Future of Online Poker in the USA

[TheEngineer]

I thought it might be time to discuss our view of the future of online poker, so we can plan our response accordingly. I see three possibilities for the future of online poker in the U.S.: unregulated online poker, licensed and regulated online poker (either nationally or only in some states), and a prohibition on online interstate poker.

Outcome #1: Unregulated online poker. Everyone’s favorite. We generally had this until UIGEA passed and until the DOJ ramped up enforcement of offshore sports betting sites. Status quo with the remaining U.S.-facing sites is like this, except television advertising has been reduced (and is only for the .net sites, even for poker-only sites), and money movement is trickier and riskier. Getting unregulated online poker expressly permitted and acknowledged requires us to fight at the federal level to pass legislation. Given the congressional voting history, this would be a big challenge. Keeping the status quo requires us to continually fight at the federal level to keep our opponents from banning interstate/international poker like HR 4777 proposed (btw, HR 4777 had 146 cosponsors…1/3 of the House).

Pros: taxes low on sites, no government pot rake, legal (though ambiguous)
Cons (unregulated poker expressly permitted): getting fish to trust offshore sites (i.e., fish think the games are rigged), fish don’t like sending money overseas
Cons (status quo): limited number of U.S.-facing sites, difficulties with banking issues, ads for .nets only, U.S. fish think it’s illegal, fish think the games are rigged, fish don’t like sending money overseas, the unsettled nature of this position doesn’t provide stability for industry.

Outcome #2a: Federally licensed, regulated online poker, as proposed by IGREA. Poker would be legal within the U.S. in states and tribal lands that didn’t opt-out. The federal government would provide for licensing. Sites would have to meet specific requirements for licensing. Regulations would provide for age verification, money-laundering issues, compulsive gambling, other red herrings with which our opponents come up, and RNG verification. Getting this outcome requires us to fight at the federal level to pass legislation.

Pros: legal, advertising of .com sites, lobbying power of Harrah’s and MGM to preserve right to play (once bill is passed and they get into the industry) and to keep taxes reasonable, echecks, credit card funding, fish more trusting of playing American branded sites, combined comps for online and B&M play from B&M casinos (good for us to get comps and to encourage fish to play).
Cons: potential of taxes too high to allow for a profitable game (risk mitigated somewhat by B&M competition), potential of a direct government pot rake (IGREA doesn’t provide a provision for a government rake), difficulty for offshore sites to get licensed, states may opt-out.

Outcome #2b: State licensed, regulated in-state poker. Same issues as in #2a, except actions as state level.

Added cons: States seem to expect citizens to have to pay for the right to gamble, so they’ll expect heavy taxes if they’re voting for legalization and setting up the licensing and regulations (with IGREA, the feds do the work and hand money to the states). Also, some states lack sufficient population for a really successful instate game.

Outcome #3: Prohibition on online interstate poker. Opponents of online gambling don’t have a soft spot in their hearts for online poker. HR 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, banned online interstate/international poker. It also defined poker as a game of chance. Again, it was cosponsored by 1/3 of the House. Also, it’s important to remember the fanaticism of our opponents. Here’s a 2000 quote from I. Nelson Rose, at http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/antigua.html.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who doubts that politics shapes legislation should examine the history of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, commonly called the Kyl Bill, after its author, Jon Kyl (R-Az) and similar proposals introduced into the House of Representatives. The Kyl Bill was first proposed as an amendment to the Crime Prevention Act of 1995. In its early years, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act proposed placing far more restrictions on gambling than the infamous 18th Amendment’s Prohibition on intoxicating liquors. It would have outlawed virtually everything, from actual betting online to merely putting information in online gambling magazines. The proposed restrictions against putting gaming information online were so broad, that it would have been dangerous for a licensed casino to advertise its legal activities on the World Wide Web.

The Kyl Bill’s major weakness, besides violating the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, was that it would also have made it a federal crime to merely place a bet. The U.S. Department of Justice, which does not have fond memories of its role trying to enforce Prohibition, made it clear that it did not support a law that would require knocking on bedroom doors to go after $5 bettors.

[/ QUOTE ]

While no one is currently pushing for criminalizing placing a bet online at the federal level, it may be worth keeping in mind how our opponents tried this in the past. Let’s also remember how the DOJ treats drug users (to which we’ve been compared). Finally, placing a bet online is a felony in Washington state. Will other states criminalize placing bets if online gambling is outlawed at the federal level?

We don’t have to fight for this outcome. Our opponents will gladly fight for this.

