PPA - Take the Battle To The States

[BluffTHIS!]

It seems clear to me as I said in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7485651&page=0&vc=&PHPSE SSID=#Post7485651) about the states allowing their own residents (only) to play poker online *if* that state legalizes same *within* it borders, that they can do so. So now I believe the first step in any long route to overturning the just passed bill nationally, is to focus on getting individual states to allow intra-state poker online. Of course this isn't going to be an easy sell, even in states with casinos maybe if those casinos feel that detracts from visits to their establishments where they would rather we played crap like blackjack and craps.

But, nonetheless, the fact that poker is such an authentic and historic american game, along with states having an insatiable demand for tax revenue, might make same feasible. And this perhaps could be coupled with efforts to legalize not only such intra-state poker online, but also cardrooms. There is already an organization that has a webpage dedicated to such legalization of cardrooms in Texas. The more states that would legalize either B&M rooms or online ones, then the more likely others would be to follow.

So PPA prez, I suggest you give this serious consideration and target some states for such an effort. We all will have to be prepared to back you financially in such efforts, with the full realization our own states might be low on the totem pole. But besides ND where a state senator is already trying to do this, surely some other legislators in other states would be willing to consider it.

We want poker legal in private homes, B&M cardrooms and online from sea to shining sea. And it has to start on the state level.

[BluffTHIS!]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[satya]

They say all politics is local. If several states had regulated/legalized online gambling I suspect Kyle et.al. would have had a much tougher time getting something like this passed - assuming they would even had tried.

Please, everyone, you are not powerless in this. We could have stopped this a LONG time ago by ousting the Fascists who pushed it.

Register to vote. (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/) Then do it. This year and every year.

Get info on local races (http://www.uselections.com/). It is critical to be informed. Know the issues. Know the candidates. Vote. This year and every year.

Please, PLEASE, especially if you are in the under 30 crowd, VOTE!!!! You people could quite possibly altered the outcome in '00 and perhaps '04 if more had voted. Less than half the registered 18-24 registered voted in '04. Not much more, only 55%, in the 25-34 range.

This legislation passed the house because the majority of people who vote are the those who think it's a good idea, have no opinion, and/or were uninformed. THEY elected Kyle, Goodlatte, Frist etc.

We could very well have prevented this from happening by simply knowing the candidates, knowing the issues, and voting.

Let's not be here a few years from now bitching about something else we let them do.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
They say all politics is local. If several states had regulated/legalized online gambling I suspect Kyle et.al. would have had a much tougher time getting something like this passed - assuming they would even had tried.

Please, everyone, you are not powerless in this. We could have stopped this a LONG time ago by ousting the Fascists who pushed it.

Register to vote. (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/) Then do it. This year and every year.

Get info on local races (http://www.uselections.com/). It is critical to be informed. Know the issues. Know the candidates. Vote. This year and every year.

Please, PLEASE, especially if you are in the under 30 crowd, VOTE!!!! You people could quite possibly altered the outcome in '00 and perhaps '04 if more had voted. Less than half the registered 18-24 registered voted in '04. Not much more, only 55%, in the 25-34 range.

This legislation passed the house because the majority of people who vote are the those who think it's a good idea, have no opinion, and/or were uninformed. THEY elected Kyle, Goodlatte, Frist etc.

We could very well have prevented this from happening by simply knowing the candidates, knowing the issues, and voting.

Let's not be here a few years from now bitching about something else we let them do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all gets a giant LOL. The bill passed 405-2. When it was debated alone in the house, still, 2/3ds of democrats supported an online gambling ban.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I think you're dreaming. Many politicians see online gambling as a social curse (which it is), and those that don't will rarely vote against prohibition, let alone vote FOR a bill that legalizes it AND contradicts federal law.

This is like that thread you made months ago asking Party to fulfill a list of requests - I was spot on there too. Seriously, save your energy. This is completely out of your hands.

[BluffTHIS!]

Phil,

The law actually allows the states to legalize online gambling within their own borders for their own citizens. See thread below on this. And if they can pass lotteries and casino boats they can pass this and B&M cardrooms. But it won't be easy I grant you. You aren't american so you don't give a [censored] but we do.

[Wynton]

I agree that there should be a grass-roots effort at the state level. Despite the margin of victory in Congress, I remain hopeful that on a more local level it could be possible to persuade an occasional state that legalization and regulation is in their interest.

In my view, one reason we're stuck with this legislation is that there was virtually no grass-roots opposition; the organizations that sprung up really were's lobbying groups. Perhaps more of a grass-roots response is possible if directed at the states.

