A lawsuit filed in Washington D.C. on May 19, 2008 by freelance journalist Ed Brayton alleges that the United States Government is illegally withholding transcripts of its World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement concerning online gaming.
The saga of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) has now lasted more than 18 months and promises to get much more controversial before it is over with. It began in September of 2006 when then House Majority Leader Bill Frist tried to attach the UIGEA to a troop funding bill. This met with heated dissent from ranking members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties – most notably Virginian Senator and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner. Frist removed the bill from the troop funding coattails and, under the guidance of NFL executives, attached the bill to the Safe Port Act of 2006. It was pushed through Congress in less than one month.
Since its passage in October of 2006, the UIGEA has come under attack from a number of interested parties ranging from the governmental in Rep. Barney Frank to the private in journalist Ed Brayton. Following the announcement of undisclosed fines agreed with the WTO and widely thought to be in the billions of dollars, Brayton petitioned the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for transcripts of meetings held between the World Trade Organization, multiple distinct US government entities and the European Union. These meetings are believed to spell out the connection between the seemingly arbitrary nature of the UIGEA’s main targets (funds for online poker are deemed illegal; however funds for fantasy sports and horseracing remain legal,) the billions in penalties the US has paid to multiple nations (including Antigua and the EU) and the international corporate interests involved. Brayton’s petition filed under the Freedom of Information Act in October 2007 was met with this now infamous response from the USTR in February of 2008:
Please be advised that the document you seek is being withheld in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), which pertains to information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.
This response prompted Rep. Peter DeFazio to circulate a letter through both the House and the Senate urging a release of the transcripts on questions. Here is an excerpt from DeFazio’s letter:
There is a concern that the USTR may have been ambitious in its use of a 'national security' classification to avoid any publicity of which new business sectors are to be subject.
For his part, Brayton has responded to the original “National Defense” denial with a formal lawsuit under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act. Public Citizen Attorney, Bonnie I. Robin-Bergeer has agreed to represent Mr. Brayton should the lawsuit make it to court. Obin-Vergeer on the US government’s recent actions and specifically on her client’s denial:
Americans have a right to know what kinds of trade concessions the U.S. government is granting other countries, especially when those deals have a significant impact on domestic policy and may be worth billions of dollars.
The Bush administration’s decision to withhold the agreement under the Freedom of Information Act has more to do with its desire to prevent public and congressional scrutiny of the settlement before it is enshrined in a new WTO schedule than it does with national security. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requires the agreement’s release.
No agreements have been publically reached between Mr. Brayton and the USTR so it seems likely that the suit will find its way to court.