Pros: none
Cons: uhh…game over. No U.S.-facing sites. No U.S. fish. We either move or play via proxy servers, using foreign bank accounts while hoping the sites don’t take our money for violations of terms and conditions.

So, here are the options. I like outcomes #1 and #2a (and #2b without an interstate ban). I believe we have to fight back at a federal level to get and keep a favorable outcome. Status quo requires a strong show of support, I think. Many here think I’m a huge IGREA and PPA supporter. I actually see these as tools. What I advocate is the creation of a strong grassroots effort aimed at protecting our rights to play poker online. I advocate fighting hard for our rights.

So, what do you all think?

[JPFisher55]

With the WTO situation, I think that either by international WTO pressure or US federal court (appellate level or supreme court) unlicensed, unregulated online poker is a better chance than licensed and a better outcome.
But licensed, regulated online poker is a good back up to pursue. If something like the IGREA passed it would become the worst alternative; not outright prohibition. In addition, the WTO pressure or court action could still give unlicensed, unregulated online poker.
Thus, I favor support of the IGREA and the efforts of the PPA.

[Superfluous Man]

Outcome 2b seems pretty impossible. Are they really going to go to the trouble to filter IPs/users by state? If so, I doubt it will be very profitable, except in perhaps the most populous states. If not, it seems like it could easily be construed as interstate commerce, which the federal government would then seek to regulate.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Outcome 2b seems pretty impossible. Are they really going to go to the trouble to filter IPs/users by state? If so, I doubt it will be very profitable, except in perhaps the most populous states. If not, it seems like it could easily be construed as interstate commerce, which the federal government would then seek to regulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, without affirmative action from Congress, it would have to be strictly instate. It would be possible for a populous state like California. Not so for Wyoming.

[Bilgefisher]

The tribal influence can't be underestimated. Just look at Washington state.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
With the WTO situation, I think that either by international WTO pressure or US federal court (appellate level or supreme court) unlicensed, unregulated online poker is a better chance than licensed and a better outcome.
But licensed, regulated online poker is a good back up to pursue. If something like the IGREA passed it would become the worst alternative; not outright prohibition. In addition, the WTO pressure or court action could still give unlicensed, unregulated online poker.
Thus, I favor support of the IGREA and the efforts of the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope we can get something out of the WTO decision. It is a longshot, so I'm glad you're helping with IGREA. I think every possibility we have requires us to show political support.

Everyone:

- Want the U.S. to follow the WTO? Our government will have to WANT to....they won't do it otherwise. We'll have to write and call our congressman. We'll have to write to newspapers. We'll have to write op-ed pieces.

- Want a "skill" court decision to stick? We'll still need political support, so it doesn't get called a "loophole that should be closed" by opportunistic politicians. We'll still have to write and call, and there's no need to wait until the court case comes. After all, a culture change now will help whenever such a case gets before a court.

- Want IGREA? We know we have to write and call congressmen and newspapers. A good op-ed would be awesome here as well.

- Want the status quo? Supporting IGREA will serve to bottleneck opposition bills.

- Think the federal government can't force states to allow gambling, so why work at that level? It's true that the feds cannot force states to allow gambling, but they can make it easier, which is what IGREA seems to do. Besides, states can allow instate online poker, but federal legislation (like the Interstate Horse Racing Act for interstate horse racing wagering) will be required to facilitate interstate poker. As federal action will be required, it makes sense to get behind IGREA now. Also, you don't want HR 4777 to come back under this scenario. It would be a shame to get a state or two on board, only to have interstate poker banned.

I can't think of a scenario where we won't need political support at the federal level, so I guess we should stick with working at that level.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The tribal influence can't be underestimated. Just look at Washington state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine they'll be the first to offer sites if IGREA passes. They'll be allowed to offer international gaming from a site on tribal lands. Even it every state were to opt out, they'd still be allowed to offer gaming wherever legal internationally (plus on their tribal land). With that, it would only be a matter of time before other states came on board (I hope).

[TreyWilly]

You're on Ritalin, Eng. I'm convinced of it.

Keep it up.

[cROUNDER33]

Engineer what do u believe will happen to the future of online poker. In all honesty i can see july 10th come and it stay the same as poker is now. Not much of a difference.

[cROUNDER33]

Engineer what do u feel will honestly happen on July 10th. My personal feel is that poker will be the same july 10th of this year next year and following years just as it is now. I honestly dont think were in for any big surprises

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer what do u feel will honestly happen on July 10th. My personal feel is that poker will be the same july 10th of this year next year and following years just as it is now. I honestly dont think were in for any big surprises

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you asked. Many here think this, for some reason. Of course, last year people said the same thing about online casino and sports betting. They were wrong.

