Frank to introduce bill.....

[permafrost]

Good summary of the problems.

One question about #3 where states allow playing poker.

No state currently allows any business to offer online poker.

If that is correct, and this bill only licenses a business to offer what is legal in a state, then the states must opt out of the poker portion of this Fed scheme, right?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I want poker legal more than anyone. I want it legal for everyone in every state. I want unregulated, feds out of my face, poker that I had a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! We all do. Our struggle now is not just UIGEA; rather, it's that we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. I think the issue is how to get from that vote back to where we were last year.

I think we're making some progress, but this is a marathon, not a sprint.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to bring up a few things to this thread that seem to be missing.

1. This is not a repeal of the UIGEA. It is a continuation of it. It strengthens that act, instead of leaving it the limp dog that it currently is. (So far, not one person, or business has been charged with a violation of the UIGEA).

2. Because it is a not a repeal it seems that Barney Frank has been a little manipulative in calling it a repeal. That sends up red flags for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone here called it a repeal of UIGEA. If you go back through the threads, I think you'll be surprised at the level of analysis of IGREA (HR 2046, the Frank bill)

[ QUOTE ]
3. This bill does not legalize poker. Poker is already legal. In most states. In the states that it is not, then this bill will make it "more" illegal to play there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's legal, can I start an Internet poker site from my home state? Can I advertise it? Legal to play (I believe it is, but even that is disputed by the Dept. of Justice) is different from legal to offer the game or legal to finance it.

Your other comments are interesting and are worthy of discussion. I concur with you on #9, in fact. However, our struggle is overcoming the HR 4411 vote. Our enemies are out for us. They want to expand the Wire Act to incude poker players!

So, your points are well-taken, but right now I think our goal is to show solidarity with the right to gamble online. This is an uphill struggle, to be sure. It's not like the Frank bill will sail through. In fact, I think the main benefits we'll see from this will be in having a good offense (to act as a defense), positive press, and organization of our grassroots effort. While some think we should lose the principled fight, I'd personally support being pragmatic and winning what we can.

What do you think? Are you going to sit out until we have the perfect bill? If we get the perfect Libertarian bill, can it pass a vote in the House with no provisions for protections for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, or money laundering?

[Jack Bando]

Engineer, are you going to make a thread about Rep. Shelley Berkley's new study bill? What do you think about it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, are you going to make a thread about Rep. Shelley Berkley's new study bill? What do you think about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll put something out later today, after work. I'll also ask that people start writing to Anheuser-Busch and to Miller Brewing Co. to complain about the NFL's attempt to interfere with our freedoms with regards to IGREA, especially as the leagues were given opt-outs. In the mean time, I hope everyone will read up on the details of the study bill.

[Jeffiner99]

Well, if my choice is no legislation or bad legislation I choose no legislation. Let's not forget that this bill could make things worse for us, so to say that we should agree with it just because the Congress may vote for it is a bit backwards. I don't think that should be the argument: find legislation that Congress will approve. I don't want the government involved in the industry at all. The industry has been doing fine without legislation. What do you gain by having bad legislation passed?

Think about how this will have to work, all the personal information that the feds will have to have about all poker players in order for this scheme to work. They will have your IP address on file. Never again will you be able to surf the net anonymously.

And what about the precedent this will set. Any time Congress wants to take over an entire industry on the Net they will be able to do so.

As I look to the future, the future I want and believe in, I see a free Internet, free to surf in privacy, free to play in privacy, and freedom from government interference on the WWW.

Do I think I can draft a bill that will pass Congress that will say all that? Do I think that Congress wants to give up a chance to control a multi-billion dollar industry? No, no, no. But so what? I don't care. I am not here to make Congress folks more money. I am here to keep my own.

If this bill takes even one dollar from every player then I would think it was bad. I think it will take substantially more than that.

I think this bill could make poker Illegal for many players.

Those are not issues I can compromise on.

And for what? What do we GET from this bill?

Tell me one thing that this bill gives us that we don't have already?

I don't understand the argument that we have to give to get, and this bill is a good compromise. Compromise against what? We give up a lot of our freedoms and get hosed? That doesn't sound like a good trade to me.

It doesn't protect our right to play poker online, so what are we fighting FOR?

We asked for a bill to repeal the UIGEA. We got this instead. This bill does not do anything that any of us fought to get. I know I didn't call a Congressman and say please regulate the industry and have a Czar in control of the whole enchilada.

