Rich,
I never once said give up in advance. What I would like to see is position points based on reality and what will actually work. 2006 is gone and will never return it is a simple fact of life.

Of course we've thought about all this. We've gone over every point you mentioned many times over the past four years.

That's why we're starting off on our best footing with the best bill we think we can have introduced. If we go in with the bare minimum, it takes just one small change via amendment to kill it as a pro-poker bill.

I have no doubt that we'll have to negotiate on some points. We're not going to do it in advance in anticipation of what we may or may not have to give up later.

Rob,

We're not going to seek legislation where ten states affirmatively opt in. That would be counterproductive. If a better bill is not political reality today, perhaps it will be after a few more years of the status quo, especially if our fight stops tougher enforcement against sports betting while leaving the door open for licensed online casino gaming. We'll keep fighting.

As written you may only get ten states opting in anyway.
What if it is 40 opt ins?

No matter how many states we start with it is a start. If the Powerball Model holds the rest will want in later.

I skimmed this thread pretty fast so I might have missed it, but what is everyones thoughts on NY? I really cant see them opting out but idk

There was a three or four post section on NY on the second or third page.
In almost every state though it really comes down to what body or office makes the call and when.

What JP is asking for is actually pretty much the opposite of what you are asking for RGC.

He is asking for a clause that says, if the state doesnt explicitly pass a new law, they are automatically opted in to the bill.

An interesting view of the 10th Amendment from a self-proclaimed strict constructionist.

You clearly have fallen in love with the idea that shifting the burden of "opting out" to a State legislature is an acceptable political ploy in this increasingly States Rights aware political climate.

The speculative "found money" you cite is going to be a lot less, arguably, than a lottery can project, and there is no reason to think legislators cannot understand the federal "grab" you project.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. States have some time to act first. Passing a federal bill to require any State to opt out requires more than merely getting a majority of each chamber of Congress. Federal bills will have to get on the calendar for hearings, committee votes, and an up-or-down main vote. Highlighting a strategy to evade and avoid States Rights does lttle to enhance the likelihood of passage. An "evade and avoid" token opt out process will likely make matters worse than no opt out provision at all.

I think a stacked deck process, including voiding existing State prohibitions, is a bad political idea and one which will never see the light of day in any bill with a hope of passing.

It is so bad, it raises the question of having been planted as a poison pill, to keep the fight going indefinitely while reapiing benefits from the status quo.

Ok, I'll try clarifying. HR 2267, and other similar bills contain a similar provision that gives states the right to opt out of the licensing provisions of the bill. In a better world, I would not agree to give any state that right which they do not currently possess. Internet gaming is clearly interstate commerce. So the US Congress can control it if it wants. IMO, SCOTUS have almost completely deleted the 10th amendment so the Congress could impose HR 2267 on the states.

Heck, if I had my druthers, the SCOTUS would never have killed most of the US Constitution over the last century and I could argue that your right to play online poker, or gamble, is protected by the US Constitution like it was in the 19th Century. Try telling Wild Blue Hickock that the government says he can't play poker.

But I live in the 21st century and the US has forsaken its constitution republic for a democracy with power almost exclusively centered in the federal government. So politics counts for everything and politics says that the states must have a right to opt out.

Ok, but at least the opt out provision could be clearly written. The present language is so poorly written that no one knows if the governor of a state can decide for the entire state, if any present anti-gambling law is enough for a governor to declare that his state has opted out or if the state legislature must pass a statute to opt out. Without any further clarification, the PPA will be litigating in most of the states to determine whether they have opted out or not. Or, if a state tries to not opt out, the FOF will sue claiming some statute causes it to opt out. This litigation will make acquiring a license an exercise in futility for too long.

So my suggestion is to clarify it by specifically requiring a state to pass a new law to opt out. Is that a harder requirement than the present language? I don't know, but I'm tired of Congresscritters deliberately writing vague language to enrich litigators (sorry Skall and great term for the idiots who run Congress). The truth is that all this useless litigation that could be avoided in the first place is partly responsible for the current "great recession."

That would be a more clear opt-out" proceess than the chestnut currently proposed.

So would language specifically requiring a State to pass a law to opt-in or "ratify" the National Gaming Czar Act.

The political issue is What mechanism wouuld get the most votes for passage of the federaal bill ?

Shifting the burden to any State to pass a law to protect itself from a "grab" for gaming revenues/police powers is not much better politically than no "opt out" provision at all. But is it enough "better" to get enough votes to pass ?

Certainly, an opt-in mechanism is cleaner in dealing with States' Rights, but who among the federal bill's backers really wants that limmit on growth in place, even if it would eventually mimic "Powerball" federally ?

Seriously, why not go opt-in ?

"Opt out" simply is a mechanism to blunt objections from anti-gaming States. So is opt-in. The difference is whether or not a Federally licensed product is confident enough of its performance to attract opt-in States over time, like the Powerball model.

Rather than try and placate Utah/Hawaii/Texas/Washington State while trying to trick/tie in NJ, Fla, and Illinois by an onerous "default" clause, federal bill backers should trust in their products, go for opt-in and let their performance bring new States iinto the revenue flow going forward.

I think JP basically nails it.