So, why do you think poker will be the same ten years from now? The DOJ is actively chasing down U.S.-facing sports books. They aren't simply waiting for the CEOs to enter America, either. Rather, the DOJ is extraditing these CEOs from foreign, sovereign nations. Once they run out of sports books, you think they'll stop and allow poker? Nah...we're next.

Skallagrim believes U.S.-facing poker sites are breaking federal law; UIGEA prohibits banking for gambling activities that violate state gambling laws, even misdemeanor state laws. Right or wrong, the fact that the DOJ can craft an argument that a federal law is being violated means trouble. Also, despite contrary appellate court rulings, the DOJ believes poker-only sites violate the Wire Act of 1961. So, even without legislation in our favor, we're at risk. We can no longer sit back and stay silent as we have for so long, IMO. With a great offense, we may be right where we are now in ten years. Without, I personally doubt that anything good will happen.

The other risk is future legislation. HR 4411 passed the House by a wide margin. HR 4777, a bill that banned Internet poker, was cosponsored by 1/3 of the House. Without a good offense, it's hard to imagine these zealots not introducing a new bill. While social conservatives have been weakened politically and internally, they're still gung-ho to outlaw our activities. We shouldn't give them the opportunity this time. If they try another law, they should know they'll pay some political price.

Now, I'm not just posting "end of the world" stuff. Rather, we have a plan. Check out Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 5/28 & 6/4 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9946416&an=0&page=0#Post 9946416) . We look forward to your help.

[MyDogBonny]

likely outcome imo,

business as usual illegal or not because it is impossible to regulate internet use from the internet clients.
offshore servers from many countries will not care about the us laws.
manual checks or money orders to fund accounts and get payouts.

pros: you will still be able to play.
cons: 2 week delay for checks to arrive and be processed. some unscrupulous sites will proliferate.

imo only,

good luck!
Steve

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
likely outcome imo,

business as usual illegal or not because it is impossible to regulate internet use from the internet clients.
offshore servers from many countries will not care about the us laws.
manual checks or money orders to fund accounts and get payouts.

pros: you will still be able to play.
cons: 2 week delay for checks to arrive and be processed. some unscrupulous sites will proliferate.

imo only,

good luck!
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments, Steve. Thanks.

If something like HR 4777 were to pass, given the DOJ's vigilence in this area do you believe big sites like FullTilt will continue to offer poker in the U.S., or do you think we'll be stuck with shady small sites?

I guess the issue with poker is that we need opponents. Sports betting cannot be completely wiped out because the need for opponents isn't there. As a result, sites like WSEX can give the DOJ the one-finger wave and continue with business as usual.

I still think we're best off making a good show of strength in Washington. Our problem in the past was taht we were getting run over in Congress. We were playing a loose passive game, just calling down and getting crushed by our tight aggressive opponents (with the occasional suck-out when legislation didn't pass before that session ended). I think we can benefit by stepping up our aggression a bit. I hope we'll all write and call Congress to demand what's rightfully ours.

Cheers.

[TheEngineer]

BANK TROUBLE FOR POKERSTARS
http://www.casinomeister.com/news/april2007/online_casino_news4/BANK_TROUBLE_FOR_POKERSTARS.php

27 April 2007

"Insufficient funds" is a highly unlikely reason for rubber checks

The most popular - and populous - online poker room around, Poker Stars.com has been the subject of worried forum postings following a series of bounced checks to players, and this week the issue was addressed by the online poker information portal Poker-King.com.

In a report that does not clarify whether the players concerned are US resident or otherwise, but are assumed to be the former the site published the results of its investigation thus:

"After some investigating, we have ascertained that this is a bank-specific issue. Citizen's Bank has been flagging and returning checks that they deem to be tied to online gambling. The reason that they are giving is that there were "insufficient funds", even though this is not the case.

"Citizens Bank is a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has publicly stated that it would be taking a hard-line stance to online gambling transactions post-UIGEA. If you are a client of Citizens Bank and have tried to cash an online gambling check, then you have likely been a victim of the company's new hard-line stance."

Poker-King correctly points out that Poker Stars is one of the most financially stable online poker sites around today, so this is not a question of financial instability, but of banking interference.

