[Skallagrim]

The UIGEA says that it only prohibits money transfer for bets or wagers illegal under state or federal law. Federal law does not cover poker. Perma is right, I think, about the limitations the UIGEA places on an intrastate gambling site, but the "new" part of my idea is that the legislation to be proposed would specifically say that citizen X in state A placing a bet in an online poker game is perfectly legal so long as the money transfer agent used by X is licensed by state A. Hence it is explicitly exempt from the UIGEA.

JP raises an appropriate concern, and I have no information to know for certain, but my guess is that setting up a mini neteller like operation in a single state would not cost that much, and thus could make a profit off of just one state's players (certainly this must be true in the larger states). Plus, I would not lobby for a monopoly here, but allow any Financial Service provider to get the license. Thus the FS would not be limited to one state, and, if more than one license is issued, players get a choice.

This is obviously not for every state - but for states that would like to see some increased revenue from gaming, a law such as this would provide that revenue. It would also provide the safeguards everybody supports. It would also not lead to any new "gambling" businesses. It would only cover an activity many citizens already engage in (so the other gaming lobbies really couldnt object that much - the only direct competition is with B&M poker, and most B&M poker places realize online play helps bring in customers rather than the other way around). And the cost of the whole enterprise is minimal to the state, one extra desk job in the Lottery office probably is all thats needed to oversee the FS companies.

A cheap easy way to get a cut of the poker revenue stream, that merely allows people to play a game of skill for money in the privacy of their own home. Hell, if the moralists or nanny staters really object, you could even have money limits (like $500 a month unless personally exempted).

I am going to talk to some state reps I know here in NH, and let you know what they think. NH is a good place to try because A) with no income or sales tax NH is always looking for a new money source, B) NH does not have a lot of moralists in its Rep party, and C) gambling is popular in NH, although actual casinos are not - this is new gambling revenue w/o new casinos!

I think there are probably a number of other states where this idea would be viewed favorably, like oldbookguy's WV [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Skallagrim