There was already too much legislation floating around. To add to that the Republican from Texas, Pete Sessions, introduced a new bill named the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6663).

The stated intent of the Bill is to offer an understanding of the objectives of the UIGEA

However in reality it overlooks, and thus accords legitimacy to, UIGEA’s most glaring defect, which is the lack of a workable definition for “unlawful Internet gambling”.

The introduction of this Bill has come as a surprise because only last week four Republican Congressmen wrote openly to the heads of the Federal Reserve Board and U.S. Treasury requesting them to hold the framing of the regulations for the implementation of the UIGEA till a clear and unambiguous definition for “unlawful Internet gambling” was arrived at. They had indicated that the vagueness in the language of the Bill would lead to needless legal claims later on.

H.R. 6663 is silent on the issue of the definition for “unlawful Internet gambling”. In fact it tries to bypass this issue by claiming that the UIGEA is intended to prohibit online sports betting. It may be recalled that professional sports leagues such as the NFL were one of the main backers of the UIGEA. In this context it appears that this Bill interprets all other forms of Internet wagering as legal. It specifically states, “No provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as clarifying or implying that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers, which were accepted subsequent to October 13, 2006, are in violation of Federal law.” However H.R. 6663 contradicts this through another statement incorporated in the bill that reads, “Federal Internet gambling prosecutions have involved sports betting, creating a lack of authoritative court decisions on the applicability of other federal criminal statutes to US poker sites and US casino style gambling.” A bill whose intent is to clarify an earlier act has only made the existing mess messier.  

The Poker Players Alliance has as expected come out against the bill. The Alliance’s chairman, Alfonse D’Amato, has pointed out that online poker has not been declared illegal either under the UIGEA or under other existing gambling related laws. Therefore he is surprised and angered that poker has been clubbed with other illegal sports wagering. D’Amato says, “…the PPA remains concerned with the implication H.R. 6663 asserts in that the [UIGEA] has made Internet poker an unlawful activity that needs special protection from prosecution.

The relevant existing federal criminal law, WIRE Act of 1961, applies only to sports wagering, and not to Internet poker. This has been made amply clear in the case of Mastercard 2002. The UIGEA 2006 very clearly states, “No provision of this law shall be construed as altering, limiting or extending any Federal or State law.” Therefore the attempt of H.R. 6663 in bringing Internet poker within the framework of illegal activity serves only to make the mess messier.

With the Congress now on a break and having only one more session before the elections in November all UIGEA related legislation is hanging in a limbo.