The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing yesterday morning entitled, “Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers“. Annie Duke’s testimony has gotten particularly good reviews. It definitely helps to portray poker as a wholesome pursuit when a witness can open her testimony with, “As a mother of four who supports her family as a professional poker player….” Annie followed up her testimony with an online chat session for the Washington Post, addressing issues such as the fairness of online versus casino gaming and specifically the recent Absolute Poker scandal.
On a lighter note, I’ve found it both amusing and a little troubling to watch all of the young American poker players on 2+2 encountering the US legislative process for the first time. When the UIGEA was first introduced, many did not understand the bicameral system and grossly overestimated the importance of this issue to the general public. Some asked if it wouldn’t be possible to convince President Bush to veto the bill, as though he would use his first veto on Port Security legislation (to which the UIGEA was attached as a rider). This quote from the 2+2 Legislation Forum sums up quite nicely the general sentiment among them now: “watching these old farts make decisions based on ablsolutely outdated ideas and principals makes me wish there was an age limit to run for congress…”