More Online Gambling Legislation Introduced

[Coy_Roy]

http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-060707.html

[Coy_Roy]

With suddenly all the new bills being introduced, It's starting to look like a planned "shotgun" approach.

Even if not "planned', it certainly will have that effect.

[Coy_Roy]

For some reason the story has been removed, that link i gave above no longer points to the story i was posting about.

[Coy_Roy]

Here's the story from EOG:

Additional Online Gambling legislation Introduced Today

written June 7, 2007

Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative Supports Legislation to Remove Unnecessary Government Prohibition on Internet Gambling

Bill would generate billions of dollars for important government programs and protect freedom of individuals to gamble online.

June 7, 2007 – The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative announced its support for the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, introduced today by Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA). The bill would create a taxation regime for online gambling companies to be licensed under the recently introduced Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046).

As Congress works to find funding for critical government programs, Congressman McDermott’s legislation is expected to generate between $6 billion and $25 billion in revenues for the U.S. Treasury in the first five years of enactment.

“The government should not be telling Americans what we can and can’t do on the Internet,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Initiative. ”By prohibiting a popular, recreational activity that many millions enjoy in the comfort of their own homes, the U.S. is also losing out on the opportunity to collect billions in revenue.”

Regulated Internet gambling would protect an individual’s freedom to use the Internet as they choose, generate funding for critical government programs and protect against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering, identity theft and fraud. Current efforts to prohibit Internet gambling are futile. Americans continue to gamble online, but without safeguards and protections.

Congressman McDermott’s legislation functions as a companion bill to the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would establish a licensing and enforcement framework for regulated Internet gambling in the U.S.

Under the licensing legislation, each Internet gambling operator licensed by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) would be required to pay a fee of two percent of all funds deposited by any person placing a bet. The license fee would be paid solely by the Internet gambling operator and would not be deducted from the deposit of the person placing a bet. Licensed operators would also be required to ensure the collection of applicable federal and state taxes from licensees and from individual gamblers.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who is also a co-sponsor of the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, recently introduced another Internet gambling bill. This increasing activity in Congress further indicates the growing interest and support for reform that allows American’s the freedom to gamble online.

The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative is mobilizing supporters across the country to support regulated Internet gambling. Founders of the Initiative are the UC Group and Baker Tilly. Additional endorsers are highlighted on the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative Web site. The UC Group provides integrated payment processing services and logistical support to online product and service providers. Baker Tilly is an independent member of Baker Tilly International, the 8th largest accountancy network in the world by fees.

For more information on the Initiative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. (http://www.safeandsecureig.org.) The website provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.

http://www.eog.com/news/full-article.aspx?id=25380

[Coy_Roy]

The original link has now been fixed on 911.

Nobody cares about this? Hmm, interesting.

[Uglyowl]

Geez, with all these bills being introduced I feel like I am playing hold'em with 3 hole cards, hopefully I am not falsely optimistic. Bravo politicians who are doing the right thing.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The original link has now been fixed on 911.

Nobody cares about this? Hmm, interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I cross-posted the info to bj21.com as well, along with the following comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Last year, opposing us was motherhood and apple pie, or so it likely seemed to many politicians. They figured opposing us was risk-free. Now, they're finding out differently. First, Leach was kicked out of the House [tell me I can't click my mouse, lose your seat in the House! :-) ], and the Republicans were sent down to the minority in both houses. Next, we introduced IGREA. While not perfect, it served the purpose of putting us on the offensive. Many of us are writing and calling, and we're being heard. Then, Al D'Amato joined our effort via the PPA and started putting the bug in legislators' ears about our rights. Now, we have a few more bills in the House, plus a lawsuit, plus the WTO case brought by Antigua. Seems the shear magnitude of these should really help us stay on the offensive. Last year, Rep. Goodlatte vowed to come back this year with a ban on Internet gambling. He hasn't.

In other news, Party Poker and 888.com entered into settlement talks with the DOJ last week. Some have speculated that this is so they're clear to get licensed under future potential U.S. Internet gambling licencing.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Merkle]

using the link above I am preparing to send my first letter abot online gambling to my state rep. I also wanted to add my two-cents about the WTO in said letter. Would a few people more knowledgable than myself check the following paragraph before I include it to make sure my statements are accurate.

I am also appalled by the actions of the US Government in response to the recent World Trade Organization ruling as it pertains to online gambling. We have been the leading supporter of the WTO and used it’s authority to our benefit more than any other single country. Yet we refuse to honor our commitments under this treaty when we have lost a ruling? We legally allow gambling of various sorts throughout the U.S. ranging from lotteries to horse racing as well as casinos in several states, our denial of Antigua’s right to compete in our markets is nothing less than a blatant act of protectionism. Regulating our online gambling and allowing foreign competitors is the appropriate thing to do in light of the recent WTO ruling.

Thanks for any help on this.

BTW I really liked how the site had a form letter that allowed you to select paragraphs that you wished to include.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I am also appalled by the actions of the US Government in response to the recent World Trade Organization ruling as it pertains to online gambling. We have been the leading supporter of the WTO and used it’s authority to our benefit more than any other single country. Yet we refuse to honor our commitments under this treaty when we have lost a ruling? We legally allow gambling of various sorts throughout the U.S. ranging from lotteries to horse racing as well as casinos in several states, our denial of Antigua’s right to compete in our markets is nothing less than a blatant act of protectionism. Regulating our online gambling and allowing foreign competitors is the appropriate thing to do in light of the recent WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately accuracy of facts is overrated in politics. But I agree with the goal of being accurate. And I think your paragraph does a good job of describing the issue. Thanks for contacting your Congressmen!