[raise4value]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

The law actually allows the states to legalize online gambling within their own borders for their own citizens. See thread below on this. And if they can pass lotteries and casino boats they can pass this and B&M cardrooms. But it won't be easy I grant you. You aren't american so you don't give a [censored] but we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually your last sentense is really wrong. I am from germany and a member of a huge poker community and we all are worried about the development in the US, because if playing poker online will be banned or whatever: That is what will happen: The good solid winning players will find a way to keep on playing, average Joe( most of the online players) who were our donators will look for another way to waste their money. Games could really dry up.

[BluffTHIS!]

Wynton,

The whole thing to me that we need to stress is citizens playing with citizens in skill based gambling, and not -EV casino house games. For that matter that would include a room that allowed players to bet on any board game they wanted to play as well.

[Wynton]

I agree, again, about trying to distinguish poker from other gambling. And I think State efforts should be comprehensive, addressing poker in all forms.

For example, the strategy could include pushing legislatures to make it clear that poker charity events are legal. Once that is accomplished, we would be one step closer to legalizing and regulating non-charity poker events. The next step might be to make for-profit poker permissible specifically in restaurants or bars. With each of these steps, poker would slowly gain acceptance, both online and in the brick and mortar sense.

An incremental approach may be more appealing to legislators in the end.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, again, about trying to distinguish poker from other gambling. And I think State efforts should be comprehensive, addressing poker in all forms.

For example, the strategy could include pushing legislatures to make it clear that poker charity events are legal. Once that is accomplished, we would be one step closer to legalizing and regulating non-charity poker events. The next step might be to make for-profit poker permissible specifically in restaurants or bars. With each of these steps, poker would slowly gain acceptance, both online and in the brick and mortar sense.

An incremental approach may be more appealing to legislators in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting ideas, Wynton, and ones I think are definitely worthy of further discussion. An incremental, coordinated approach could really make a difference.

[BluffTHIS!]

The biggest obstacle on the state level though I will grant, is that fewer numbers of citizens would want to play poker versus slots or lotteries. So it's only attraction to non-players and the state government is tax revenue, which won't be as much as they gut out of the lotteries.

[BluffTHIS!]

Wynton,

You said this in the stickied thread:

"Lobbying will not succeed, in my view, without an active grass-roots effort. They need to work together.

Remember, this does not just affect poker players, but many other groups that have an economic interest. "


There are 2 very important points here, one explicit in your statment, and one implicit.

The explicit one is that poker players, sports bettors and bettors on horse racing have a commong ground (and maybe backgammon and other players). But the problem is that opposition to non-horse racing sports betting is more entrenched and the subject of the wire act. The colleges and the NFL don't want sports betting. So unfortunately, they might not be good allies.

The implicit point to me is the whole hypocrisy of gambling laws in the US where some forms are favored and others are not, with hypocritical alliances between anti-gambling forces and the vested intrests of gambling companies who presently are legal. We need to stress that if a state is going to allow a lottery, a casino and a horse/dog track, then it should allow a B&M poker room and an online one as well.

So our best ally is horse racing, as far as getting not just online poker, but unrestricted online horse betting, which is critically needed by the ailing horse racing industry. But sports bettors might be a bad group to ally with unless they themselves (the right to wager campaign) undertake extensive efforts themselves to allay fears of the fixing of sports matches by betting interests in order to help their own cause.

[Bilgefisher]

How hard would it be to get petitions for laws to allow online gambling in an individual state? (If pot smokers can get a marajuana bill to be voted on, why can't we get a poker bill going?)

[MicroBob]

bluff - I'm not entirely sure that it's exactly CLEAR that a state can legalize such forms of online-gambling.
But that thought did occur to me as well that the language MIGHT be able to be interpreted in such a way.

(not the same as saying, "it's clear they can do it" because I'm just not sure that's what it is really saying).

The thought occured to me that California has already deemed poker as a game of skill and has already legalized it.
thus that could be an ideal state for an online-poker legalization challenge as well.
And I sure wouldn't mind (nor would my GF) having to live in California if that's what it came to.

I guess the state just needs to vote Larry Flynt as governor or something (hey, if they elected Schwarzenegger then anything's possible).


North Dakota legislature has also toyed with the idea of regulating and taxing online-poker within their state.
Perhaps if you are interpreting the language of the bill correctly then this opens the door for them to more seriously pursue that.
The thought of living in North Dakota isn't quite as appealing to me.


2+2'er GATHERING and DONKFEST in Fargo!!!
I'm buying!!!

[BluffTHIS!]

MB,

If you read the language of the bill, it's actually pretty clear states can regulate gambling as they wish in their own borders for their own citizens even online. The commerce clause of the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to prohibit such intra-state gambling, but only inter-state or US->foreign gambling.

[sleech]

[ QUOTE ]
MB,

If you read the language of the bill, it's actually pretty clear states can regulate gambling as they wish in their own borders for their own citizens even online. The commerce clause of the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to prohibit such intra-state gambling, but only inter-state or US->foreign gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my read too.The way out is to get a state to allow online poker and problem solved.

