November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the primary goal be getting poker exempt from UIGEA, with other 'tax & regulate bills' as ancilliary. Im not sure how this has to be played, but poker exemption is my primary concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

The primary goal is simply expressly legal poker. The best bill to do this right now is the Wexler "Skill Games Protection Act" (HR 2610). It exempts poker and other named games of skill from ALL internet gambling laws, does not create any new federal tax or regulatory scheme (other than to require the sites to have age verification, and similar protective measures). It is by itself WTO compliant (it doesnt make the US compliant with the WTO, but it certainly does not take the US any further out of compliance). And it is gaining sponsors and momentum. It does not require us to justify online slots (the alleged "crack" of gambling) and it does not require us to convince the sports leagues to allow betting on their games.

It is the best bill for us, and it is the one we need to keep pushing.

Skallagrim

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the primary goal be getting poker exempt from UIGEA, with other 'tax & regulate bills' as ancilliary. Im not sure how this has to be played, but poker exemption is my primary concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

The primary goal is simply expressly legal poker. The best bill to do this right now is the Wexler "Skill Games Protection Act" (HR 2610). It exempts poker and other named games of skill from ALL internet gambling laws, does not create any new federal tax or regulatory scheme (other than to require the sites to have age verification, and similar protective measures). It is by itself WTO compliant (it doesnt make the US compliant with the WTO, but it certainly does not take the US any further out of compliance). And it is gaining sponsors and momentum. It does not require us to justify online slots (the alleged "crack" of gambling) and it does not require us to convince the sports leagues to allow betting on their games.

It is the best bill for us, and it is the one we need to keep pushing.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that it does take the US further out of compliance, if there is such a thing. The truth is you are in compliance or you are not. It's like being a little bit pregnant.

However, if the US's two options to be in compliance is eliminate all remote gambling, or open the US market to all remote gambling from Antigua, adding one more form of state sanctioned remote gambling to the US market does in a way take them further out of compliance.

[Orlando Salazar]

Thanks Skall.
Jay, I don't think it's so black and white. Since such a strong portion of online gambling is poker, the WTO might be more agreable to our new "interpretation" of gambline commitments.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the primary goal be getting poker exempt from UIGEA, with other 'tax & regulate bills' as ancilliary. Im not sure how this has to be played, but poker exemption is my primary concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

The primary goal is simply expressly legal poker. The best bill to do this right now is the Wexler "Skill Games Protection Act" (HR 2610). It exempts poker and other named games of skill from ALL internet gambling laws, does not create any new federal tax or regulatory scheme (other than to require the sites to have age verification, and similar protective measures). It is by itself WTO compliant (it doesnt make the US compliant with the WTO, but it certainly does not take the US any further out of compliance).

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

I tend to agree with Jay that as much as I and working for and hope to gain full legality for on-line poker, I don't see the overall value to the US in further adding to the "hodgepodge" of laws in the US with another exemption alone.

Given the size of the horseracing industry and the actual amount of it served by Antigua, unless the US were to propose say a skill games exemption with liscencing of US and off shore operators, as a compromise to resolve the issue, the action alone actually makes the WTO issue worse for the USTR.


D$D

[Jay Cohen]

Actually it is.

The original panel, appellate body, and compliance panel were pretty clear. Remote gambling is remote gambling. They didn't buy into the artificial distinctions the US makes about different types.

I'll tell you something else. The latest panel that is decissing the sanctions had the attitude, although this is not what they are deciding, that gambling is gambling. IF the tide keeps going that way, and the US found themselves in another case, they would be faced with eliminate ALL gambling, remote or land based, or allow foreign access.

[Skallagrim]

The Wexler bill would certainly allow Antigua based sites to offer skill games to US customers. Thus I fail to see how it increases our non-compliance. But, of course it does not do anything by itself to get us into compliance.

And although I know you dont like me posting this idea [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (and, admittedly, it is just an idea) IF the US were to open up an online skill games market to all competitors and simultaneously outlaw all foreign and domestic remote "gambling." That would at least create a whole new WTO issue going forward, wouldn't it? (The Wexler bill does not do this, and I am not advocating for it, but I present it as a way to save poker if the Congress, in response to the WTO, decides banning all remote gambling is preferable to allowing all remote gambling).