[TheEngineer]

H.R. 2607, Internet Gambling Tax Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2607

[Neonclaws]

I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does 2% really sound that bad? We knew they were going to sock it to us to some degree if we ever got legalization. Plus it is on deposits-- 2+2ers don't do, proportionally, too many deposits.

We withdraw...

[oldbookguy]

A quick example on international:

I run an online business and ship several times a month to Italy, France, Germany.....

I am not required to pay them any taxes if I have no physical presence there. The same is true in the reverse, they have no obligation here if they have no physical presence. We however ARE required to pay taxes on monies we make outside the U.S. (my vintage toys & books) including Poker winnings.

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why they can't just tax the profits like any other business...is anyone concerned about this meaning some sort of higher rake structure, or do people think they sites would just suck up the 2% and leave rakes as is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you are a dreamer. This 2% is a monthly license "fee"---different than the yearly Federal and State business income taxes that they will owe .

The 2% Fed fee will be another business cost that will ultimately be paid by the customers, if they ever get to play at a state legalized, Fed. regulated site.

Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think states will tax less than the feds? Also, have you seen any progress at the state level? I sure haven't.

[Legislurker]

Thats the crux of the reason we would prefer as poker pros to
go back the the legal grey area. How to share revenues between the states, the feds, and navigate state opt outs is a mine field and a half. The only precedent I can think of is the tobacco settlement. If the feds adopt a we can't do anything approach, the ability of a state to extradite or prosecute or even deny access would be laughable. Toothless regulations wouldn't be too bad as long as executives realized they can't travel thru certain US states.

[oldbookguy]

Legis, it was not really grey before, the only poker arrest was from a warrent is Louisiana and was not honored in NY, the guy was let go. Later they paid a 400K fine to La.

Sites just need to:

1. block access to these 14 states:
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont.
2. Send 1099 when cash outs pass 600.00
3. require filing a bank form for over seas if accout reaches / exceeds 10K.

See: http://www.worldwinner.com/cgi/legal/terms.html

A LEGAL Card Wagering Site ran in MASS.!

obg

[jschaud]

i've been looking at the SC state laws and I really can't find any law that specifically states online gambling. This just doesn't completely make sense to me though.

SECTION 16-19-40. Unlawful games and betting.

If any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting on any such game of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indictment, be imprisoned for a period not exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.


I also found this site which if accurate is just excellent work.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/

It appears to be somewhat current as it mentions the washington bill from last year.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked and found no ongoing activity in any state to legalize Internet gambling. Nevada has legalized Internet gambling for licensed operators, but they've yet to issue a single license. North Dakota passed one through their House, but it stalled in their Senate.

Given that, how can we "just get the states to legalize" when there's no action to legalize in any state?

[jschaud]

next time one of you nosebleed stakes guys plays, could you do it at my house? Just in case you drop a bunch of cash, i can get it back for you.

SECTION 32-1-20. Suit by person other than loser for recovery of losses.
If loser fails to sue for recovery, any other person may. In case any person who shall lose such money or other thing as aforesaid shall not, within the time aforesaid, really and bona fide and without covin or collusion sue and with effect prosecute for the money or other things so by him or them lost and paid and delivered as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for any other person, by any such action or suit as aforesaid, to sue for and recover the same and treble the value thereof, with costs of suit, against such winner or winners as aforesaid, the one moiety thereof to the use of the person that will sue for the same and the other moiety to the use of the county in which the offense shall have been committed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Legis, it was not really grey before, the only poker arrest was from a warrent is Louisiana and was not honored in NY, the guy was let go. Later they paid a 400K fine to La.

Sites just need to:

1. block access to these 14 states:
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont.
2. Send 1099 when cash outs pass 600.00
3. require filing a bank form for over seas if accout reaches / exceeds 10K.

See: http://www.worldwinner.com/cgi/legal/terms.html

A LEGAL Card Wagering Site ran in MASS.!

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a good article on poker as a "skill game" as legally defined: http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

just a matter of time now.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
just a matter of time now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shocked at the games Worldwinner is offering for money, a publicly traded company (London Stock Exchange) headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.

I wonder if anyone will take the chance on offering a poker only U.S. site now? If Worldwinner is ok, poker has to be, right?

[oldbookguy]

this has been my point from day one of the UIGEA, it in NO WAY effects poker, only true games of chance: I.E. Video Slots, Craps, Roulette......

even Bachus (the Frank Bill Opponenet)stated: The UIGEA only regulates that which was alreay illegal, though courts have ruled there is no law against even chance games, the UIGEA states it covers Games of Chance, NOT games of Skill, ala, World Wide Winner.

We need to get everyones eyes open to this loophole!!!!

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a matter of time now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shocked at the games Worldwinner is offering for money, a publicly traded company (London Stock Exchange) headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.

I wonder if anyone will take the chance on offering a poker only U.S. site now? If Worldwinner is ok, poker has to be, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
If Worldwinner is ok, poker has to be, right?


[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that they are "ok". Why would they not offer poker?

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Worldwinner is ok, poker has to be, right?


[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that they are "ok". Why would they not offer poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they are currently making money and offering poker could cost them more in legal defense costs than it would generate in revenue even if they felt they could prevail. (Don't tug on superman's cape)

[RGL]

OMG, this site is using PayPal to deposit and withdraw in addition to credit cards. Yet you're playing against others, even in a Poker meets solitaire game called Royal Flush! Our laws, financial processors, etc. are tying themselves in knots. Surely we can get poker back into the premier game status it has historically enjoyed in the U.S.

[oldbookguy]

An interesting question and I do not know.