Founded in 1828, Citizens Financial Group started as a small community bank called the High Street Bank in Providence, Rhode Island. Since then it has grown into a major banking enterprise with $161 billion in assets, making it the 8th largest commercial bank holding company in the United States when ranked by deposits. Owned by UK's The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, the US operation has branches in 13 states and offices in more than 40.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is believed to have been subpoenaed by the US government in connection to its arrangement with publicly traded online gambling firms operating out of Europe that accepted business from customers in the States.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
BANK TROUBLE FOR POKERSTARS
http://www.casinomeister.com/news/april2007/online_casino_news4/BANK_TROUBLE_FOR_POKERSTARS.php

27 April 2007

"Insufficient funds" is a highly unlikely reason for rubber checks

The most popular - and populous - online poker room around, Poker Stars.com has been the subject of worried forum postings following a series of bounced checks to players, and this week the issue was addressed by the online poker information portal Poker-King.com.

In a report that does not clarify whether the players concerned are US resident or otherwise, but are assumed to be the former the site published the results of its investigation thus:

"After some investigating, we have ascertained that this is a bank-specific issue. Citizen's Bank has been flagging and returning checks that they deem to be tied to online gambling. The reason that they are giving is that there were "insufficient funds", even though this is not the case.

"Citizens Bank is a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has publicly stated that it would be taking a hard-line stance to online gambling transactions post-UIGEA. If you are a client of Citizens Bank and have tried to cash an online gambling check, then you have likely been a victim of the company's new hard-line stance."

Poker-King correctly points out that Poker Stars is one of the most financially stable online poker sites around today, so this is not a question of financial instability, but of banking interference.

Founded in 1828, Citizens Financial Group started as a small community bank called the High Street Bank in Providence, Rhode Island. Since then it has grown into a major banking enterprise with $161 billion in assets, making it the 8th largest commercial bank holding company in the United States when ranked by deposits. Owned by UK's The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, the US operation has branches in 13 states and offices in more than 40.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is believed to have been subpoenaed by the US government in connection to its arrangement with publicly traded online gambling firms operating out of Europe that accepted business from customers in the States.

[/ QUOTE ]

well that explains that. [censored]

[TheEngineer]

I took a look at the HR 4411 (the UIGEA forerunner) voting patterns. It looks like it passed with a coalition of social conservatives (primarily in the South) who hate all gambling plus others concerned simply about unregulated, offshore gaming, held together by Republican Congressional leadership who were beholden to FOF to pay them back for their 2000, 2002, and 2004 support.

I believe we can beat this, especially now that Republicans are no longer leading Congress. I think the way to win this is to work on the non-'social conservative' part of the coalition by using IGREA, the Wexler poker bill, new Congressional leadership, our hard work, and whatever lobbying we have. Demonstrate the fact that we're addressing the concerns listed by FOF types. Expose the fact that they want prohibition or nothing. Expose their lies for all to see. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Write to everyone, but focus mostly on anyone but a Focus on the Family-type social conservative, as non-FOF types will be most susceptible to flipping. Do focus on non-social conservative Republicans politicians and organizations, as the party has developed deep fissures that we should take advantage of. As for FOF-backed candidates who want to legislate your freedoms, a number of them lost in 2006. Let's continue this trend....vote 'em out! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

In the mean time, make sure to write to Atty. Gen. Gonzales and to Treasury Sec. Paulson. Let's do our best to keep our opponents from getting the "tough UIGEA regs" they're asking for. After all, if they miss now, it's unlikely they can get more federal legislation any day soon, especially with Republicans in the minority.

IGREA sponsor/cosponsor breakdown
Democrats: 21 of 24 sponsor/cosponsors
Republicans: 3 of 24 sponsor/cosponsors

HR 4411, Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
Republicans: 201 aye (87%), 17 nay (7%), 12 no vote (5%)
Democrats: 115 aye (57%), 76 nay (38%), 10 no vote (5%)

So, while Democrats tend to be less against us than Republicans, the majority still voted against us. We'll have to be vigilant.

States most opposed to HR 4411:

Alaska, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Washington, Florida, Virginia, Michigan, and Texas

Note: Our support tends to be around the Northeast and the West Coast. The only Southern states are Texas and Florida. No "deep South" states.

States most in favor of HR 4411:

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming

Note: Most are Southern, socially conservative areas.

Congressional Black Caucus on HR 4411 (the only group I could find not in support of HR 4411):

Aye: 20/40 (50%), Nay: 20/40 (50%)

Note: Two members, Julia Carson and Mel Watt, are big supporters of our right to play. Another, Emmanual Cleaver, voted for HR 4411 but appears to be coming around on IGREA. Anyone here whose Congressman is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus should definitely be writing a lot, probably focusing on the issues presented by Julia Carson and Emmanual Cleaver (age verification, fairness issue relating to it being "okay" to bet on horses but not on cards, etc).

