**** politicians. **** Adelson. **** all those ******s in Utah (who are bleeding into my state, Idaho, and ruining it).

Ohhhh, and **** the USA. Our politicians have time to ban people from playing in a $20 online poker tournament, but they do NOTHING about the illegal wire taps, unending wars, too big to fail, no trial prisons, and all the other BIG ISSUE bull **** we're a part of that we do nothing about and just ignore.

**** this ****, and **** them all.

And **** you Amaya if you don't get all over this ****. You just spent millions and millions on poker stars now open up your purse strings, donate a **** TON of money, and get this **** legalized.

I blame PP for the UIGEA. And I blame Amaya if this bull **** gets through. ****ing ******s need to learn this corrupt country is nothing more then pay to play. Now ****ing pay because I'm too broke to matter and you'll make bank from a federal level bill (allowing states to opt in or out).

don't think I could have said it better myself

Why would Amaya be responsible for taking the fight to Congress? They aren't the only online provider, and their PS brand isn't even licensed in the US yet. In fact, it's other casinos seeking to put PS in a "bad actor" timeout.

Shouldn't it be a shared burden with the sites, the players, and other supportive Americans? Shouldn't we all be advocating for our rights?

This is an extremely glass-half-empty and fact-deficient view. The outlook is not nearly so grim. Just yesterday I got this voicemail from my Congressman's office in response to my email opposing RAWA:

1. The whole concept of a lame duck session is that the outgoing Congresscritters don't have to vote party line or political compromise - they can vote their conscience or their constituents' will. They are much less likely to roll over on any vote.
2. The reelected are mostly those that are secure in their districts. They didn't need to worry about repercussions before either. It's the newly elected and those who had tight races in the GOP who are most beholden to Adelson, for the campaign funding received, that are the most worrisome.
3. It doesn't matter where the sponsors of the bills are from. They are bought by Adelson. More important is how many co-sponsors there are, how many committee members back the bills, and the stance of the Congressional and committee leaders on the issue.
4. Congress won't be controlled by the Republicans until January.
5. & 7. Anyone who has actually read the bill knows that there are already carveouts for Horse Racing & Fantasy Sports. A carveout for lotteries may or may not be necessary to move the bill. The bill doesn't outlaw state lotteries or multi-state lotteries - just sales of lottery tickets over the Internet.
6. Silver came out in favor of legalizing sports gambling in all states. I don't think this has any relation to or impact on RAWA.

Right now, as noted in the quoted voicemail above, RAWA hasn't advanced in any Congressional committee. Rumor has it that there will be a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee during the lame duck session. Actually, the bill sits in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary: Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. So that is where the hearing would take place. This is a very small step in passage of a bill.

A first hearing on a bill usually does not include a vote - which is necessary to move it out of that subcommittee. Even if this hearing results in a "yeah" vote, that just moves it out of the subcommittee back to the House Judiciary, where it would need at least one hearing and a committee vote. Only then could it move to the House floor for debate and vote. On the Senate side, the bill only has one sponsor and three co-sponsors. It currently sits in the Senate Judiciary committee. It would need to go through the same committee hearing and vote process, and then to the Senate floor for debate and vote.

Keep in mind that this bill is overall an extremely low priority for Congress. Traditionally, lame duck sessions are a time when pork and pet bills are passed by the Majority party, IF control is passing from the standing Majority party to the standing Minority party. In this case, neither party is currently Majority in both Congressional houses, and control of the White House is remaining the same. So, there isn't a lot of expectation that much will get done during the lame duck session. Also, keep in mind that there are only 11 business days left for Congress during the lame duck session - not nearly enough time for a new bill like RAWA to advance through all the necessary steps to passage.

The danger during the lame duck session is attachment of a pet bill like RAWA to a must-pass bill (like budget or appropriations). In the case of RAWA, the only place this might take place during the lame duck session is the Senate, under Reid. The upcoming hearing in the House Judiciary subcommittee could be a prelude to such an attachment, as a strong pro voice and positive vote in the House Judiciary could be used to justify moving it in the Senate.

Attachment of the bill in the Senate will require closed-door dealing between the GOP and the Dems, and the complicity of Reid. This is where it gets tricky. Reid wants to be Minority leader next session. In order to get anything Democratic-party based through next session, Reid has to be in a position to make deals with the Republican leadership. What occurs this lame duck session will set the tone for bi-partisan cooperation next session. If the GOP leadership wants RAWA to be attached this lame duck, they could pressure Reid to move it on this basis. And since this is Adelson's pet bill, it is not unlikely that passage of RAWA is on the mind of the Republican leadership.