As a side note of interest, Yahoo! does now offer online poker but at this time it is only in Europe.

see Yahoo.uk

With this in mind and supposing we need to depend on the UIGEA / WTO ruling, what effect WILL an American company have on the E.U. stance since their companies cannot compete here but ours are invading there.

Also, Churchill Downs who owns an online Horse Wagering site is considering adding casino games for E.U. customers only.

These are two activities we need to watch as well since these actions likely will trigger a response from the E.U.

obg

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Worldwinner is ok, poker has to be, right?


[/ QUOTE ]
Assume that they are "ok". Why would they not offer poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they are currently making money and offering poker could cost them more in legal defense costs than it would generate in revenue even if they felt they could prevail. (Don't tug on superman's cape)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it cost them anything in "legal defense". Most of the posters here say that online poker is not explicitly illegal, especially in their state. Even Allyn J. Schulman (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/blogs/article/887) declares in her article that only a "few" states specifically make it a misdemenor/felony, and no Fed law applies. So cut out those few states, and you do not have legal costs, right?

Or, are you thinking online poker might be llegal by something other than an explicit law?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think states will tax less than the feds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that if the Feds regulate and charge a license "fee", those states that legalize will also want a "fee". I suggest that the one state "fee" is enough. Two "fees" = higher rake. (Tax will be in addition.)

How much is the Fed. "license fee" for the pony people?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think states will tax less than the feds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that if the Feds regulate and charge a license "fee", those states that legalize will also want a "fee". I suggest that the one state "fee" is enough. Two "fees" = higher rake. (Tax will be in addition.)

How much is the Fed. "license fee" for the pony people?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you keep hoping the states will do something, but there's simply no progress in that arena, unlike with the horses. We can sit around and HOPE states will license instate games and then petition Congress for an interstate arrangement like IHRA, but it seems that's more hope than reality. Reality is that we've been getting killed at the federal level. We need support in Washington to win what we want legislatively or to keep what we win otherwise (judicial, WTO, state legalization, etc). I respect your opinion, but IMO we can't sit around hoping states will do something, because they aren't. I hope you'll consider the fact that we'll need support in Washington eventually, so we should be developing that.

Status quo isn't the end of the world, as long as the UIGEA regs are tolerable. Our federal legislative efforts have created an effective log jam that's inpenetrable to Goodlatte this year and likely next (an election year). So, at worst we'll have something for now if we all work hard enough on our representatives.

We tried staying quiet in the past. It was a loser.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked and found no ongoing activity in any state to legalize Internet gambling. Nevada has legalized Internet gambling for licensed operators, but they've yet to issue a single license. North Dakota passed one through their House, but it stalled in their Senate.

Given that, how can we "just get the states to legalize" when there's no action to legalize in any state?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you find any Federal "ongoing activity" to "legalize internet gambling"?

I didn't.

I see we might get Fed regulation and taxation. There's more possible Fed "licensing fees" elsewhere. Then the Feds think they might study a while. The skill bill could be interesting but isn't legalization.

And this "activity" is fine, however the most viable solution is given us right there in UIGEA. Legalize businesses -- in my state, your state, some other states -- to offer internet gambling if they at least keep minors away. Short of a constitutional amendment, internet gambling legalization is for the states.

It has to be done sometime. It can be done with zero to very little interference from the Feds.

Or we can attempt to go top down and add another layer of supervision and costs -- and no guarantee of legality.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you find any Federal "ongoing activity" to "legalize internet gambling"?

I didn't.

I see we might get Fed regulation and taxation. There's more possible Fed "licensing fees" elsewhere. Then the Feds think they might study a while. The skill bill could be interesting but isn't legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

H.R. 2610, SGPA (the Wexler poker bill) amends the Wire Act to exclude games of skill. It defines, by law, poker as a game of skill. This should make poker unambiguously legal in the 36 states that don't ban skill-based gaming.

Additionally, while not making anything legal, IGREA provides the national regulatory framework that will be necessary before any state besides Nevada (and they've yet to issue a singly license to operate) explicitly legalizes Internet poker. The proof of this is that no state except Nevada has yet taken this step.

H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act, provides the mechanism for tax collection that states will need to facilitate tax collection of sites not located in their state.

[ QUOTE ]
It has to be done sometime. It can be done with zero to very little interference from the Feds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why hasn't it happened yet, outside of NV? Seems we shouldn't sit around and get run over in Washington while hoping, someday, some state will legalize Internet poker (and will actually issue licenses to operate).

[TheEngineer]

I posted the following on another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, have you read through the bill [Wexler's bill] yet?

I noticed some parts about requiring "regulation" of the operators.

How does this compare to the Frank bill in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks good. I think we can all get behind this AND IGREA. I hope everyone will remember that we're not strong enough to divide up our efforts in favor of one or the other.

My ten-minute analysis:

- The bill defines poker (and some other games) as a "game of skill". It provides a definition of skill that provides for chance factor caused by random nature of cards.

- "For some Americans, these games provide their primary source of income." Nice to have this text in the bill.

- Modifies the Wire Act to exempt skill games.

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the fact that the language in section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Wire Act’’, has been interpreted by Federal courts as applying only to betting on sports, some in law enforcement interpret the section as prohibiting the acceptance of both sports and non-sports betting through a communications device.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
15 Section 1084 of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended by adding at the end the following new sub
17 section: (f)
18 ‘‘(f) As used in this section, the term ‘bets or wagers’
19 does not include operating, or participation in, poker,
20 chess, bridge, mahjong or any other game where success
21 is predominantly determined by a player’s skill....