State by state HR 4411 voting:

Alabama : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Alaska : 0.0% Aye, 100.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Arizona : 50.0% Aye, 50.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Arkansas : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
California : 52.8% Aye, 47.2% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Colorado : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Connecticut : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Delaware : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Florida : 72.0% Aye, 16.0% Nay, 12.0% No vote
Georgia : 92.3% Aye, 7.7% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Hawaii : 50.0% Aye, 50.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Idaho : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Illinois : 66.7% Aye, 22.2% Nay, 11.1% No vote
Indiana : 88.9% Aye, 11.1% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Iowa : 80.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 20.0% No vote
Kansas : 75.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 25.0% No vote
Kentucky : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Louisiana : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Maine : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Maryland : 75.0% Aye, 25.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Massachusetts : 20.0% Aye, 80.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Michigan : 73.3% Aye, 26.7% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Minnesota : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Mississippi : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Missouri : 77.8% Aye, 22.2% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Montana : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Nebraska : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Nevada : 0.0% Aye, 100.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
New Hampshire : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
New Jersey : 66.7% Aye, 25.0% Nay, 8.3% No vote
New Mexico : 66.7% Aye, 33.3% Nay, 0.0% No vote
New York : 51.7% Aye, 37.9% Nay, 10.3% No vote
North Carolina : 84.6% Aye, 7.7% Nay, 7.7% No vote
North Dakota : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Ohio : 77.8% Aye, 16.7% Nay, 5.6% No vote
Oklahoma : 80.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 20.0% No vote
Oregon : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Pennsylvania : 89.5% Aye, 5.3% Nay, 5.3% No vote
Rhode Island : 50.0% Aye, 50.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
South Carolina : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
South Dakota : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Tennessee : 88.9% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 11.1% No vote
Texas : 74.2% Aye, 19.4% Nay, 6.5% No vote
Utah : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Vermont : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Virginia : 72.7% Aye, 9.1% Nay, 18.2% No vote
Washington : 66.7% Aye, 33.3% Nay, 0.0% No vote
West Virginia : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote
Wisconsin : 50.0% Aye, 25.0% Nay, 25.0% No vote
Wyoming : 100.0% Aye, 0.0% Nay, 0.0% No vote

[Robin Foolz]

god bless nevada (i realize this may be construed as an oxymoron /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[PBJaxx]

TheEngineer. Your diligence continues to impress me. Thank you!

[BluffTHIS!]

I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, and indeed in the past I have been a "glass half-full" guy as to the current situation, which I think will be mostly unchanged post-regs as I believe the regs aren't likely to be enforced effectively enough to stop US players from playing online. However we will have to be willing to jump through more hoops and bear with more delays.

Regarding the future of online poker, I think we need to distinguish between the short term of like the next 5 years, and the longer term after that. In the longer term I am very optimisitic that either options 2a or 2b that Engineer listed above will come to pass. But in the near term, with the political reality that even *if* some favorable legislation passes the house it won't even get a committee hearing in the senate once Kyl and others place a hold on it, then we are unlikely to succeed. Which is why I and others have previously said that our only realistic chance *this year* is getting such legislation passed in the same way as the IUGEA did, by being attached to must pass legislation.

If we don't want to be let down big, we must accept this political reality, while maintaining the determination to keep working to achieve our goals. We need to look at what we are doing now as plowing the political ground and planting the seeds for the future when we hope to reap the fruits of such present and future efforts.

So for now of course we keep working hard on getting something favorable passed this year, but concentrating on acceptable language being fashioned in the house, and then getting same attached in conference committee to must pass legislation, which is something highly difficult. Which is why we must also get some committments from important senators who chair committees, and who have influence with the senate leader, Sen. Reid.

Also for the near term we need to concentrate on neutering the regs as much as possible, as the situation where they aren't effective mostly, just like with alcohol during prohibition, will be a *huge* factor in helping to persuade other politicians to our cause in the future.

As far as neutering those regs, which Engineer has already been urging all of us on with letters to the Treasury etc., we need to work on our allies in Congress to do the following:

1) Use the option Mr. K mentioned in deleting funding for enforcement in the funding bills. Since all funding legislation has to originate in the house, we are in better shape trying something like this as that is where most of our support is.

2) I don't remember the specifics now, but I believe it was Nate in a thread late last year who dug out another option, which is that Congress can refuse to accept the regs, let alone fund them. Obviously we need to encourage this avenue as well.

3) Back the efforts of the banks to water down the regs by writing our politicians to back such measures as being a giant unfunded mandate that will hurt banking in our states. Though we shouldn't lie, we can buy a nominal number of shares in some bank corps so that we can say we are stockholders concerned about the effects the regs will have on the corporations' profits.