Questions remain as to whether or not RAWA will be pushed for attachment during the lame duck session, and whether or not Reid will require compromise on the bill (e.g., a poker carveout). For the former, the biggest stumbling block is the supposed platform of many Republicans that bills should be openly debated in Congress before passage, rather than passed through backroom deals. For the latter, Reid might require carveouts in the bill, or he might use the opportunity for something else like some pork for Nevada or some clout for Obama. (Note that the abysmal fiscal results so far of online poker in NV, NJ & DE has made it a non-pork issue for NV, even though it is still important to Caesars.)

Bottom line, I think RAWA is under 20% to be advanced through Congress during the lame duck session. I think it has a much greater chance to be advanced during the next Congressional session, under GOP control, as a "thank you" to Adelson. Still, it is important for our lawmakers to continue to hear our opposition to it, now more than ever. After all, it is mostly the money of political contributors like Adelson that determines what is taken up by Congress to become law in the U.S.

regarding the underage gambling arguement i really do not want to hear it..... I have had to send at least a form of ID to play online poker on any forgein site in the past.... The current American DFS sites..... all i need is a email address and lie about my age. Then buy a Visa Gift card and deposit

It certainly should be shared, and as players, we should always be standing up for ourselves. Also, our interests are not always aligned with the interests of the sites, the casinos, or the state.

That said, the operators seek to not only enter the markets 'we' are fighting to open, but they will make a great deal of revenue if/when that fight is won. They also will keep the lion's share of that revenue (about 65% to the operator, 20% to the casino, and 15% to the state is about right) generated from our play. so to ask that the operators foot the bill for the fight is not at all out of line, IMO.

We as players have the most important voice in the discussion. It is, after all, the people government is supposed to serve. But getting that voice heard takes resources, resources most players don't have. And if the burden is on them, while the reward is to the operators, it makes it extremely difficult to get anything done.

If there is not a full time effort in your state to get legislation passed, you can forget it happening. That is the blunt truth. Time is going by, and opportunities are being lost, because there is no funding for a lobby effort in the dozen or so states that can reasonably expect to sustain an intrastate market. Those markets have to come first, before we can hope for interstate cooperation.

To their credit, Pokerstars has spent over $200K on their own lobbying in CA. I don't know what the number is in NJ, but I'm sure it is significant. Pokerstars has the hardest challenge in getting into the market, but they also are the healthiest of the sites, and have the greatest resources.

Long story short, the sites could be funding local efforts. This would go a long way towards expanding the US market. It also would give them a better opportunity to get a bill they liked.

As much as it is 'our' fight, it is their fight even more.

^^ i am almost sure PokerStars thought they were going to be in NJ by now or they would have not wasted thousands of dollars on player meetings in September

god these inbreds make me want to puke, their old man voices are literally dripping with cancer.

The whole effort is somewhat frivolous on the part of congress. What problem do they think they are fixing? Money laundering? Please there is no evidence this is going on, and it would be much easier to do it in a B&M anyway. Underage players? Sounds like a parenting issue. Christ, we don't lobby to close parks down when someone dumps their 7 year old in one unsupervised, we charge the parents.

I'm in Vegas. I can go play poker anytime. But I can't find a 5 cent/ 10 cent game in a B&M, but I can online. Online is more affordable. An online ban only accomplishes forcing me to play live at higher stakes or play illegally underground if I want to risk less of my money.

IMHO: The game is where the server is. I do not understand the difference between traveling in corpus to the Isle of Mann and playing a live game (allowed) and traveling virtually via the internet to play (the end of civilization as we know it)

Just get one of these guys to say "well we want to make it more difficult..." and ask why they think the function of the federal government is to make life more difficult. Jeeze.


I purpose the iPoker tax stamp act of 2015.
(numbers contained withing are for reference only, and this can be administrated by the BATFE)
Foreign operators in good standing with their local regulators can purchase a tax stamp for $20 Million allowing their service to be offered in the US for a period of 1 year.

US operators can purchase a tax stamp for $2 Million + pay 1% of their gross receipts.

The respective regulators in the home markets can take care of the regulation, BATFE can refuse to sell the tax stamp to bad actors. By letting local regulators handle the regulating, this should not take more than 1 person at BATFE to administrate.

Set the act to expire in 5 years unless renewed by congress. If all the bad things happen it won't get renewed. If the system works, congress can have a cash cow that costs almost nothing.

Chaffetz is an absolute freaking idiot. Unless he considers the 5th circuit court a single person in the basement of the justice department. 5th ruled on this long before justice decided to say yea the federal court was right.

ETA: 5th ruled on this in 2002 and said the wire act only applied to sports betting. DOJ ignored rather than appeal.

http://www.legalbytes.com/uploads/fi...200130389p.pdf

ETA2: the money shot is on page 9 " Because the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling, any debts incurred in connection with such gambling are not illegal"

rhetoric like this is mildly tilting, and i see it often from the PPA. this
is the PPA's mission statement. you solicit $$$ to further that mission. you pay a staff to work towards it.

take some responsibility.