[/ QUOTE ]

- Feds "should take appropriate steps" to ensure that minors cannot play, compulsive gamblers are identified and referred to treatment, geographic location is verified, games not susceptible to use for money laundering, and appropriate taxes are collected.

- Games cannot be offered where prohibited by states. No governor "opt-out" provision. Rather, state law governs.

[ QUOTE ]
Appropriate safeguards to ensure that the individual participant is physically located in a jurisdiction that does not bar participation in the particular Internet games of skill in which the individual participates at the time in the individual participates.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

So, what does the bill get us? Well, it explictly permits and regulates interstate and international "skill gambling", so we'll see advertising again, along with the other good stuff that comes with legal businesses. It also provides the national framework states need to license online poker sites in their own states (few if any states would be interested in licensing instate-only Internet poker). And, it provides a national definition for games of skill vs. games of chance with regards to poker.

It seems (at least to this non-lawyer) that states would have to specifically ban poker (either by name or by banning all skill gambling).

[ QUOTE ]
16 (4) Games where success is predominantly de
17 termined by the skill of the players involved, as a
18 matter of law and of policy, are distinct from the
19 games of chance traditionally described and ad
20 dressed in Federal and State gambling statutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

States that now only ban games of chance may find it harder to ban poker now than they did 100 years ago when they passed the laws on the books today. It will be up to people like us to keep that from happening.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or we could skip the Feds 2% "fee" plus the extra layer of regulation, and just get the states to legalize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked and found no ongoing activity in any state to legalize Internet gambling. Nevada has legalized Internet gambling for licensed operators, but they've yet to issue a single license. North Dakota passed one through their House, but it stalled in their Senate.

Given that, how can we "just get the states to legalize" when there's no action to legalize in any state?

[/ QUOTE ]
.
.
Hey, my California initiative is alive and well (albeit moving through the process at a snails pace). You want something legal, then get on board. Most of you got wound around the axle because it wasn't Party Poker redux.

You had all (and The Engineer has made this point well) direct your efforts to the realm of the doable as opposed to hoping and praying for the return of Party poker. When and if poker is legalized in the US, it will not bear much resemblance to Party Poker 2004.

Tuff, (just the messenger)

www.caonlinepoker.org (http://www.caonlinepoker.org)

Check out the street pics. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 2610, SGPA (the Wexler poker bill) amends the Wire Act to exclude games of skill. It defines, by law, poker as a game of skill. This should make poker unambiguously legal in the 36 states that don't ban skill-based gaming.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, a congressional "finding" that "games of skill, including poker" are popular, is not a definition or law.

This Wire Act amendment doesn't change the state law in Boise. Your leaping to that conclusion is wrong. It does lead to outrage from the sportsbetting crowd that thinks their game is skill.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, while not making anything legal, IGREA provides the national regulatory framework that will be necessary before any state besides Nevada (and they've yet to issue a singly license to operate) explicitly legalizes Internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, a state can legalize Internet poker NOW. Re-read UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
The proof of this is that no state except Nevada has yet taken this step.


[/ QUOTE ]
That went over my head. Sorry, could you give me a longer explanation as to how that is a proof?

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act, provides the mechanism for tax collection that states will need to facilitate tax collection of sites not located in their state.


[/ QUOTE ]
You mean after the state makes it legal, if they do, and if they don't mandate a state presence.

[ QUOTE ]
Why hasn't it happened yet, outside of NV? Seems we shouldn't sit around and get run over in Washington while hoping, someday, some state will legalize Internet poker (and will actually issue licenses to operate).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we have already been run over by the states anti-gambling laws years ago. They won't go away because of a "congressional finding", or a Fed study, or Fed regulation. We need to talk to the state people that can change those laws and find out why nothing has "happened". I agree, we should be active.

[TheEngineer]

Thanks for the reply. We've plowed the same ground several times now. I think we agree that there's work to do at the federal level and the state level. You seem hostile to and critical of the ongoing efforts at the federal level, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I guess we could call Frank and Wexler and ask them to withdraw their bills, then sit around and hope states decide on their own to license Internet poker sites. Rather than that, how about this -- you work the state level and I'll work the federal? I'll keep my Action Item thread mostly focused on the feds. I look forward to us getting a lot of states to pass legislation licensing Internet poker sites.

Cheers,

TE

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This Wire Act amendment doesn't change the state law in Boise. Your leaping to that conclusion is wrong. It does lead to outrage from the sportsbetting crowd that thinks their game is skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucks for the sportbettors, but the fact of the matter is that the Wire Act was passed in 1961 specifically to outlaw interstate sports betting. They should have fought back. Now they're coming for us, at the federal level. That's why we're fighting back.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, a state can legalize Internet poker NOW. Re-read UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've stated that 1,000 times now, as well as the fact that they'd be stuck instate. I'm sure you've noticed not many states are jumping on this. When do you expect them to?

[ QUOTE ]
That went over my head. Sorry, could you give me a longer explanation as to how that is a proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. If states were going to license gaming sites, they'd likely have done so by now.

[ QUOTE ]
You mean after the state makes it legal, if they do, and if they don't mandate a state presence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think the odds are of three or more states licensing Internet gaming sites within five years? I'm guessing it's pretty low without the feds acting first. There's NO action right now (aside from TuffFish's hope).

[ QUOTE ]
I think we have already been run over by the states anti-gambling laws years ago. They won't go away because of a "congressional finding", or a Fed study, or Fed regulation. We need to talk to the state people that can change those laws and find out why nothing has "happened". I agree, we should be active.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, nothing is going on at the state level. My personal opnion is that it's foolish for us to sit this out and get run over at the federal level while hoping against hope that some state will legalize it for us. We STRONGLY need some momentum at the federal level. Fortunately, 99% of us here agree. Ask the sportsbettors if they wished someone fought against the Wire Act.