4) Keep playing and supporting the sites in the US market even when as likely, they occasionally experience hiccups in cashout times and vehicles, as a result of being forced to constantly adapt. *And* spread the word to casual players that you can still get your money online and off again, albeit with delays that weren't happening before. Again this is to keep the regs from being effective which further aids our efforts to get legislation passed sometime in the future, even if not this year.


As far as things like the WTO, the lawsuit against the IUGEA and such, those are more longshots that we can't as easily influence. However they are freerolls, and added to other longshots we are working on, up our EV and make it a little more likely that *some* longshot or other will come in sometime.

If we don't have both this long term focus, and a short term focus that puts equal weight on neutering the regs as much as possible, then I am afraid that many here will be in for a big letdown by the end of the year. We just need to work on plowing the ground, planting the seeds and realize it takes a while to reap the fruits of current efforts.

[TheEngineer]

Well said, Bluffthis.

This is long-term effort. In fact, I'm more pessimistic than you about the possibility of passing legislation this year, but that really shouldn't be our short-term goal (we'd take it, of course, but we really shouldn't expect it). Our goals for this year and next are as you stated (regs, etc), plus building our grassroots effort. While we may not get legislation passed soon, we're already seeing the fruits of our labor, as there is no pending legislation making things worse. So, our efforts are preserving the status quo, which is a victory in itself.

I hope no one here will feel a sense of let down if we don't pass IGREA this year. Rather, I hope we'll feel a sense of accomplishment in not allowing our opponents to run us over. As FOF said, "the fight is on". I'm proud to be part of a group that's not afraid to fight back.

[MiltonFriedman]

Jeez, don't you remember Gaboonviper Armageddon Day ? With Raelian-like vision, "GaboonVip" told us exactly when online poker was going to end.

I, for one, got out my anti-bot tinfoil hat and carefully placed my laptop in the bathtub under running water, as suggested.

You know what, he was right ... since "clearing" my laptop, I have no been able to access ANY online poker sites.

(I am borrowing a PC at the public library to make this post.)

Online Poker was fun while it lasted, but get a grip on reality .... It ENDED on G.A.D.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer. Your diligence continues to impress me. Thank you!

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me second that. And excellent commentary from BluffThis, also.

[TheEngineer]

IGREA gained three more cosponsors, bringing us up to 26. The new folks are Rep. Don Young [R-AK], Rep. Russ Carnahan [D-MO], and Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]. All three voted "nay" on HR 4411.

[AP0CALYP5E]

[ QUOTE ]
IGREA gained three more cosponsors, bringing us up to 26. The new folks are Rep. Don Young [R-AK], Rep. Russ Carnahan [D-MO], and Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]. All three voted "nay" on HR 4411.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, he must have got my email.

[Mendacious]

Option "A" is by far the most preferable IMHO. To a certain extent, poker is like a big pyramid. UIGEA took a huge chunck of the base out. In order for online poker to thrive it needs to have easy access for the LEAST competant players. This is option "A" all the way.

[SgtJake]

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif Engineer

Seriously, you're doing amazing things here. Need any money?

[Kodfish]

I also agree...I feel Engineer is doing all the work anyone could ask for. I would gladly donate to your poker account of choice (as long as its full tilt). Please never lose your fire, we need your hard work. Thanks man. PM me, I'll donate right now.

[TheEngineer]

Thanks Jake and Kod. I appreciate the compliments. As for money....sure, I could use some. /images/graemlins/smile.gif The best way to get it to me would be to keep working to get UIGEA repealed or modified per IGREA. Once completed, the fish will happily repopulate our games -- increasing my win rate. The best thing about "paying me back" in this manner is that we all get paid. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In all seriousness, this is an effort we've all done together. And, we've seen far more progress so far than I expected back in the dark days of November. We still have a very long way to go, but the tide has turned. Our opponents are now the ones on the defensive! Let's keep them there.

[TheEngineer]

Barney Frank has been stating that he’s building Congressional support for IGREA before moving forward full speed. Let’s help.

Who’s most likely to join us? It seems this list starts with representatives who voted against HR 4411 but have not yet sponsored/cosponsored IGREA. Next, is those who are cosponsoring the Berkley study bill but not cosponsored IGREA. Finally, geography can be used.