[MicroBob]

I believe you are correct.

Reading all that boring language is confusing to me but that's the impression I got as well.

I'm just not 100% certain of that.

I was trying to figure out if they are referring only specifically to their own kinds of state-run games that they have already deemed to be okey-doke or something.

But I do think there's a good chance you are correctly interpreting this aspect which COULD be a pretty good thing.


Would such states be okay to allow gambling with all the Canadians and Europeans on PartyPoker?
Or would they just have to gamble with other residents of their own state?

I'm not sure about that.


If multiple states somehow were to enact such legislation then could they allow residents of those states to gamble with each other?
Kind of like how various state lotteries all get together for a gigantic powerball lottery (I think powerball is in 20 states or something).

If you weren't technically allowed to gamble on Party but were able to get American ONLY sites that could encompass multiple states then it might end up being better then what we had before all this for all I know.


The hypothetical "Harrah's WSOP-Online" of California, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and North Dakota sounds like a nice little fish-fest if you ask me.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bob,

Since this topic isn't the primary one of this thread, you might check out redbeard's "wiggle room" thread a few down which is solely about this intra-state thing.

[satya]

[ QUOTE ]


This all gets a giant LOL. The bill passed 405-2. When it was debated alone in the house, still, 2/3ds of democrats supported an online gambling ban.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had people gotten involved prior, rather than sitting back saying 'it'll never pass', perhaps it wouldn't have passed the house to begin with? We'll never know.

This most certainly is not a right/left thing. I believe it was Spitzer, a Democrat and NY's next Fascist Governor, who started the whole no credit card/paypal thing.

Why do people constantly go into the I'm right your left/wrong BS/I'm a Stepford voter they pimp over at Faux News?

It's not about right/left, conservative/liberal. It's about knowing who you are voting for and then actually taking the 20 minutes it takes to go cast a ballot.

Had those who don't support this sort of legislation gone to the polls and voted the sponsors out of office, maybe, just MAYBE there may not have BEEN legislation of this sort? We'll never know.

Kyl and Goodlatte are (as far as I know) the only one's who've been pushing this sort of thing. They just happen to be Republican. I'd be calling the Fascists if they were Dems because IMO this is Fascist legislation.

Given what it was attached to, I'm not understanding why the margin it passed by is relevant. What's your point exactly?

Go ahead. Laugh all you want. In the end, the jokes on you because that's EXACTLY what they want you to do. Sit here and laugh while they bend you over and you take it. Don't, whatever you do, go vote. After all, this passed by such a large margin. Why bother voting. Right?

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
We could have stopped this a LONG time ago by ousting the Fascists who pushed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fascists? You're blaming socialism for this?

[BlackAndRed]

[ QUOTE ]

Had people gotten involved prior, rather than sitting back saying 'it'll never pass', perhaps it wouldn't have passed the house to begin with? We'll never know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Satya, I think you're tremendously naive. I speak as someone who will vote (when I get my citizenship), and someone who did contact my representatives on this issue.

You are right that party affiliation makes little difference. But most of the time, individual candidate differences are imperceptible. The rules are rigged to favor the existing two major parties. And, since there are only two, logic dictates that the winning strategy will be appealing to the 'median voter', and sheer majoritarianism rules the day. Every pol knows it, and that's why our minority interests as poker players (vs. soccer moms + Christians) will never get any attention.

Also, their platforms are intentionally obscurist, so you can't figure out what they're going to actually do, even if you try. Go back and watch the 2000 debates between Bush and Gore, and tell me whom of them would be more likely to invade Iraq based upon their expressed statements.

You could only make the system somewhat viable by radically reforming election rules (not going to happen), or by a massive increase in voter knowledge (also a no).

So the only other way to get attention is money (bribes). This is likely how we'll be eventually successful, but it will take tremendous bribes to overcome the dispopularity of our cause. Cause, without any cash, our cause is highly -EV for them.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not about right/left, conservative/liberal. It's about knowing who you are voting for and then actually taking the 20 minutes it takes to go cast a ballot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right in theory, but in practice, doing so effectively is almost impossible. The only candidates who'll have clear platforms are non-viable ones (Green, Libertarian).

[cowboy.up]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could have stopped this a LONG time ago by ousting the Fascists who pushed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fascists? You're blaming socialism for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If my old history lessons served me right - fascism (far right) was created on the grounds of combating socialism (far left). Unless I am just unable to read and misunderstood your post.