[TheEngineer]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, a congressional "finding" that "games of skill, including poker" are popular, is not a definition or law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll have to see what happens. There's ongoing action in the skill vs. chance arena now. Wexler's bill helps a lot in this.

[ QUOTE ]
This Wire Act amendment doesn't change the state law in Boise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this comment. Today, for example, Harrah's cannot set up a gaming web site in Nevada and offer games outside state lines. This isn't very exciting to anyone. As a result, Nevada has not issued any licenses, nor do they have any plans to do so. With IGREA, Harrah's, MGM, and others would be able to offer full gaming to the world plus all states that do not opt out. States would require some inducements to not opt out, perhaps, but this puts a regulated plan in place for this to happen.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem hostile to and critical of the ongoing efforts at the federal level, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

After giving this some thought, no, the efforts are good, I'm not hostile or critical of them. In reality, it is the strategy of the efforts that has downside and that needs to be shown.

We want Fed legislation that is very unlikely to pass. Members of Congress come from states that have general prohibitions against gambling business. Why would the majority of those reps vote for Fed regulation, if they know their states won’t legalize online business because of the prohibitions?

One popular premise of the strategy is that fighting for these bills in DC will make our opponents at least slow their efforts in Congress. Why would the anti-gambling groups slow efforts to influence the matter, no matter where we attack?

If a miracle change to Fed laws is made, states laws still have their business prohibitions. The assumption that many states would drop these prohibitions and legalize internet gambling businesses is a leap of faith. Couldn't one just as likely assume that states would now feel forced to pass even stricter prohibitions; something specifically opting out of the Fed scheme?

The study bill could pass, but it could also backfire as above, judging from the gambling studies I've read.

The popular way of talking about this illegality problem, is that Congress and their UIGEA was the start of the trouble. It is human nature to want to fight the perceived problem, and that means fighting Congress. Two thoughts. First, we are a small group, with difficulties in DC due to the strong majority against us. We should understand that a direct assault, against the 50 states combined, is perilous and has low chance of success. Second, the perceived problem misses the much older and widespread state business prohibitions. The Fed “crackdown” began long before the unused UIGEA, by using those prohibitions and other Fed law.

Starting to gain legality by trying to flip the states that are more open than others, doesn’t guarantee anything. But the odds improve, IMHO. Nevada has made moves and I don’t know enough about them to understand what is holding up a room from dealing online there. If anyone knows and sees a way to help, chime in. Get Nevada plus California and Fed enabling legislation for online gambling businesses becomes easier, but still a hard thing.

This summary of my opinion may seem negative, but it reflects reality, popular or not.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem hostile to and critical of the ongoing efforts at the federal level, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

After giving this some thought, no, the efforts are good, I'm not hostile or critical of them. In reality, it is the strategy of the efforts that has downside and that needs to be shown.

We want Fed legislation that is very unlikely to pass. Members of Congress come from states that have general prohibitions against gambling business. Why would the majority of those reps vote for Fed regulation, if they know their states won’t legalize online business because of the prohibitions?

One popular premise of the strategy is that fighting for these bills in DC will make our opponents at least slow their efforts in Congress. Why would the anti-gambling groups slow efforts to influence the matter, no matter where we attack?

If a miracle change to Fed laws is made, states laws still have their business prohibitions. The assumption that many states would drop these prohibitions and legalize internet gambling businesses is a leap of faith. Couldn't one just as likely assume that states would now feel forced to pass even stricter prohibitions; something specifically opting out of the Fed scheme?

The study bill could pass, but it could also backfire as above, judging from the gambling studies I've read.

The popular way of talking about this illegality problem, is that Congress and their UIGEA was the start of the trouble. It is human nature to want to fight the perceived problem, and that means fighting Congress. Two thoughts. First, we are a small group, with difficulties in DC due to the strong majority against us. We should understand that a direct assault, against the 50 states combined, is perilous and has low chance of success. Second, the perceived problem misses the much older and widespread state business prohibitions. The Fed “crackdown” began long before the unused UIGEA, by using those prohibitions and other Fed law.

Starting to gain legality by trying to flip the states that are more open than others, doesn’t guarantee anything. But the odds improve, IMHO. Nevada has made moves and I don’t know enough about them to understand what is holding up a room from dealing online there. If anyone knows and sees a way to help, chime in. Get Nevada plus California and Fed enabling legislation for online gambling businesses becomes easier, but still a hard thing.

This summary of my opinion may seem negative, but it reflects reality, popular or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

While my view is not as negative, this view is legitimate. Thus, I believe that litigation, such as the case began by iMEGA, is more likely to defeat the anti-gambling forces' campaign against online gambling.

[oldbookguy]

The importance of Federal Legislation:

The rules are quite simple really.
1. The federal government has treaty power, not the states so if the feds legalize online gaming, states can make it illegal to run it in their state however they cannot prevent an international / overseas company from offering the services in the state unless they make a law criminalizing the resident citizen's activity.

A case in point, a few years ago some states passed laws allowing citizen's to buy drugs from Canada but there was a federal ban, the feds won. Finally the FDA changed the rules but until then the Feds still enforced the law against it even though states said OK.

By application in reverse the same will / should hold true for gaming online. States cannot bar the company but can bar their citizens only.

Treaty power is granted solely to the Federal Government.
A treaty would have to have a claus stating individual states may choose not to participate forcing states to pass specific laws against the activity.
To date only 14 have those in effect and a few are in the process of reversing those or considering it thus putting more pressure on the government.