So, where are we? IGREA has 26 cosponsors, plus Rep. Frank. They are:

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman [NY-5], Rep. Shelley Berkley [NV-1], Rep. Howard L. Berman [CA-28], Rep. Michael E. Capuano [MA-8], Rep. Russ Carnahan [MO-3], Rep. Julia Carson [IN-7], Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay [MO-1], Rep. Joseph Crowley [NY-7], Rep. Bob Filner [CA-51], Rep. Vito Fossella [NY-13], Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez [IL-4], Rep. Alcee L. Hastings [FL-23], Rep. Steve Israel [NY-2], Rep. Peter T. King [NY-3], Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [NY-4], Rep. Jim McDermott [WA-7], Rep. James P. McGovern [MA-3], Rep. Charlie Melancon [LA-3], Rep. Ron Paul [TX-14], Rep. Ed Perlmutter [CO-7], Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez [TX-23], Rep. Linda T. Sanchez [CA-39], Rep. Edolphus Towns [NY-10], Rep. Melvin L. Watt [NC-12], Rep. Robert Wexler [FL-19], and Rep. Don Young [AK].

Wexler’s bill (SGPA) has one cosponsor, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson [D-MS], for a total of 27 congressmen sponsoring or cosponsoring Internet poker legislation.

Of the 93 reps who voted against HR 4411, 63 have not cosponsored IGREA or SGPA. They are:

Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY], Rep. Robert Andrews [D-NJ], Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA], Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI], Rep. Xavier Becerra [D-CA], Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL], Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA], Rep. John Conyers [D-MI], Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD], Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL], Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA], Rep. John Dingell [D-MI], Rep. David Dreier [R-CA], Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY], Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA], Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA], Rep. Jeff Flake [R-AZ], Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX], Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ], Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA], Rep. Tim Holden [D-PA], Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA], Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD], Rep. Jay Inslee [D-WA], Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL], Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX], Rep. Eddie Johnson [D-TX], Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI], Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI], Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI], Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI], Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH], Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA], Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ], Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA], Rep. Connie Mack [R-FL], Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA], Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA], Rep. George Miller [D-CA], Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY], Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA], Rep. Richard Neal [D-MA], Rep. John Olver [D-MA], Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ], Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX], Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV], Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY], Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX], Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA], Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ], Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA], Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL], Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA], Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL], Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA], Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA], Rep. José Serrano [D-NY], Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA], Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA], Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA], Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R-OH], Rep. John Tierney [D-MA], Rep. Tom Udall [D-NM], Rep. Nydia Velazquez [D-NY], Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA], Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY], and Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA].

If you see your congressman here, please work hard to get him/her to cosponsor IGREA and SGPA.

HR 2140, the Study bill, has 64 cosponsors, plus Rep. Berkley. The 52 reps cosponsoring the Study bill but not cosponsoring IGREA or Wexler’s bill are:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie [HI-1], Rep. Nancy E. Boyda [KS-2], Rep. Corrine Brown [FL-3], Rep. Russ Carnahan [MO-3], Rep. James E. Clyburn [SC-6], Rep. Steve Cohen [TN-9], Rep. John Conyers [MI-14], Rep. Jim Costa [CA-20], Rep. Jerry F. Costello [IL-12], Rep. Danny K. Davis [IL-7], Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega [AS] (American Samoa….territories are allowed to vote, but not if their votes are within the margin of victory for a bill), Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez [TX-20], Rep. Al Green [TX-9], Rep. Raul M. Grijalva [AZ-7], Rep. Dean Heller [NV-2], Rep. Baron P. Hill [IN-9], Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey [NY-22], Rep. Michael M. Honda [CA-15], Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [TX-18], Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones [OH-11], Rep. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick [MI-13], Rep. James R. Langevin [RI-2], Rep. John B. Larson [CT-1], Rep. John Lewis [GA-5], Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo [NJ-2], Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney [NY-14], Rep. James P. McGovern [MA-3], Rep. Kendrick B. Meek [FL-17], Rep. Gregory W. Meeks [NY-6], Rep. Dennis Moore [KS-3], Rep. Jerrold Nadler [NY-8], Rep. Grace F. Napolitano [CA-38], Rep. Bill Pascrell [NJ-8], Rep. Donald M. Payne [NJ-10], Rep. Collin C. Peterson [MN-7], Rep. Jon C. Porter [NV-3], Rep. Charles B. Rangel [NY-15], Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger [MD-2], Rep. Tim Ryan [OH-17], Rep. Loretta Sanchez [CA-47], Rep. Linda T. Sanchez [CA-39], Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky [IL-9], Rep. Adam B. Schiff [CA-29], Rep. Jose E. Serrano [NY-16], Rep. Pete Sessions [TX-32], Rep. Gene Taylor [MS-4], Rep. Bennie G. Thompson [MS-2], Rep. Mike Thompson [CA-1], Rep. Timothy J. Walz [MN-1], Rep. Diane E. Watson [CA-33], Rep. Anthony D. Weiner [NY-9], and Rep. John A. Yarmuth [KY-3].

