The House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology hearing for implementing some teeth into the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) began yesterday with a resounding thud of negativity of those who would be burdened by the job of enforcing the ambiguous law.

The banks.

One wouldn't think that stepping into a bank to make a withdrawl or deposit that their transaction should come any scrutiny because the funds MIGHT be linked to online gambling. People like Congressman Spencer Bachus would like you to think that online gambling/poker is bad because "74% of internet gamblers have become addicted and many of those have turned to crime". Awesome! Since I'm not political savvy, I wonder if someone else like Rep. Barney Frank, who has been the loudest voice of dissent on the UIGEA, could have asked Bachus to simply cite his sources on such numbers. But, the banks are the ones making the most noise. Not because banks are pro-gambling, but as a neutral business front who is be forced to bend their daily business to the will of those who feel gambling on the internet is immoral. Several representatives of the banking community voiced their resounding negative attitudes towards this law because banks are a business not the police. In other words, the banks are being pressured to become the law by sifting through billions of transaction records to sniff out those with POSSIBLE ties to online gambling.

The law's author Bill Frist couldn't even be bothered to show up and plead his case as to why in face of a banking crisis he wants to pour even more burden into the system over something that most responsible Americans view as entertainment. This is just the crust of the argument; please check out the links provided by UpForPoker to get the whole story.

UIGEA Live Blog

AP

Hard-Boiled Poker