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem hostile to and critical of the ongoing efforts at the federal level, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

After giving this some thought, no, the efforts are good, I'm not hostile or critical of them. In reality, it is the strategy of the efforts that has downside and that needs to be shown.

We want Fed legislation that is very unlikely to pass. Members of Congress come from states that have general prohibitions against gambling business. Why would the majority of those reps vote for Fed regulation, if they know their states won’t legalize online business because of the prohibitions?

One popular premise of the strategy is that fighting for these bills in DC will make our opponents at least slow their efforts in Congress. Why would the anti-gambling groups slow efforts to influence the matter, no matter where we attack?

If a miracle change to Fed laws is made, states laws still have their business prohibitions. The assumption that many states would drop these prohibitions and legalize internet gambling businesses is a leap of faith. Couldn't one just as likely assume that states would now feel forced to pass even stricter prohibitions; something specifically opting out of the Fed scheme?

The study bill could pass, but it could also backfire as above, judging from the gambling studies I've read.

The popular way of talking about this illegality problem, is that Congress and their UIGEA was the start of the trouble. It is human nature to want to fight the perceived problem, and that means fighting Congress. Two thoughts. First, we are a small group, with difficulties in DC due to the strong majority against us. We should understand that a direct assault, against the 50 states combined, is perilous and has low chance of success. Second, the perceived problem misses the much older and widespread state business prohibitions. The Fed “crackdown” began long before the unused UIGEA, by using those prohibitions and other Fed law.

Starting to gain legality by trying to flip the states that are more open than others, doesn’t guarantee anything. But the odds improve, IMHO. Nevada has made moves and I don’t know enough about them to understand what is holding up a room from dealing online there. If anyone knows and sees a way to help, chime in. Get Nevada plus California and Fed enabling legislation for online gambling businesses becomes easier, but still a hard thing.

This summary of my opinion may seem negative, but it reflects reality, popular or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skallagrim]

The Wexler Bill is the better bill for us poker players.

The separation of poker from other forms of "gaming" is the key point.

If you go through the various state laws, only a small handfull specifically mention poker. The vast majority simply outlaw "gambling" which is betting money on any game that is more chance than skill.

In other words, Perma, if the Wexler bill were to become law, the Federal "trump" will have been played and the vast majority of states will have to accept that poker is not covered by their current gambling laws because it is a game of skill. That vast majority of states will then have to PASS NEW LAWS if they dont want their citizens playing online poker. And those laws would have to be poker specific, not just general anti-gambling stuff.

I really can only imagine a few states (all in the bible-belt) where the political might of the moralists and nanny-staters is sufficient to get new laws passed that ban POKER (as opposed to sportsbetting, blackjack and slots). How many moralists and nanny-staters are actively seeking to ban online Bridge or Solitaire or Chess?

Skallagrim

PS - Oldbookguy, your basic point is absolutely correct, but I am not sure all of those 14 states' skill gaming laws would cover poker, I am currently researching that further. Also, some states, like Oklahoma, specifcally make poker illegal, so the skill v luck argument would not work there, even though they otherwise allow "skill" gaming.

[oldbookguy]

Yes, I believe congress really made more of a mess for even the Federal Government than they solved, lol.

The question though, does the OK law address internet specific that is the key. The 14 states referenced and used by the Skill sites all have Internet specific language, the others, like my state of WV do not.
Most states (WV as an example) are relying on the State Atty. Gen. opinions that existing laws cover the Internet based on Sports Betting Wire Act laws that states passed.
As to this, we all know that it has been ruled and upheld on appeal that the Wire Act law(s) only covers Sports Betting, not casino wagering (poker).

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
After giving this some thought, no, the efforts are good, I'm not hostile or critical of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
We want Fed legislation that is very unlikely to pass. Members of Congress come from states that have general prohibitions against gambling business. Why would the majority of those reps vote for Fed regulation, if they know their states won’t legalize online business because of the prohibitions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we were able to get 93 votes against HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, without really trying. Those legislators refused to oppose offshore, untaxed casinos when it appeared there would be little negative voter backlash as a consequence.

Now, we're proposing a system to regulate and tax the industry while allowing it to move onshore. We need 218 votes to pass the House, or 125 more. Leach is out of office, the Republicans are out of power, PPA has 550,000 members, D'Amato is actively lobbying, we're actively writing, and we're actually getting noticed, at least a little bit. While I agree we're underdogs to passing legislation this year, we're MUCH stronger than last year, and this year will serve to build our movement. It's going much, much better than I had expected when I started asking folks here to join with me in writing a few letters. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As for reps knowing what their states will do, I don't know if many of them know for sure (the guys from Utah do, but who else does?). I do know they will have to listen to the voters in their districts. That's where we come in.

[ QUOTE ]
One popular premise of the strategy is that fighting for these bills in DC will make our opponents at least slow their efforts in Congress. Why would the anti-gambling groups slow efforts to influence the matter, no matter where we attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were leading an army and were going to attack, would you attack a fully mobilized enemy, or would you prefer weakness? We're strong now, and last Friday's hearing proved it. Bachus got destroyed, no question about it. He didn't even put a link to the hearing on his own web page! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Sure, our opponents COULD reintroduce HR 4477, the Wire Act expansion, but it doesn't appear they are at this point. Nah....they have to use a lot of energy to prevail on defense. Like the expression goes, "the best defense is a good offense".

[ QUOTE ]
If a miracle change to Fed laws is made, states laws still have their business prohibitions. The assumption that many states would drop these prohibitions and legalize internet gambling businesses is a leap of faith. Couldn't one just as likely assume that states would now feel forced to pass even stricter prohibitions; something specifically opting out of the Fed scheme?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some will and some will not, no question. Nevada will not opt out, of course, as they have already passed licensing legislation. They'd love to serve the world from the U.S.