If you see your congressman here, please work hard to encourage him/her to cosponsor IGREA and SGPA. I didn’t filter this list for votes for or against UIGEA.

Next, let’s look at geography. The states most opposed to HR 4411 were Alaska, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Washington, Florida, Virginia, Michigan, and Texas. If you live in one of these states, you may have a better than average chance of luck with an uncommitted rep.

[TheEngineer]

House Republicans who voted against HR 4411:

CA-26 Dreier, David [R](moderate, past House Rules Committee chairman)
AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R] [libertarian (small "l"), former Executive Director of the Goldwater Institute]
FL-16 Foley, Mark [R] (LOL...gone)
NY-13 Fossella, Vito [R] (principled limited-government conservative)
NV-2 Gibbons, James [R] (succeeded by Dean Heller)
WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R] (seems moderate, past chairman of the House Ethics Committee
AZ-8 Kolbe, James [R] (retired)
NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R] (moderate)
FL-14 Mack, Connie [R] (principled limited-government conservative, son of former Sen. Connie Mack)
OH-18 Ney, Robert [R] (LOL....gone)
TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R] (Libertarian presidential candidate, 1988)
TX-2 Poe, Ted [R] (moderate)
CA-11 Pombo, Richard [R] (lost reelection)
NV-3 Porter, Jon [R] (our friend in NV)
CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R] (principled limited-government conservative)
OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R] (moderate)
AK-0 Young, Donald [R] (moderate)

Perhaps now that Republicans won't be getting reamed as badly by party leadership to tow the party line, we may be able to pick off more of them. It seems like we get moderates, libertarians, and principled limited-government conservatives. Should help in focusing our energy (for example, there's probably not much sense in sending Sam Brownback a bunch of mail).

[TheEngineer]

Here's a list of the members of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

Majority Members (Democrats)
Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), [Chairwoman], Voted for HR 4411, cosponsoring the Study bill
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC), Voted against HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA
Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY), Voted against HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA
Brad Sherman (D-CA), Voted for HR 4411
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), No vote on HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA

Dennis Moore (D-KS), Voted for HR 4411
Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA), Voted for HR 4411
Maxine Waters (D-CA), Voted for HR 4411, Nanny-state liberal….likes laws that protect people from themselves
Julia Carson (D-IN), Voted against HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), No vote on HR 4411
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Voted for HR 4411
Joe Baca (D-CA), Voted against HR 4411
Al Green (D-TX), Voted for HR 4411
William Lacy (Bill) Clay, Jr. (D-MO), Voted against HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA
Brad Miller (D-NC), Voted for HR 4411
David Scott (D-GA), Voted for HR 4411
Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO), Voted for HR 4411
Melissa Bean (D-IL), Voted for HR 4411
Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Voted for HR 4411
Paul Hodes, II (D-NH), Elected after HR 4411 vote
Keith Ellison (D-MN), Elected after HR 4411 vote
Ron J. Klein (D-FL), Elected after HR 4411 vote
Tim Edward Mahoney (D-FL), Elected after HR 4411 vote
Charles Wilson (D-OH), Elected after HR 4411 vote
Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Elected after HR 4411 vote, cosponsoring IGREA

Minority Members (Republicans)
Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH) [Ranking Member], Voted for HR 4411, Moderate, member of the Republican Main St. Partnership
Tom Price (R-GA), Voted for HR 4411
Richard H. Baker (R-LA), Voted for HR 4411
Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Voted for HR 4411
Michael N. Castle (R-DE), Voted for HR 4411
Peter T. King (R-NY), Voted for HR 4411, cosponsoring IGREA
Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Voted for HR 4411
Steve C. LaTourette (R-OH), Voted for HR 4411
Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC), Voted for HR 4411
Judy Biggert (R-IL), Voted for HR 4411, Moderate, member of the Republican Main St. Partnership
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Voted for HR 4411, Moderate, member of the Republican Main St. Partnership, good target
Tom Feeney (R-FL), Voted for HR 4411
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Voted for HR 4411
E. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Voted for HR 4411
Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), Voted for HR 4411, Moderate, member of the Republican Main St. Partnership
Gresham Barrett (R-SC), Voted for HR 4411
Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Voted for HR 4411
Steve Pearce (R-NM), Voted for HR 4411
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Voted for HR 4411
Geoff Davis (R-KY), Voted for HR 4411
Patrick McHenry (R-NC), No vote on HR 4411
John Campbell (R-CA), Voted for HR 4411

[Uglyowl]

E-mail sent to John Olver (D-MA), this following a phone call two weeks ago.

Just wanted to let you guys know we are doing our part.