More Online Gambling Legislation Introduced

[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