As for other states, it will be up to those states and to their residents. It's up to the states now, so there's nothing new here.

[ QUOTE ]
The study bill could pass, but it could also backfire as above, judging from the gambling studies I've read.

[/ QUOTE ]

The previous studies that are frequently cited were really quite biased against gambling by design. The bill defines the study terms to ensure a neutral look at the industry. It may not give us the answer we want, of course, but it seems a fair way to go about things, I guess. I couldn't imagine writing to my represenative asking him to oppose the bill because it may yield negative results.

You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal. They threatened to confiscate our money as well, and they've shown that they mean business in this area. Also, they've forced Sporting News Radio, PayPal, and others to pay million dollar settlements for accepting Internet gambling ads. While these were sports betting related, Sporting News Radio must air $3 M worth of PSAs against ALL online gaming. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2006/04/70660?currentPage=all

Finally, it's hard for me to imagine states jumping at licensing gaming sites, given today's federal situation. If you were a governor, which would sound more appealing: "We'd like to open a gambling site in your state that will accept wagers from all over the world. Most of the ads will be outside your state. Your state will collect reasonable tax revenue." Or..."We'd like to open a gaming site in your state. Only your residents will be allowed to play, so it will be heavily advertised, like the lottery. It will never be very large, but the state will get revenue, as long as you tax the hell out of it." I personally don't see a reason for a state to license sites for instate-only play; no state, not even Nevada, is moving forward. I think you'll concede that point.

I appreciate your feedback.

Cheers,

TE

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[Fishhead24]

Religious Republicans.........WTF?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[asterion]

I wonder how much better off we are with the DOJ and the AG under tons of scrutiny from Congress for being run by a moron who isn't going anywhere anytime soon unless the Congress can actually get enough votes to support articles of impeachment and then, of course, impeachment against the AG. Seems to me that the more time parts of the DOJ has to spend on the Hill the easier we have it in the meantime to make a legislative push.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how much better off we are with the DOJ and the AG under tons of scrutiny from Congress for being run by a moron who isn't going anywhere anytime soon unless the Congress can actually get enough votes to support articles of impeachment and then, of course, impeachment against the AG. Seems to me that the more time parts of the DOJ has to spend on the Hill the easier we have it in the meantime to make a legislative push.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the best thing for us in the short term is for Gonzales to stay in for the duration of Bush's administration, where he'll be rather ineffectual. Long term, hopefully the next administration won't be so beholden to the religious right.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not raise our hopes too much. Janet Reno hated gambling and individual rights with a rare passion.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not raise our hopes too much. Janet Reno hated gambling and individual rights with a rare passion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was careful to not mention either party. We should all keep in mind that the majority of House Democrats voted for HR 4411 last year. For example, we'd be better off with Ron Paul than with any Dem (for this issue). Giuliani could be better than Clinton (again, for this issue).

We'll just have to keep working and keep writing. We'll get there, or will at least keep it from getting worse.

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not raise our hopes too much. Janet Reno hated gambling and individual rights with a rare passion.

[/ QUOTE ]Good point. We're lucky Reno still isn't in charge, or we'd wake up one morning by having our doors kicked in and guns pointed at us.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not raise our hopes too much. Janet Reno hated gambling and individual rights with a rare passion.

[/ QUOTE ]Good point. We're lucky Reno still isn't in charge, or we'd wake up one morning by having our doors kicked in and guns pointed at us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but things are diferent now then when Reno was around. We are now a fairly focused political force, maybe not capable of changing law, but capable of making campaign donations. I just received a letter from "Vice President Gore" asking for money to help keep Democrats in charge in Congress. The only reason I can figure I was targeted was because I gave money to Kyl's opponent in the last Senate campaign.

If democrats win the White House back, they would be foolish to put up an AG who is passionate about getting rid of online gaming. True, dems are often foolish, but at least the odds are against it.

Our main worry I think is that Republicans may very well win again. Chances are Democrats will "foolishly" nominate Hillary. If that happens, any Republican will have a 50/50 shot at winning imo.

[TheEngineer]

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.

[oldbookguy]

This exemplifies why we need to really be fighting on the rules side of the UIGEA and in the courts IMEGA Group.

Really doubtful we can win by legislation.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

This exemplifies why we need to really be fighting on the rules side of the UIGEA and in the courts IMEGA Group.

Really doubtful we can win by legislation.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's keep in mind that this vote concerned offshore sites not regulated or taxed by the U.S. As such, some of the opponents to the bill weren't voting against "gambling" per se. With a bill like IGREA, a lot of the objections will go away. Also, we weren't all that organized. In fact, some here thought it was better to stay quiet, to not attract attention to ourselves and out of fear that regulations would be bad. A few here still think this way, but most have seen the light, especially given recent DOJ actions.

Also, we'll need political support to keep any judicial victories, or we'll just repeat our WTO "victory"...one we couldn't sustain without some political strength. So, I hope we'll fight on all fronts as hard as possible.

[oldbookguy]

Oh agreed, we need to fight on all fronts it is just some are more likely to succeed than others.

One thing we can accomplish and give everyone an 'out' with is the 'skills' rules and that would also solve the WTO, I am sure Antigua would be happy if poker were allowed and not worry about slots.

Remember, the WTO has no bearing on Sports Wagering (execpt horses), the U.S. did exempt that from Schedule 964.

obg

[TheEngineer]

More data:

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 two of our biggest supporters. One, Emmanual Cleaver, voted for HR 4411 but appears to be coming around on IGREA.