This is like saying I asked for a pony but got a lump of coal so I should say thank you and push to make sure I get the lump of coal. This bill isn't the pony. I say we keep asking for the pony. Or else we will all have black soot on our hands.

If we can't get the pony from the people in office now, then I think we should tell the guy with the coal, thanks but no thanks, we are currently attempting to put pony givers in office. I know Ron Paul will give us a pony. Hell, he'll give us a thoroughbred. Not only will he not tax gamblers, he is planning on repealing the Income tax completely. That is my pony.

[Jeffiner99]

P.S. I would be willing to bet you a whole lot of money that a little guy will not be able to get a license to operate a poker site under this bill. That privilege will go to the folks with the BIG money and the BIG lobbyists. The licensing scheme is riddled with hoops that will make it very easy for the Director guy to limit them to the people who REALLY grease his palm.

Why would he give them out on the cheap?

That is a pipe dream.

Plus, with the taxes and fees you have to pay it will probably not be profitable for a small start-up. Unless of course, Engineer, you own the MGM. In that case, you have a chance.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I think I can draft a bill that will pass Congress that will say all that? Do I think that Congress wants to give up a chance to control a multi-billion dollar industry? No, no, no. But so what? I don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

We care. We kind of do this for money. You're looking at this from general principle. You won't lose anything when we get screwed by the new UIGEA regs. We do.

[ QUOTE ]
And for what? What do we GET from this bill?

Tell me one thing that this bill gives us that we don't have already?

[/ QUOTE ]

We need opponents to make money. That's just how poker is. Lots of commercials = lots of fish. Easy money transfers = lots of fish. Expressed legality = lots of fish.

The DOJ claims our play is illegal. UIGEA illegalized banking transactions.

One thing we don't have are U.S.-based sites. I'd like some of those. Those are illegal now.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this bill could make poker Illegal for many players.

[/ QUOTE ]

States have always had the right to legislate relative to gambling. I think you'd struggle to get a majority of Libertarians to support federal legislation that strips this power from the states.

I'm a libertarian (small 'l') myself; I did vote for Badnarik last time. However, everything else is regulated. I don't imagine many of us wish to sacrifice Internet gambling on the altar of Libertarianism (i.e., fully unregulated or nothing), especially when everything else is still regulated.

The truth of the matter is that, as far as regulations so, the bill looks pretty good to many of us after multiple readings.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I think I can draft a bill that will pass Congress that will say all that? Do I think that Congress wants to give up a chance to control a multi-billion dollar industry? No, no, no. But so what? I don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

We care. We kind of do this for money. You're looking at this from general principle. You won't lose anything when we get screwed by the new UIGEA regs. We do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure why you are putting you and I in different camps. I won't lose anything, you will? But anyway,


This bill strengthens the UIGEA regs. It INCREASES the regs. It puts more regs into the UIGEA. It make it easier to go after a business based on the UIGEA. So if you don't like the UIGEA regs then why would want more of them? This bill gives the DOJ the ammunition it needs to go after sites and players, (well it would make it easy for the IRS to go after the players). I don't think that will be good for the pro.


The part where the sites open their books to the feds may not be good for a number of people who have made a living for several years playing online and making a living. And for some pros it may be bad to all of a sudden be on the radar.

I disagree with your argument about the fish. You think this will draw more in, I think fewer. I think if people hear that even one poker player got audited (and I believe the part that requires the sites to open their books to the feds to apply for a license will increase that probability) from playing poker online, then they will be scared, really scared to go online and have to give up their SS# in order to play. I believe that many will say, screw it, it is not worth it, I would rather play at my friendly casino where they don't tax my winnings. I also think that if a number of states opt out then you will have many fewer fish - make it none, from those states. I think that if states and right wingers get a bug up their butts and start to fight, then perhaps a lot of states will make online gambling illegal and that will make a lot more "none" fish from those states. And if you are a pro in that state, then your business is done. What if the state you live in Engineer decides to vote to make online gambling illegal for the safety of the family and the children? What if your state would not have a said a word had this stayed under the radar but now that it is a big public issue, well, something HAD to be done. Those kids must be protected you know. So we get a huge backlash like gay marriage did.



I also think that the typical online poker player is a bit of recluse, a libertarian type and a person who likes anonymity and to be left alone. I don't think that kind of person will like giving up a lot of personal information in order to play. Especially if it involves paying taxes on winnings. Call me unAmerican, but I don't believe the typical fish wants a way to pay more in taxes.