Skallagrim

If the US allows online chess tournaments, does that mean it must, according to the WTO, also allow online slots?

Jay, you know I respect you, your efforts and your opinion, but the WTO has never issued an opinion distinguishing gambling from other forms of games. Nor has it said if you have any online games for money you must have all online games AND gambling for money. How they would respond to this is an open question. Does not mean I am right, just means its an argument the US could put forth as to future laws.

And D$D, the Wexler bill does not require US licensing, thats the Frank bill - under Wexler FTP and Stars become legal upon passage (provided they also meet the safety requirements). So there is no discrimination against foreign companies, so no WTO violation.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The Wexler bill would certainly allow Antigua based sites to offer skill games to US customers. Thus I fail to see how it increases our non-compliance. But, of course it does not do anything by itself to get us into compliance.

And although I know you dont like me posting this idea [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] (and, admittedly, it is just an idea) IF the US were to open up an online skill games market to all competitors and simultaneously outlaw all foreign and domestic remote "gambling." That would at least create a whole new WTO issue going forward, wouldn't it? (The Wexler bill does not do this, and I am not advocating for it, but I present it as a way to save poker if the Congress, in response to the WTO, decides banning all remote gambling is preferable to allowing all remote gambling).

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it would create a new issue.

But if as Jay says the WTO already sees little distinction between live and remote fo the moral arguement, and any partial access to live forms from remote like horseracing prove violation of trade laws then adding other forms of remote access through regualtion is just saying we now allow US companies to participte in competition.

From a few articles I've found, poker seems to generate more profit than sports books, which I thought was the reverse and have no "source" I completely trust, so there is IMO potential value to a compromise as the Wire Act existance pre-GATT and the State's rights could then be better expressed.

I do not know of a specific case but the EU might be vunerable to this States rights issue, as there must be some trade issues that involve some countries "opting out" from EU agreements.

Right or wrong the Bush Administration is "paying" in this action for a lot more than "remote gaming". In general the WTO needs the US more than the WTO needs a "pissed off" US. But the world loves to piss off this Administration as it feels it has good reason to do so.

The numbers thrown around attempt to make this a "big" issue in terms of trade. That is the way it is in legal civil actions here in the US, but the WTO is not a US civil court and it's ability to even try to act like one is fairly new and almost completely untested.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts. Currently, we have one ewallet Epassporte open to the US and it serves a minority of poker sites open to US.
So if online poker is exempted from UIGEA and the Wire Act, would online gambling sites separate their poker sites from the rest of their gambling services so that Epassporte would service them. How many ewallets would service only online poker sites? I fear that to get back a Neteller type company that serves all online poker sites, we need legalization of all online gambling.
Also, Skall, I think that Jay is right about the WTO stance on gambling. I do not think that the WTO will accept separation of poker from gambling. I suspect that they would include betting on backgammon, bridge and chess, which the DOJ strangely (given Ms. Hanaway's testimony) does not prosecute, as gambling under the WTO.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without any hoops to jump through I think the poker sites could set up very effective money transfer (ACH) mechanisms on their own. Also, though it would pain me to use them, Paypal would probably reenter the e-wallet market for poker sites. Actually from the perspective of getting more players that would be damn sweet!

[Lucky]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts. Currently, we have one ewallet Epassporte open to the US and it serves a minority of poker sites open to US.
So if online poker is exempted from UIGEA and the Wire Act, would online gambling sites separate their poker sites from the rest of their gambling services so that Epassporte would service them. How many ewallets would service only online poker sites? I fear that to get back a Neteller type company that serves all online poker sites, we need legalization of all online gambling.
Also, Skall, I think that Jay is right about the WTO stance on gambling. I do not think that the WTO will accept separation of poker from gambling. I suspect that they would include betting on backgammon, bridge and chess, which the DOJ strangely (given Ms. Hanaway's testimony) does not prosecute, as gambling under the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wexler bill wont satisfy the WTO, but would make payments easy. I would say players would deposit with mastercard/visa like they do for other 'skill' game currently.