IGREA gains six cosponsors

[TheEngineer]

IGREA has just picked up six additional cosponsors, three of whom supported HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. As dying bills don't typically pick up cosponsors, it looks like Rep. Frank is working behind the scenes to push this one through.

If you support IGREA (or even if you don't, but you think we should be on the offensive to build political capital), you may consider sending a letter to your congressman and senators if you haven't yet. You might also consider a letter to your newspaper, a post to a blog, etc., if you feel like it.

Cheers.

-------------------------------------------------

New HR 2046 cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02046:@@@N)

Rep Melancon, Charlie [D-LA] (for HR 4411)
Rep Towns, Edolphus [D-NY] (against HR 4411)
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [D-CA] (against HR 4411)
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [D-NY] (for HR 4411; one of the "Fight UIGEA" targets)
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [D-TX] (freshman)
Rep Crowley, Joseph [D-NY] (for HR 4411)

[Ron Burgundy]

Looks like that's 6 more, not 5. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like that's 6 more, not 5. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet! /images/graemlins/grin.gif Six beats five.

Thanks for the heads-up....I just edited it.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

It's definitely encouraging that people who voted for the UIGEA are willing to sponsor this bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely encouraging that people who voted for the UIGEA are willing to sponsor this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. Peter King (D-NY), one the original cosponsors, voted for HR 4477 as well, so we're seeing progress.

[Jack Bando]

Just so I'm clear, if they were for HR4411, that's bad right? (Although if that is bad, they're now good, which is good)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just so I'm clear, if they were for HR4411, that's bad right? (Although if that is bad, they're now good, which is good)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. HR 4411 became UIGEA after being lightened up a bit (i.e., HR 4411 was even worse than UIGEA).

[JPFisher55]

This is evidence that the Dems have decided to regulate online gaming in order to tax it; maybe to death. But passage of such regulation and taxes will make it easier to fund offshore sites that violate the law by not being licensed because it will be harder to enforce the UIGEA.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely encouraging that people who voted for the UIGEA are willing to sponsor this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. Peter King (D-NY), one the original cosponsors, voted for HR 4477 as well, so we're seeing progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in his district, and teased my (historically conservative) grandparents about D'Amato (they worked on his campaigns decades ago) being the lobbyist and King being a co-sponsor.

My grandfather pointed out that King probably flipped strictly because of D'Amato, as they're apparently good buddies and back-scratchers. I was surprised I hadn't thought of that earlier.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is evidence that the Dems have decided to regulate online gaming in order to tax it; maybe to death. But passage of such regulation and taxes will make it easier to fund offshore sites that violate the law by not being licensed because it will be harder to enforce the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is evidence that Dems would like to tax it, no doubt. I don't know that there's evidence that they'd like to kill it via taxation. If so, why go through all this? They'd just vote for a ban. It seems they'd like to get some revenues flowing in to fund government programs.

Sites pay taxes to their host countries now, so this isn't really new. Hopefully we'll all be vigilant in this area, so as not to lose the game to taxes.

Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

This could be fish city all over again! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree online rake has to be below B&M but a government tax take does not mean it will ne higher than now. Look at affiliates. They get a good chunk of the rake either outright or passing it to us as rakeback and taking a slice - they give an idea of the LOW end of the margin hit sites can take and still maintain the current rake.

A small tax is not the death of online poker. (Though I do accept taxing winnings and the sites is a bit harsh).

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

This could be fish city all over again! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think would happen. Party and all the others would return, then there would be new domestic sites. There would also be the potential for safeguards, for example, prompt payouts, none of this waiting weeks and months for a check that bounces. So it wouldn't be all negative.

I confess I'd like a return to the glory days, so I'm trying to think positive.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree online rake has to be below B&M but a government tax take does not mean it will ne higher than now. Look at affiliates. They get a good chunk of the rake either outright or passing it to us as rakeback and taking a slice - they give an idea of the LOW end of the margin hit sites can take and still maintain the current rake.

A small tax is not the death of online poker. (Though I do accept taxing winnings and the sites is a bit harsh).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be concerned about allowing a direct government rake, because congressmen who don't understand the industry could simply increase the rake every time they needed money. While they may balk at increasing site taxes from 30% to 45%, they may see increasing the government rake from $.50 to $1.25 (on top of the site rake) as inconsequential. Government frequently makes ill-informed decisions like this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker has to continue with rakes comparable to or less than B&M, or it will fall on its face (and will return less in tax revenues as a result). Fortunately, it's easy for us. We should vehemently oppose all direct government rakes. Even a small rake will grow over time.

This could be fish city all over again! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think would happen. Party and all the others would return, then there would be new domestic sites. There would also be the potential for safeguards, for example, prompt payouts, none of this waiting weeks and months for a check that bounces. So it wouldn't be all negative.

