2 Congressmen Fight Back

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What gives me the creeps is that when a site like UB tries to play games with my cashout, the closest thing I have to a recourse is posting something bad about them on 2+2.

When I have this kind of money at stake, I happen to like having some sort of oversight authority in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had a problem cashing out from any site, though my largest cashout was low 5-figures, and I've never cashed out much from UB, so I can't speak from personal experience.

I guess I should have qualified by saying not *all* the sites we play fit those derogatory terms.

[JPFisher55]

I have had no problems cashing out from UB.

[Grasshopp3r]

The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
While I am happy Peter King is now on our side, but I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know that cards would be effected by passing this law.

I remember calling Mr. King’s office and explaining this to his staff and was told his lines were flooded with similar messagesn by the operator.

If Mr. King held these views back in October we probably wouldn’t have been where we are today. I am glad he has seen the error of his ways, don’t get me wrong, but I have mixed feelings here. The negative being enacting a law which you do not know how it will impact American citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

He knew then. Unfortunately for us, he and the few others that actually had a chance to read to bill didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism by not voting for the bill.

We were going to get screwed because those that put the legislation didn't have the balls that John Warner did when he told Frist and company to [censored] off when they tried to attach it to his bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe America will ever intentionally permit untaxed, unregulated Internet gaming. It will be taxed or it will be snuffed out by the DoJ, as we've been seeing. Unfortunately, this hits poker players the worst, as we need fish, and fish need easy access to games.

I prefer regulation to prohibition myself. I hope we'll all back IGREA. I also hope we'll all email a copy of this op-ed to our senators and congressmen. I did, and it took less than five mintues total.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The IGREA is additional regulation and taxation. How much is anyone's guess as it is not specified. I think that it would help to have poker regulated, but if it is taxed heavily, it will not help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe America will ever intentionally permit untaxed, unregulated Internet gaming. It will be taxed or it will be snuffed out by the DoJ, as we've been seeing. Unfortunately, this hits poker players the worst, as we need fish, and fish need easy access to games.

I prefer regulation to prohibition myself. I hope we'll all back IGREA. I also hope we'll all email a copy of this op-ed to our senators and congressmen. I did, and it took less than five mintues total.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree if it is left up to Congress. Rep. Frank's bill is better than outright prohibition, but maybe not better than the present situation.
However, courts or WTO action may lead to a better result than Rep. Frank's regulate and possibly tax the online gambling industry. Before you back Rep. Frank's bill too heavily, you might want to wait one year to see what happens with the iMEGA case, other litigation after the regs come out and the WTO situation.
Of course, you should heavily support Rep. Wexler's bill and I have emailed my congressman and senators seeking their support for this bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree if it is left up to Congress. Rep. Frank's bill is better than outright prohibition, but maybe not better than the present situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why's that? If we had advertising and easy money transfers, the fish likely would be lined up for the slaughter. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Also, status quo is hard to maintain. It's IGREA that's keeping tougher laws from being introduced.

It's not all bad, I don't think. I hope you'll consider taking a closer look at the benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
However, courts or WTO action may lead to a better result than Rep. Frank's regulate and possibly tax the online gambling industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? If we win iMEGA, Congress will be able to simply change the law, if they want. Our goal is to make them not want to. Same with the WTO. The U.S. does have sovereignty. There's some low probability that bans will be unconstitutional, but that's like drawing to a one-outer.

[ QUOTE ]
Before you back Rep. Frank's bill too heavily, you might want to wait one year to see what happens with the iMEGA case, other litigation after the regs come out and the WTO situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we wait a year without giving Frank any support, there won't be a bill to support next year.

Supporting Frank's bill is as much about demonstrating political strength as it is about passing the legislation, I think. If we want something better, we have to show support for our position now.

[JPFisher55]

The iMEGA case is all about constitution. If iMEGA wins then an outright ban is unconstitutional. The problem with the iMEGA case is standing which is a procedural issue. The constitution issues have been raised by many legal experts and have merit.
Of course, some regulation and taxation would be constitutional, but I would rather do without it. I agree about some regulation attracting fish (casual player), but no regulation attracts plenty. I guess I am afraid that Congress will over regulate and tax the industry. Also, I don't think that foreign firms will cotton to paying taxes to US or obeying much regulation for merely having US citizens access their websites. All the UK regs and taxes only apply to firms based in UK.
The US surrendered a lot of trade soveriegnity when it ratified GATS and WTO. Without these treaties, every country could violate our IP laws. I wonder how the music and movie industries, huge Dem supporters, will like it when Antiqua is granted the right to violate their copyrights.
Remember Rep. Frank's bill violates the WTO as much as present law, while Rep. Wexler's bill is a step toward compliance with Antiqua and the WTO. Maybe a compromise can be reached in which US regulates online sports betting and no other online gambling.
As far as demonstrating political strength, I watched the Republican Party demonstrate lots of political strength and achieve little of its core principles before abandoning them.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The iMEGA case is all about constitution. If iMEGA wins then an outright ban is unconstitutional. The problem with the iMEGA case is standing which is a procedural issue. The constitution issues have been raised by many legal experts and have merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The case has some probability of getting UIGEA overturned, but the likelihood of a finding that Congress lacks the authority to ban Internet gaming is fairly low (the one-outer to which I referred). So, we'll still need political strength to keep the victory.

Everything else is a political solution also, so it seems we should pursue all options to demonstrate that strength. It can't hurt, right?

SPGA is a good bill, but IGREA has a better chance of getting passed. Also, IGREA has the benefit of having casino games to take up the tax load, allowing poker its traditional role as loss leader (or at least weaker profitability).

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

The sites we play at are not "unscrupulous" nor run by "con artists." The fact that they use the term "gray market" gives me the creeps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It really frustrates me that people assume that because a company is not based in America, that it is run by unethical crooks in savage countries with no laws.

No US-based company has ever done something wrong, right?