I also don't think it will be good for the pros or the fish to be at the mercy of the Director. This bill lists a whole lot of requirements with almost no specificity, not to mention the ability to implement any other regulations that the Director wants. To me that is the same as signing a blank check. I would never sign a blank check under any circumstances. Especially not to the federal government.


Any one of those requirements, proof of age, proof of not money laundering, proof of not being a compulsive gambler could make it impossible for a pro to make a living. I can come up with a million scenarios that would kill your business.


I don't believe that Congress is in the business of protecting the professional poker player so I believe that it is very probable that some of the ways they come up with fulfilling those requirements will hurt either you or the fish. 100 dollar daily loss limit? (To prove you are not a compulsive gambler and to protect the family) You may only be able to make one daily deposits in any amount? (might cramp your fish's style a bit) Must cash out each day at midnight? (to make sure that tax requirement is complied with) Must have a passport to play online and prove age? Must go to the post office and show said passport? (So much for impulsive sign ups) Must not transfer any money from one account to another? (to prevent money laundering) Must pay 25% Internet gambling tax on top of income tax? (you know, a sin tax to pay for education or health care... what's wrong, don't like kids or the sick?). Must pay income tax on all wins and may only take losses as a deduction at the end of the year if you itemize your taxes? All gamblers must pay taxes as if they are recreational players and only at the end of the year can you declare yourself a pro to get your overpayment of taxes back? The director decides that only his American friends can have licensed sites and all the current running sites must be shut down? (That might lose some fish.) The ewallets decide they would rather not be subject to American jurisdiction and head for the hills. The replacement ewallets charges 15 dollars per every hundred withdrawn. The list is endless.


And since I don't know how these regulations will be used and you don't either it is better to protect ourselves from that kind of power than to hand it over to the federal government. They don't have it now.


You also say the UIGEA illegalized banking transactions. I repeat. This bill does not repeal one word of the UIGEA. The UIGEA is still there in all its glory with more words attached to it. Just because the DOJ thinks poker is illegal doesn't mean every court does. In fact, the UIGEA is thankfully vague and so far has not been used against anyone in the poker world for any purpose. This Barney Frank bill will make it easy for the DOJ to use the UIGEA against poker. It has lots of provisions for that.



I agree, we don't have American sites now. That is one thing I am sure this bill will give you. If they give it to you at a higher rake and a handling fee for having to comply with all those regulations and a sign up fee and all the rest of the problems is that worth it?

So, except for American sites, what does this bill give you?

[Skallagrim]

I kinda like that you dont give up Jeff, but you should turn your efforts elsewhere.

Pretty much all of us here are libertarians with respect to this issue, and would prefer unregulated poker to regulated poker. But that is not our choice right now. Its regulated poker or soon to be impossible to fund poker (that might be illegal).

Easy choice then for me.

You would do better to use your obvious arguing skills to make more folks libertarians in general, rather than try and convince us to give up our game for principle.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure why you are putting you and I in different camps. I won't lose anything, you will? But anyway,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean it in a negative way. By your IM, I was assuming you don't play poker for a regular profit.

[ QUOTE ]
This bill strengthens the UIGEA regs. It INCREASES the regs. It puts more regs into the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're very principled. I respect that. We were as well, until we got smacked by HR 4411. Then we figured we'd better be pragmatic. I'm going to be pragmatic. We need to develop political support. We need to show Congress that Americans wish to support this. If we reject every bill until we get the perfect libertarian bill that may get 6 votes, we'll be sunk. After failing to demonstrate NO support for our position, our enemies will continue their STATED goal of revising the Wire Act to make us felons. You didn't think they were done, did you? How libertarian is a Wire Act expansion?

You say poker is legal, but is it really? Again, I cannot open a site. I can't advertise it (the .com version). I can't finance it. I cannot even operate it from a foreign country. If playing it, I can't easily move money back and forth. And, the DOJ claims it's illegal under the Wire Act. That's not what I think of as legal. The fish need legality. I personally think they'll survive the paperwork. Have you attempted a cash-out lately? It's not like we're playing anonymously, you know.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just sharing my thoughts with you and with the board.

My thoughts: The bill looks great. It addresses the concerns of our opponents. By taking away their red herrings, they have to defend their attempts to ban gambling on the merits. If implemented, we'll be in great shape. If it fails, we'll succeed by starting our movement, by thwarting our opponents with a strong offense, and by envigorating the PPA. I urge everyone here to get behind both IGREA (the Frank bill) and the Berkely study bill.