Illinois proposes to allow online poker to be run by race tracks

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
6% rake....awesome


please keep the gov'ts out of internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ]


Freaking idiot.

There is zero possibility of legal or even quasi legal online poker without the various governments deep involvement.

Party poker as it was is GONE. Get over it.

Tuff

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

6% tax on income d/n= 6% rake.

[Skallagrim]

Nevada has no law against PLAYING internet poker. The Nevada law being talked about above is one that allows for licensed Nevada internet betting but makes it illegal for anyone without a Nevada license to offer it. No licenses have been issued; so if this is a valid law then the sites open to Nevada residents are breaking it.

This Nevada law directly violates the WTO as pointed out above, and the Commerce Clause of the US Consititution, unless the UIGEA is read as an express waiver of Congress' sole authority to regulate (or not) the internet (a questionable proposition).

If Illinois passes such a bill and actually allows a site or two it will create such legal headaches throughout the Government that I would love to corner the aspirin market.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

The Commerce Clause is going to end up being the most important shaper of US gaming law after the WTO. If the Supreme Court says it entitles the gov't to put doctors in jail for prescribing legal overdoses for terminally ill patients or to shut down small marijuana farms for medical uses, then for sure it can be used for gaming law. This is why its important for Antigua to keep up the heat at the WTO. If we want anything at all like we had before, there has to be one uniform imposer of gaming law(a federal one).
Powerless states in the matter would make for the best outcome. The powers of the states are basically whatever Congress leaves them unless it turns out ALito and Roberts radically depart from past Supreme Court rulings, and even then most Commerce Clause rulings have not been by narrow margins and their votes might not be enough to shift it.

[MiltonFriedman]

Nate,

I have seen Illinois politics for years. This is not unlike the "Funding Disaster looms for Chicago Schools" scenario. That internet gambling was floated is encouraging. If the racing lobby is behind it, then there is a slight chance .... but not likely this year.

(Gov. Blaze is not too adept at getting crises resolved from what I saw in the quoted reactions, but the inclusion in his proposal is good news.)

Your NIMBY point is a good one, since the purveyors would be established already. .... I do not know if Cahokia Downs still operates, but it would be great if it eventually operates an online site a couple of miles from the Eastern District of Missouri, but doesn't allow St Louis IP players ....

[MiltonFriedman]

In the UIGE Act, Congress has expressly exempted Intrastate online gaming. ... end of Commerce Clause debate.

States HAVE been left a right to offer IntraState online gaming.

[MiltonFriedman]

You are sweating the rake ??? How about the income tax liability, which will be reported to the IRS or, more likely, withheld from cashouts.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
6% rake....awesome


please keep the gov'ts out of internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ] Reading Comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
In the UIGE Act, Congress has expressly exempted Intrastate online gaming. ... end of Commerce Clause debate.

States HAVE been left a right to offer IntraState online gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I respect your opinion Milton, but the part saying "end of Commerce Clause debate" should be stated as an opinion.

The UIGEA was so horribly drafted that its final interpertation is beyond the predictive ability of mere humans. There is the IntrAstate provision, but no express commerce clause exemption, usually a requirement. Plus, it still makes certain federal laws (the wire act) pre-emptive over state laws, hardly a sign that Congress wants out of ruling in this area.

I suspect the courts would not rule this an express commerce clause opting-out, but rather merely a federal regulatory law making use of state law, a not unusual thing. But thats just my opinion.

[MiltonFriedman]

"They believed they didn't need additional legislation since they are already licensed for parimutuel betting."

Creative, but I'd think their license doesn't allow them to offer paramutual betting on anything other than horse racing at horse tracks with which they have an express agreement.

I do like the understanding that poker IS like a paramutual pooling..... except for the added distinction that the "racing"/playing is done by the players themselves AND the placing of wagers is itself a large part of the playing.