My takeaway: UIGEA passed with a coalition of social conservatives who hate all gambling plus many concerned 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. With IGREA, the Wexler poker bill, new Congressional leadership, our hard work, and whatever lobbying we have, this coalition has been weakened. It appears the social conservatives are standing almost alone (they have a few nanny-staters with them). That's why our opponents are now reduced to saying "gambling's illegal, now go away (please, please go away....we want to keep this)"

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

[Legislurker]

Monday or Tuesday should tell us if the WTO route is going to be good or bad. If dozens of countries line up for compensation for harm, we are in business. I hope Lamy and Mandelson get the EU on board with Antigua at this week's EU summit. It is sort of humourous that a bunch of small government libertarians like us are sitting around waiting on the WTO to be our white knight.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, we'll need political support to keep any judicial victories, or we'll just repeat our WTO "victory"...one we couldn't sustain without some political strength. So, I hope we'll fight on all fronts as hard as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if the iMEGA wins based on constitutional grounds, maybe even WTO grounds, then the politics do not matter. Of course a victory in the last appellate level is required.
I still view the political/legislative avenue as a alternative to the litigation.
Both are far from certain to succeed, but the litigation is more likley to make online gambling legal in the US. I will admit that in a couple of years, things might change.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, we'll need political support to keep any judicial victories, or we'll just repeat our WTO "victory"...one we couldn't sustain without some political strength. So, I hope we'll fight on all fronts as hard as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually if the iMEGA wins based on constitutional grounds, maybe even WTO grounds, then the politics do not matter. Of course a victory in the last appellate level is required.
I still view the political/legislative avenue as a alternative to the litigation.
Both are far from certain to succeed, but the litigation is more likley to make online gambling legal in the US. I will admit that in a couple of years, things might change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless someone finds the right to play poker online in the Constitution, Congress has the power to override any outcome from the suit that grants us the right to play.

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



You may or may not agree, but my personal opinion is that the feds will continue to screw us over, especially if we don't fight back at that level. The FBI posted an opinion on their web site claiming that all Internet gambling is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current FBI is under the control of the right wing religious republicans. Hopefully if the Democrats get in the white house next year this will change and we will have a sane justice dept/ FBI instead of one which is staffed by graduates of Pat Robertsons law school who have stated that they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPEARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Good things are happening, but with the Religious Republicans out of office it will be much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope sanity returns to the FBI and the DOJ after the next election. We should do our part to make sure our discontent is known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not raise our hopes too much. Janet Reno hated gambling and individual rights with a rare passion.

[/ QUOTE ]Good point. We're lucky Reno still isn't in charge, or we'd wake up one morning by having our doors kicked in and guns pointed at us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but things are diferent now then when Reno was around.

[/ QUOTE ]I mostly just wanted another chance to take a shot at Reno and in this case the Gonzales incident worked nicely.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The Wexler Bill is the better bill for us poker players.

The separation of poker from other forms of "gaming" is the key point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree with your key point. To me it is a competitive game like bridge; they are played for money by adults. There are differences in the money aspects, but the end result is that the best players win.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, Perma, if the Wexler bill were to become law, the Federal "trump" will have been played and the vast majority of states will have to accept that poker is not covered by their current gambling laws because it is a game of skill. That vast majority of states will then have to PASS NEW LAWS if they dont want their citizens playing online poker. And those laws would have to be poker specific, not just general anti-gambling stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bill seems like an iffy way to get separation. There are parts of the bill that are confusing, like something written much too hastily, IMHO, and that I really don’t understand. Help clarify please.

To pass, the states would vote to make online poker a skill game regulated by the Treas. Secretary. Which states would vote for this before knowing what the regulations will say?

It mentions “any other” skill games that are to be protected; when will we hear what these are and from whom? Can the list expand over time?

Where does it actually make new law mandating skill games are legal?

What Fed bureaucracy would enforce the regs for the many providers, in the many states? Will the businesses also have to have a state presence/license/regulation?

Since skill games will be protected and regulated by the Feds, will the regs be the same for the huge number of street corner poker rooms that will spring up overnight, or would the Feds outlaw them somewhere else, or do the states allow them along with online?

If a few states don’t want to allow skill games, are you sure they can outlaw a Fed protected game? Do you foresee any litigation?

If the skill argument prevails eventually, is it more likely to be in court, or Congress or the states?

[Skallagrim]

Permafrost, most of your post asks for detailed answers in areas where the details have yet to be written, either by amendments to the bill, or by future (hopefully) regulators.

But one aspect of the bill is very clear, it DEFINES poker as a game of skill, to be regulated as a game of skill. This is the "trump" because, as matter of pre-emption of laws, states will simply have to accept poker as a game of skill AND (in most states) THEREFORE NOT COVERED BY THEIR GAMBLING LAWS. Only a few states mention poker specifically in their statutes, these laws will continue to have effect, because a state can ban a skill game if it chooses (and I believe, without double checking, that the bill allows for this so no commerce clause problem). But that 30-35 states whose gambling laws only apply to "games of chance" will have to pass new laws if they want to stop their citizens from playing poker legally.

And thats not a bad position to be in - the one real truth in this politcal struggle is that the vast majority of americans dont really care that much about this issue (most when polled are on our side, but most also think it is a very unimportant issue, and to a large extent they are right). In that kind of situation the "status quo" always has the advantage, and it takes sneaky tricks (like attaching your pet bill to some real legislation) for one side or the other to get things passed.

So by making poker undeniably a skill game, poker becomes undeniably legal in most states.

And it will be up to the anti-poker crew to get their legislatures to do something about it, and up to us to stop them (and maybe even convince a few others to change in favor of poker).

Skallagrim