[PPA President]

Bluff,
We are still going with the hail mary, poker exemption. The state by state approach is interesting. It is going to be difficult even in Vegas to stay within the geographic limitations, and is going to be initially limited to hand held devices at pools, common areas. This approach will probably start in Nevada, but the limitations on ensuring that you are in NV and not CA will require the cooperation of the AG there, and a poker in your home strategy will take some time to establish compliance. I do not doubt that you could do this on a state by state basis, but the legislation does not provide for interstate playing, even between two states in which it is legal. and the server and player must therefore be in the same state.
The best approach is to get the poker carve out in the next 270 days. We do have elections to vote, and poker players should vote for those that opposed this leg. in the house, or who supported the study bill. We hope by the lame duck we will be a larger and stronger group, and with poker players help and voice, get that carve out.
Michael

[PokeReader]

I have been reading and not posting for a long time, but I think I have a few points that might clarify a few things.

1. I believe that the bill does not challenge the current murky legality of internet poker itself. The Justice Dept. legal arguement that internet poker is illegal is based on the Wire Act, which prohibited the taking of bets over phone or telegraph lines. They lost in lower federal court and are appealing, however, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that legislative intent for phone lines cannot be use to legislate the internet, new legislation must be written, (the situation of sports-betting is somewhat more precarious). When that case ultimate fails, what they will essenstially have left is that internet poker is legal is some states, but the federal gov't has made it illegal to move money in or out of your account. At the point the companies will have a WTO case that the US gov't is not permitting a legal activity, but that would be many years down the road.


2. If that case fails, under the Interstate Commerce Act, which each state would have the right to make their own regulations for internet gaming. Sadly, without a diffent Congress, they would probably do the same thing they do with the mand 21 drinking age, and the mand speed limit and tie significant federal funds to keeping it illegal.

3. Britain has a reciprocity agreement with the U.S. So Neteller would have a tough time continuing to service poker players. I am sure Justice will pursue filling legal warrants for their info and Britain is required to cooperate by treaty if there is no conflict with British law. Now that there is clear legislation British are almost certain to support Justice's writ. EU privacy laws are very strict, and if there is legal protect there I am sure it is stronger for players not transfering after the law takes effect. No doubt another player will come forward in a country unwilling to service their agreement with the US. Sadly, the main effort of this has been to make everything less secure, private, safe, and profitable for American poker players.

4. The majority of Democrats did not want to pass this bill, but Frist attached it to the Port Security bill. The Rep. thought it would appeal to their base voters who they have lost ground with since the last election. It takes a majority vote to strip it out, and the Dems don't have one. There is no way that anyone is voting against Security ANTHING one month before a tight mid-term.

5. Not to mention, the forces that should have been against this bill, internet poker, Neteller, the WPT, Harrah's, the poker magazines, the big internet pros, etc..., put forth the most pathetic lobbying and public affairs effort I've ever seen considering there was more than a year's warning and a 6 Billion plus market at stake. There is one gaming association lobbying on this and other gaming issues and they donated a total of $57K to Congressional candidates, http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00309146. None of the foreign companies registered and lobbied, although they had the right, as foreign companies doing business in the US.

6. As someone who runs political campaigns for a living, full disclosure here I'm a Dem, I would hope that though they have not worked together yet, in some offshore location there will be a warcouncil meeting. This is exactly what happens if the oil, or defense industry really need something. A big roung table with the internet gaming companies, Neteller, the banking industry, (there because repeal is cheaper than tracking all those transactions for years), WPT,(potentially bankrupt now without being able to qual people over the internet), Harrah's, ESPN, Fox, Travel Ch, GSN,(no more juice poker ad buys), the players' assoc., and the poker magazines. They should have some really smart political, public affairs, and legal folks and make a plan. They have five weeks. The Republicans will never repeal this, they wrote the bill! In their terms they need to get the Dems to win at least one house, and to be crucial enough to that effort to make repeal a top priority when the new Congress comes back, and to get the Dems to agree to push it however necessary. The handy thing there is that the Dems are dead broke, so the potential of a really significant group of people willing to make major donations in key races would have alot of leverage. They should also start a public affairs campaign to promote regulated legalized internet gaming. Start a grassroots campaign to use poker players to promote repeal. By the way, writing to your own local official is more effective that writing to Frist. Using real paper is best. Contrary to what some people have posted, more than 80% of people support legalizing poker, including on the internet - we just aren't using them. All those industry folks would kick in a share for the cost of the operation, and if anyone thinks the millions it would cost are a waste, just of what happened to everyone's real equity today. Longer term we should have an established PAC and work on referedum campaigns on a state by state basis to clear up the states which have prohibited internet gambling.

I am kicking myself some for not getting involved earlier, but I admit I didn't really want my name associated, because Southern states can be kind of hawkish about gambling, and I thought there must be some kind of lobbying effort I couldnt see. I'm afraid the foreign companies were afraid of flooding money in, and the players just seem to think if you explain to Washington enough times why it's a bad idea they'll figure it out. Sadly it doesn't work that way, if there is money on the other side, (and it helps them win) /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, and you only have what's right, you only win if you are really loud, and we weren't. I wish it didn't work that way, but that's why I only do elections and won't work in the government.