesses testified that regulation is indeed possible on all levels of concern: age verification, money laundering issues, tax collection, and gambling addiction.
The hearing came the day after fellow Republican Robert Wexler introduced his own Skill Game Protection Act, to legalize online gaming. He questioned the “uneven state of the law” at the meeting, asking why current laws still allow people to place bets on horse racing and to play the state lottery online.
