The Future of Online Poker for "Danger States"

[What?]

I'm not sure why you think if legalized even the non danger states will block, but even if they do we will still be where we are at right now. The current US friendly sights will still operate.
If you think they will block if legalized then we should be against legalization then?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think if legalized even the non danger states will block, but even if they do we will still be where we are at right now. The current US friendly sights will still operate.
If you think they will block if legalized then we should be against legalization then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's any reason to be against pro-poker legislation. If states plan to block poker, they can do so with UIGEA. I don't concur that all states will ban Internet poker. If we were that unpopular, we'd have been banned long ago, and we'd be doomed now at the federal level as well.

Anyway, the reason UIGEA passed in the first place was that too many of us thought we'd be better off without legislation, so we didn't fight back. This made us appear weak. Our solution is to act with strength, not weakness, IMO. Fight for pro-poker legislation at the state and the federal level. Something will fill the vacuum. If it isn't some form of legalization, it will be a ban. It won't be nothing.

[tangled]

“If we were that unpopular, we’d have been banned long ago…”

TE, we have been. Remember Bacchus’s “ I have letters from 49 State’s Attorneys General…”. In addition, many people believe that the Wire Act will ultimately be interpreted as applying to all, non-exempt internet gaming. We know they are wrong on both issues, but we also know that they think they are right. So why would they think they would have to pass redundant legislation to ban us?

Also, online gaming is a problem that doesn’t get a great deal of attention, and when it does, Kyl and all the other members of his merry ban of clowns have been right there trying to push a federal solution , and thereby, inadvertently, distracting States from focusing on the problem.

If IGREA somehow passes Congress, then all these situational protections dissolve. There will be no more confusion about what a state has to do to stop online gaming and no more ambiguity about whose job it is to do it.

In general, while gaming initiatives usually enjoy a popular majority, they do poorly in legislatures. The reason is because pro-gaming voters aren’t crazy enough to factor gaming issues heavily into decisions over who to vote for. Anti-gaming voters are crazy enough. These chicken littles see gaming with a “Reefer Madness” mentality, believing that society will descend into ungodly chaos if gambling flourishes. They will spend their votes to stop this from happening. There is little to gain for legislators to support gaming, but a lot to loose - like their jobs an any future electoral promotions.

In the specific, internet gaming is seen by State legislatures as unwelcome competition for State-pedaled gaming. Also anti-gaming zealots have managed to create powerful negative propaganda for online gaming: “the crack-cocaine of gambling”, ”click your mouse…” and images of five-year olds doubling down.

But, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. I am not aware of pro-internet gaming forces ever winning a single legislative vote. They have lost them all, and lost them big. If I am wrong, please educate me. But even if I have missed a vote, my overall point is still valid: pro-internet gaming issues do very poorly when legislatures put these issues to a legislative vote. The legislative success that online gaming has sometimes achieved is when they have managed to keep adverse legislation from coming to a vote. Why would anyone believe any of this would change if IGREA passes?

Of course, the Wexler bill is another matter since it is only -as I understand it- a tweaking of the UIGEA that does not openly provoke any action from the states. I am not saying we would be in the clear with the Wexler bill, but our chances would be significantly better.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
“If we were that unpopular, we’d have been banned long ago…”

TE, we have been. Remember Bacchus’s “ I have letters from 49 State’s Attorneys General…”. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly prefer the Wexler bill as well, and I am concerned about what could happen at the state level. Still, if we decide to do nothing at the federal level and hope for the status quo, I think we'll end up with a federal ban. The feds hate a vacuum. We saw it with UIGEA. I think we're best off fighting as hard as we can and demonstrating our strength. Are we better off with a stalemate at the federal level? Maybe, but that's better than a federal ban.

I personally hope that we end up with a situation where, at minimum, states can't opt out of anything they permit at B&M facilities. Still, I hope we won't fear success.

[tangled]

I couldn't agree more with the idea of using a good offense as a good defense. Also, I felt a little bit like a person telling a three-year old that there is really no Santa Clause. Not that you are like a three-year old, but that you have done so much admirable work for us, I did not want to rain on your energetic optimism.

I should also mention that there are other things to be optimistic about, like the possibility that poker will be ruled a game of skill, IMEGA, and, the WTO initiative. Of course, there is the same kind of issue with the WTO situation in that it necessarily must include sports betting, something that the US will fight hard. But I won't pursue that as I have tugged on Santa's beard enough for today.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more with the idea of using a good offense as a good defense. Also, I felt a little bit like a person telling a three-year old that there is really no Santa Claus. Not that you are like a three-year old, but that you have done so much admirable work for us, I did not want to rain on your energetic optimism.

I should also mention that there are other things to be optimistic about, like the possibility that poker will be ruled a game of skill, IMEGA, and, the WTO initiative. Of course, there is the same kind of issue with the WTO situation in that it necessarily must include sports betting, something that the US will fight hard. But I won't pursue that as I have tugged on Santa's beard enough for today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Trust me, I'm anything but naive. My rationale for lobbying hard in D.C. for even imperfect bills is that we need to generate the political strength necessary to get (or keep) a victory via the WTO, IMEGA, etc. We also keep harsher laws from getting proposed, as we keep our opponents on defense.

[JPFisher55]

TE, a victory by the WTO pressure could not be reversed unless the US withdraws from the WTO treaty obligations. A victory, in the court of last resort, by iMEGA winning its case could only be reversed by a constitution amendment.
But passage of even Rep. Wexler's bills could be reversed by another law, but I doubt that will happen.
We need the political strength in case the WTO wimps out and the present court case fail to help.
Next year, the PPA needs to get it political act in full gear and prepare to file its own litigation, if the UIGEA is not reversed and the present regs are adopted. The good news is that the PPA has plenty of time to prepare for both a political and legal battle. Even the regs will likely take close to another year to be finalized and adopted. Thus, the present difficulties of the PPA do not concern me, but their activity next year will be important; unless the WTO or litigation solves the online poker problems in US.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think if legalized even the non danger states will block, but even if they do we will still be where we are at right now. The current US friendly sights will still operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current US friendly sites may face a choice of pushing the use of geographical IP blocking in the face of implemntated regulations, arguing that there is no "illegal gamble" in those other states. It really depends of if new money transfer options come on line or not. This would be a tough business decision, but the major US friendly sites have taken a lot of risks in the past the continue to serve the US market. I don't know how much more we can expect them to help us help ourselves.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think they will block if legalized then we should be against legalization then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is another reason to use this time to build our muscle while the regulations are "in process".

The passage of the UIGEA has lead many casual player out of the market already. The implementation of the regulations will do more to "criminalize" poker at least from the preception side of players. The methods of deposit and withdraw will be that much harder and more expensive.

We need to build and build as fast as we can.

But as far as ease of organization and raising money from "pissed off" citizens, the job will be much easier when and if some of the majors go dark in +20% of the States. So to some degree it cuts both ways.

Imagine working in a city like St. Louis, where it was legal to play in MO but your co-workers in IL couldn't log on to FT or PS. The IL PPA State Reps job would get a whole lot easier.....

But the reverse if also true more states might attempt to join the minority with State action. It is a real possibility, that is the sites do or are forced to serve only "legal" state, other States may see this as an option.

The only thing we can do is get ready for it by planning to be ready.

But as MA has shown, we really are no worse off than we are now. We have to be prepared for individual or worse mutiple State action at any time. There are a number of sites like the State AG's organization's where you can even read some of their strategies and thinking on these matters.


D$D