Does the PPA plan to get actively involved in lobbying in N.J, to improve upon the input iMEGA has offered to the process ?

No, they don't "plan to"; they already are, and have been from the get go, afaik.

Is the PPA supporting the online gaming referendum in NJ or not ? If so, how ?

+1 here.
France also is going the "italy" route. Dont see how NJ can do anything on its own without disregarding Federal law

I don't think the PPA has yet thrown their support behind it, although I can't say for absolutely certain. The PPA is lobbying to improve the bill from the players point of view, afaik.

PPA is lobbying in NJ.

Joe,

I have some comments. I'll preface them by reminding everyone that I do support iMEGA, especially as you all stood up for my right to play in Kentucky. I've posted this here several times, yet it seems some mistakenly think this is not the case.

I don't really agree with how you define momentum. Consider where we started. UIGEA passed the House in 2006 by a vote of 317-93, and it was a free standing bill at that time (it was HR 4411). Politicians openly and proudly opposed us, and they only do that when they think there is ZERO downside to doing so. Anti-online poker folks did a good job of building a coalition against us. The GOP even put a plank in its platform advocating a ban on online gaming.

From this starting point, poker players ensures that Congress had heard from us loud and clear. We are on offense in Congress, which is our best defense. No bills have been proposed against us since 2006, after years of anti-poker bills (see Federal online poker & gaming legislation history). We've also seen significant improvement in medial coverage (we especially saw this in Kentucky). This has all maintained the status quo, and it's the status quo that is propelling the state fight.

Imagine trying to push a state bill if the feds did successfully shut down all interstate gaming (aside from horse racing under IHA). Instead of going to states with the argument that it's already going on, Congress can't stop it, and states ought to get revenue for this existing activity, you'd instead go to states asking them to start NEW gaming.

I'm happy with our progress. Unfortunately, there is a lot of inertia in DC. Politicians still think the big government anti-gaming types enjoy the support they did twenty years ago. We're chipping away at this every day.

PPA is fighting at the federal and state level. Again, the state fight would get pretty tough if the feds were successful. Also, our opponents won't abandon hopes for a federal ban, either. Remember when Congress banned interstate sports betting in states that did not already have it? Our opponents would love the same for online poker and online casino gaming.

TE,

I'm a PPA member, so I support all that the group does. None of the above was critical of PPA, their efforts, their goals or their people. Period.

If we want to have a definition of momentum that is broad enough, then the above qualifies. If we want a more narrow definition, the above is not sufficient for US players. I have said that we should "walk and chew gum", so of course I do not want the tent pegs pulled up in DC, no have I suggested as much.

But while iMEGA is out in the weeds at the state level, parties like Harrah's actively and adamantly oppose what we're doing, to the point that they've personally vilified me in Trenton to legislators, since they can't compete on ideas. Whatever.

We've done NOTHING to oppose their efforts in DC, but they're just out for themselves alone on this, so if it's not Harrah's way, expect them to bend over backwards trying to put the brakes on you, including playing dirty.

(Note: if anyone from Harrah's wants to debate me on this point, I will be all too happy to do so.)

So TE, in the end:

PPA = great
Pappas = great
Fed bills = great
Momentum in DC = poor
State bills = great

It will be the fourth anniversary of UIGEA this fall. Based on the mid-term election projections (Dems down; GOP up) does anyone think we shouldn't be trying everything (I mean, besides Harrah's)?

Joe@iMEGA

Thanks! Glad you're a member.

I didn't take your comments to be critical of PPA. I was simply providing my take on the situation.

I think we're doing better at the federal level than you think. The fact that Harrah's is, per your own post, all-in on federal legislation tends to show where this really is.

Additionally, being strong enough on the Hill to prevent new anti-poker legislation really is worth something to poker players. As long as we can play the current sites, we players won't have to settle for whatever crumbs the states are willing to offer. They'll have to give us something we want, rather than insisting on criminalizing play on those sites. Also, the fact that we can still play on current sites does put the onus back on the federal government.

I guess Harrah's business interests don't align with the state legislation they've seen to date. I'm not too surprised, really. They probably see themselves getting stuck with small sites subjected to high state taxes.

Also, sorry to hear you've been criticized personally by Harrah's lobbyists. These fights can be tough, and you're the face of iMEGA. I know I've certainly been vilified by some for my role on the PPA Board. It was far worse in the past than it is now. It's no fun and it's very stressful to experience, but that's how it is.

Similarly, Barney Frank has been vilified by some for supporting us, while Jon Kyl, Spencer Bachus, Jim Leach, James Dobson, and Chad Hills have all been vilified by some for opposing us.

As they say, politics isn't a non-contact sport.

Companies often oppose legislation that harms their interests. Too bad so many states see gaming only in terms of money. If they put together something player-friendly and site-friendly, they'd not have this opposition.

Agree

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

They could be, but certainly are not yet. I hope these state legislators will take players' needs into more consideration. FWIW, NJ is closest.

Of course. I think we need to fight at the state level. It's too bad no state has stepped up with a player-friendly bill yet.

I have a very simple question.

Does anyone have any idea re. NJ's (or any state's) chance of getting the federal law limiting sports betting to states that already have it (Nevada) declared unconstitutional and, thus, voided?

I realize that the feds have been very successful in using the "interstate commerce" clause in the constitution as a catch-all to expand their power; however, afaik the last time they tried to tell some states that they could have something that other states couldn't have, the issue was slavery, and that lead to beaucoup problems.

Contrary to what some might say about this effort, we're not looking to get into anything to lose. It would not be worth the time and investment if there were not a good chance of prevailing.

This comes down to a 10th Amendment argument. The Federal government only wields powers expressly granted to it by the states. States have never granted the power to regulate gambling to the Federal government. When PASPA (the law in question) was being debated back in 1991, the Department of Justice, under the first President Bush, opposed the law, because it declared that the law was probably unconstitutional because it violates the 10th Amendment. The US Attorney-General's office even went so far as to send a letter stating this opposition for constitutional reasons to then-Senator Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time.

Though the US Congress passed the law, it never did anything to address the constitutional questions. As a result, we feel that there is an excellent chance for having the law overturned.

Joe@iMEGA

I agree that the 10th amendment should make the PASPA law unconstitutional, but the feds have a good record of circumventing it with the "interstate commerce" clause.

I am not a lawyer, but I think a good backup argument would be the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection (right to bet?) under law for all citizens.

how intensely ironic