FWIW I think changing to an opt-in provision would be suicide and doing it for no reason is foolish.

What products are we trusting in? We're just players trying to play poker, thats all.

Politically, why wouldnt we want to make states opt out of revenue to block poker? Why are we trying to make it easy for states to block online poker? Right now, zero states are blocking online poker effectively.

Why is the default clause onerous? Its a pretty standard way that Congress has used to regulate a myriad of issues in recent years. Why would we defer to state B&M interests that don't have our best interests at heart?

"What will attract the most votes for a Federal bill" is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is "What is the best way to make the best poker games available to the most players long-term".

We aren't just trying to pass something. If we just wanted to pass something we could just try to get some ****ty state bill passed. Why would we want to attach a clause that makes poker less available for players rather than more available?

TPCEO, come on what value would a license to service online poker players have if the states had to opt in? 0!! Stop being facetious and ridiculous, you know better.

The term "strict constructionist" has been co-opted by those who see the Constitution merely as a limit to federal power. IMO, the Constitution -- including the commerce clause -- means what it says.

Not really. I wouldn't mind a bill that forced this on all states with any commercial gaming, but I don't think that's likely. As a compromise, I'm willing to accept state opt-outs if they are accomplished by votes of state legislatures.

I think our opponents should appreciate our generosity in this matter.

Perhaps, but our found money is additive.

Yes, we have a hard fight ahead.

We have little reason to fight for the consolation prize.

It survived the mark-up, so it must not be that bad.

This.

In RPC's vision, states are suing to stay out of the online gaming pact, while in JP's sites are suing with claims that states did not legally opt out.

I almost started to shed a tear over the fact that states may actually have to vote to opt out of this bill (just as they had to opt out of the repeal of Prohibition). After all, this new right of states to regulate interstate commerce is at risk.

However, I then recalled that this same bunch had no problem at all in seeking a ban on interstate online poker. That bill passed the House by a wide margin. It did not pass into law only because UIGEA had to be stripped down a bit to get it through the smokey backrooms of the Senate. This was not opt-in or opt-out. Rather, it was forced on the states and the people. They seemed to think the commerce clause took precedence over the Tenth Amendment.

I then recalled 1992's Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that banned intrastate sports betting in the 46 states that did not already have some form of sports betting. Where was all this gnashing of teeth over states' rights then??? Where's the Tenth Amendment argument? Where is it now, for Delaware and New Jersey? Phony limited government legislators wish to keep this assault on states' rights in place.

I won't even get started on non-gaming big government power grabs made by those who otherwise claim fidelity to limited government principles (marijuana legislation, prescription drug certification, raw milk laws, prescription drug re-importation, right-to-die legislation, the original Prohibition, etc.). Where were their state opt-outs or opt-ins?

So, with my eyes now so dry I need some eye drops, I say with certainty that I will not recommend making this opt-in.

This. Stop obfuscating the real intent of the opt-out provision. Most, if not all, legislation should be written as clearly as possible. Who wants to get entangled in protracted litigation over an ambiguous provision? If the provision as written gets challenged in the courts, it could cause serious delay in implementing the whole system. Better to clear it up now.

In the next round perhaps a more clear opt-out provision can be added by amendment?

Okay, the issue is one of political judgement. I was offering opt-in as a long term solution, where a federally licensed site could prove its worth and attract States voluntariily, not tie them up by default. It worked for growing Powerball; are you afraid it will fail for poker or is a grab for it alll, now, what the online/B&M operators who fund the PPA demand ?

This is not 1992. having a messy opt-out provision adds to the burden of trying to pass a bill. Why weigh down your chances ?

Yes, it is fair to say I know a lot better than do you what such a federal license would be worth, with an opt-in feature.

I've been in the poker industry for a long while. I'd stack my valuation of such a prospective license against your armchair poseur, wannabe judgement of $0 any day.

(Start with asking how many billions of market capitalization did Party lose when it abandoned its unlicensed US business ? Then ask yourself what the size of the US market is today, and what would the competitive edge of a federal license give someone ?)

TPCEO, are you sure your opinions on this subject aren't at all business related?

He is admittedly in the business. Confirmed by TE.

Yeah, but what I'm trying to figure out is if he is personally objecting due to business related reasons. Clearly it has some affect, but I wonder if his opinions are based in the common good, or self interest. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just think a response to this sort of question would clear up a lot of confusion.

He explains himself in another thread. Essentially he wants to be the Devil's Advocate.

IMO, that would cost us a lot while buying us very little.

Where are these politicians who support us if it's opt-in but oppose us if it's opt-out? IMO, those who oppose us oppose online poker in general.

LOL. So, now fighting for a decent bill is anti-player???

Because we demand a decent bill and are willing to stand up for ourselves to get one.

I think it is now universally accepted by all that the "Opt out" clause needs to be rewritten and clarified on a number of points.

Based on the Churchill Downs CEO quarterly whine / financial report last week we can add Kentucky to the very probable "Opt Out". That is unless we get the measure in front of the people for a general vote. Then "Opt In" is a slam dunk.

Link: * http://www.kydirect.net/news/churchi...balou-at-risk/ - Instant Racing may not be big enough profit for Churchill Downs