Chafetz is not an idiot by any stretch, even if calling him names makes you feel better.

DOJ was not a party, they had no role in the cases.

FWIW, the case was correctly decided, but it took 9 years for DOJ to admit that. Viewed in that light, instead of "restoring" the Wire Act, the Chafetz bill is seeking to amend it, ........and amend it in a somewhat minimalist way as written.

why don't vegas pros organize a protest outside Sands?

Hold Signs saying "Stop Trying To Ban Online Poker"

and

"Boycott Sands"

and

"**** You Adelson"

throw in some stuff like

"Stop buying Politicians"

and

"End The Hypocrisy"

and

"Stay out of Florida Politics Shelden"

and

"**** You Shelden Adelson"


The guy is one of the richest men in America...and is on Koch level of trying to buy power... I guarantee you that MSNBC and other liberal outlets will pick this story up and run with it if you have protestors on the ground...

This is nonsense. Your guarantee means nothing, so it doesn't matter that you happen to be dead wrong.

However, thanks for coming home to vote in the midterm election Mr. Lansky, because they wouldn't give you an absentee ballot.

you realize that you wrote nothing to refute what i wrote.

koch bros are mentioned daily on msnbc.

adelson has been mentioned quite a bit lately.

yes, people protesting outside his casino will make it into the news.

ho if you aren't apart of the fight just stfu.

So, if we get any donations at all (and $0 from you), you believe PPA owns the entire fight so you can sit back and complain when others don't do enough for you?

PPA takes donations to put a fight together. The more we have in donations and volunteers, the more we can do. The less we have, the less we can do. It's that simple.

People coming together to stand up for themselves does not equal an entitlement for you. It's sad that you think it does, as the fight would likely be further along with YOU took some responsibility for an issue you seem to care about.

What do you base this statement on?

13% of people between the age of 18 to 29 voted last week. So most of you set at home and let the Koch's and Addlesons of the world buy an election. What can we do to fight them now, send um a tweety or some ****

I watched the press conference and read the bill he actually introduced. That seemed relevant grounds on which to base my statement.

Try that exercise, and listen for the underlying States' Rights theme. Last time the "Federal Solution" was offered, it perhaps drew unnecessary fire on the States' Rights/Opt in v. Opt out front.

That I, and maybe you, may disagree with Chaffetz' political posture does not suffice to make him "an idiot" by any stretch.

(It similarly would be foolish for example to believe that Sen. Ted Cruz is "an idiot" because one opposes his politics. According to Alan Dershowitz, Ted Cruz is the brightest student he has ever taught at Harvard.)

Thanks for the reply.

Thanks for the advice about effective organizing and your guarantee about media interest in a hypothetical small protest to be staged as a on-off outside the Sands, Mr. Alinsky.

Stage the protest, I'll pay a $100 bounty to you if "people protesting about poker outside the Sands" makes a mention with any video at all on MSNBC. Take through the end of the lame duck session.

No, not right.

Do you remember when everyone was excited that Obama's Treasury Department decided to delay enforcement of the UIGEA for six months?

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-...ns-112509.html

Originally it was going to be delayed for a year. It was the Obama administration that decided when/where/how that the Act was to be enforced.

I really have no idea why the Democrats have gotten a free pass on this issue. Obama closed down Online Poker in the USA.

Democrats claim they weren't allowed to look at the Bill before they voted for it. So not having any idea what they were voting for, they just had to vote yes. The bill took seven months to get through Congress, so obviously it was of great urgency. I guess if that type reasoning works with your Democartic voters you're never accountable for anything you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawfu...nt_Act_of_2006

You ought to go read the Bill and decide for yourself if it was a critical emergency to get it passed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4954:

"It should not be a single person in the bowels of the Department of Justice reinterpreting the law and fundamentally changing the landscape" -Chafetz

That strikes me as somewhere between self serving and stupid.

Line should read DOJ ignored and the case was not appealed. My editor has been terminated.

And the written statement from DiFi read by Graham alluding to updating the wire act seemed more honest to me. I also noted Gabbard avoided a lot of the hyperbole as well.

But look at this statement. " this interpretation defies the plain text of the wire act'"-Kelly Ayotte
or
"To say that the wire act after 50 years only applied to sports betting is an incredible legal stretch." - Lindsey Graham

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest,...

Wonder why they said sporting event or contest instead of gambling of any kind? The Wire Act was passed to keep the operators of Nevada casinos at the time from running 50 state sports books.

And going into the "no consumer protection is why we need to make this illegal" routine is almost laughable. Prohibitions are what creates the black markets, not what fixes them.

So basically Ted Cruz is just pure evil.

Jayhawk, anyone who says "no consumer protection is why we need to make this illegal" either has no idea what they are talking about, or, like Ted Cruz, they are just not good people and are most likely being compensated for their "opinion".