Update on Washington State Bills

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the government is a business like any other (only where bribes are more legal)

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll appreciate my old PokerRoom profile, particularly the last paragraph. I last updated it when PokerRoom gave US players the boot. (And yes, I was very, very bitter.)

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately the only way we can convince them that keeping poker around is in their best interest is to make it be in their best interest....

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
I see where you're coming from now, but I'm still not sure I agree. How can you profit from poker, if you're not profiting from the existence of the premises? If the location for playing poker did not exist, you would not be making a profit from that location.

But presuming your interpretation for a moment: would rakeback then qualify as taking a share?

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else has already pointed out, the key word here is 'operation', and I think you're misinterpreting it. Here are the definitions from dictionary.com of operate that I think apply the best here:

11. to put or keep (a factory, industrial system, ranch, etc.) working or in operation: to operate a coal mine.
12. to bring about, effect, or produce, as by action or the exertion of force or influence.

Playing in a game does not constitute having any interest in its operation nor profitting from its operation. As I said before, I'm not a laywer, and this obviously does not constitute legal advice.

I do believe that the one class of people they would consider prosecuting are rakeback providers. In fact, there was a well-read newspaper story a long while back about the potential prosecution of one person in Bellingham(?) who had an operation like that. I think he ended up just having to shut it down and didn't get prosecuted, but I hesitate to even offer that much because my memory of the details involved is very poor.

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in Washington. I wrote and rewrote about 20 different state legislators last spring when they were contemplating passage of SB6613, and wrote them again after they passed it. I just wrote them all again yesterday asking if indeed anyone has been charged or prosecuted under RCW 9.46.240, the law that SB6613 became.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so you seem well informed, or at least moreso than me. So let me ask: Are you aware of any effective washington based organization that's trying to effect change in this area? I'd be willing to contribute money... and more importantly, time... to this cause. If there's nothing established yet, we may be at the point where we need to start something. I've been so reluctant to get involved in initiating something like this because I so abhor the current state of politics but if nobody else is going to do it...it does need to be done.

[yahboohoo]

I'm trying to contact Rep. Chris Strow, the sponsor of the bill, about ways we can help. I am similarly interested in volunteering any assistance. I'll let you know if he says help is welcome/needed.

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to contact Rep. Chris Strow, the sponsor of the bill, about ways we can help. I am similarly interested in volunteering any assistance. I'll let you know if he says help is welcome/needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand me -- the only thing I would do with regard to Mr. Strow's bill is give him a piece of my mind about the stupidity of separating recreational and professional online poker playing in the eyes of the law. I'd be interested in supporting efforts to bring about logical and balanced changes to the law.

[Jonahdog]

The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2007

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]
The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2007

[/ QUOTE ]

no,it definitely doesn't deserve support. If this passes, there is pretty much zero chance the issue will be taken up again, and professionals who play online will be stuck exposed to felony charges.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The substitute bill, HB 2320 has now had an amendment proposed on the floor by one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Appleton to change the penalty from a gross misdemeanor down to a civil infraction level 3 - i.e., no jail, $50 fine.

I can't tell the status, but this is *definitely* a strong positive move regardless of the "professional" distinction debate and deserves support. Here's a link:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summ...&year=2007

[/ QUOTE ]

no,it definitely doesn't deserve support. If this passes, there is pretty much zero chance the issue will be taken up again, and professionals who play online will be stuck exposed to felony charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? passing a bill that changes the charge from felony to civil infraction will leave pros exposed to felony charges? how does this work?

[ackbleh]

[ QUOTE ]

??? passing a bill that changes the charge from felony to civil infraction will leave pros exposed to felony charges? how does this work?

[/ QUOTE ]

the existing law makes it a felony for everyone to play. There are currently multiple bills being debated to 'fix' the first bill which more and more lawmakers are now seeing as a mistake. Whichever bill is chosen will likely be the end of the matter, at least for a long while. Whatever 'fixes' that are left out of the bill that passes (if any) during this push are unlikely to be passed in the near future, if ever.

The vast majority of washington state poker players are recreational, and if those on this forum are any indication, they're plenty eager to throw the professionals under the bus if it saves their own skin.

[zook]

I just received this e-mail response from Rep. Sherry Appleton, one of the sponsors of HB 2320 and the author of the amendment to change the penalty from a misdemeanor to a class 3 civil infraction (maximium penalty $50).

[ QUOTE ]
Dear x,

We could not get the bill voted on. I am sorry but we will try again next session - I really hate that we passed that bill last year - a little ridiculous. Thanks and it will include my amendment next year.

Sherry

________________________________

From: xxxx
Sent: Mon 3/19/2007 4:47 PM
To: Appleton, Rep. Sherry
Subject: HB 2320 - Reducing the penalty for internet gambling



Dear Rep. Appleton,

I'm hoping you can give me an update on the status of this bill. As a Washington state resident who
used to enjoy online poker (until the passage of the bill last year that made it a felony) I greatly
appreciate your efforts to pass this bill. Can you tell me when it might come to a vote? Will it
include your amendment, changing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a class 3 civil infraction?

Thanks for your time,

x

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding of the WA legislative calendar, next session means next January [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]