I confess I'd like a return to the glory days, so I'm trying to think positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Domestic sites with domestic, trusted names. Direct bank transfers. E-checks. Commercials. Links in sites that actually go to dot.coms (not dot.nets). This could be outstanding for us if it gets done properly. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JPFisher55]

Govt. won't mean to tax it to death, but they will do so by incompetence. Most politicians have never had a real job. So they underestimate the effects of taxes.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Govt. won't mean to tax it to death, but they will do so by incompetence. Most politicians have never had a real job. So they underestimate the effects of taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my post two posts above yours. Yes, government frequently screws things up due to sheer incompetence. /images/graemlins/mad.gif We'll just have to be vigilant, I guess.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
"By pleading guilty to the racketeering conspiracy charge, the British-based company admitted that it operated an illegal gambling business, laundered money and committed mail and wire fraud, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said in a statement."

More here (http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=allBreakingNews&storyID =2007-05-24T193217Z_01_N24398026_RTRIDST_0_BETONSPORTS-COURT-UPDATE-1.XML)

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

XFT (x-posted for truth). This (the linked article) should be required reading for anyone who thinks the status quo, especially with this Justice Department, will be good for online poker.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
This is evidence that the Dems have decided to regulate online gaming in order to tax it; maybe to death.

[/ QUOTE ] There is no such evidence provided.

[Uglyowl]

Slot machines at Indian casinos can payout 95-99% and the government still gets a nice chunk of change. Hopefully it is profit based or a flat license fee or something, so the rake doesn't need to change.

[wax42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so I'm clear, if they were for HR4411, that's bad right? (Although if that is bad, they're now good, which is good)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. HR 4411 became UIGEA after being lightened up a bit (i.e., HR 4411 was even worse than UIGEA).

[/ QUOTE ]I was wondering... Frist could have put anything into the SAFE Port Act and it would have passed. So why did he use a weakened version of HR 4411 rather than the full version?

[Bilgefisher]

One step at a time. Once we get online gambling legalized then we can worry about fighting a huge tax on it. The PPA will be around fighting for those rights imo.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
One step at a time. Once we get online gambling legalized then we can worry about fighting a huge tax on it. The PPA will be around fighting for those rights imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is evidence that the Dems have decided to regulate online gaming in order to tax it; maybe to death.



[/ QUOTE ] There is no such evidence provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounds like a Republican. Republicans don't need evidence or facts, they just spew out slogans. Like their heros George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, John Kyl, and Pat Robertson. You shouldn't expect facts or reason from Republicans.

[ShivasIrons]

None of those mentioned are "heros" to the majority of voting Republicans. Your post is narrow minded and full of stereotype. Exactly the type of thing I imagine you would accuse a Republican of being. Silly stuff.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
None of those mentioned are "heros" to the majority of voting Republicans. Your post is narrow minded and full of stereotype. Exactly the type of thing I imagine you would accuse a Republican of being. Silly stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Social conservatism is but one wing of the conservative movement. They recently took over the Republican Party, which helps explains why the rank-and-file Republicans are turning away in record numbers. It also explains why Republicans are now in the minority in Congress.

The "paleoconservatives" will retake the party soon enough. Then, they'll be back to promoting limited government and stuff like that, rather than government that peers into your windows to see if you're playing poker. If they don't, it's hard to see them winning a majority any day soon, at least IMHO.

[Uglyowl]

A couple more cosponsers yesterday (up to 19 now). I will call my representative today and ask him to cosponser the bill, he voted against UIGEA.

Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 5/24/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 5/24/2007

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]


Social conservatism is but one wing of the conservative movement. They recently took over the Republican Party, which helps explains why the rank-and-file Republicans are turning away in record numbers. It also explains why Republicans are now in the minority in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for Ronald Reagen, the first George Bush, and the clown we have in the White House now. But like Doyle Brunson said, I will never ever vote for another Republican again. The Pat Robertson faction of the Republican party that wants to control what ADULTS can do with thier own free time and money IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TODAY.

[Uglyowl]

Well said Jerry, as they say:

"I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me"

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple more cosponsers yesterday (up to 19 now). I will call my representative today and ask him to cosponser the bill, he voted against UIGEA.

Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 5/24/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 5/24/2007

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we be optimistic and assume they are hearing from their registered voters?

[iponnet]

called my reps office today (susan davis 53 CA)about the bill, real funny thing is rigth off the back the guy said is this the bill about ONLINE "POKER" LOL,,

Plus he said she has been studying it and seemed like she was sold on the idea that it could generate revenue and jobs(dont know about this one) for U.S. citizens if its regulated, also I asked if they have been getting calls about the bill he said they have from both sides and more of them seem to be for the bill than against it.. so thats a good sign I guess, plus he said she is gona make a decision pretty soon and notify me, overall it seemed she would vote yes for it if it comes out of committe or he could have been telling me what I wanted to hear,, lol

no she is a pretty good dem, I think we can count her in

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said Jerry, as they say:

"I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me"

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

I actually wrote that to my congressman last year (the original quote is Reagan explaining why he left the Democratic party).