i agree with mpethybridge. VA is likely to opt out. Both Mcdonnell (Governor) and Attorney-general (Cuccinelli) are rabid right wing Christian fundamentalists.

One of McDonnell's first actions as Governor was to allow (and encourage) state universities to discriminate without reprisal against gay employees.
Cuccinelli has given support to birthers and was first Attorney-general to announce legal action to stop health care reform.

I live in Hampton Roads area of VA - it is full of bigoted, racist, white Christian fundamentalists. Unless the opt-out has to be ratified by legislature (in which case the free money might help), I'm pretty sure VA will be an opt-out.

howdy neighbor

I suspect Penna will opt out, given that they're getting the casinos with card rooms off of the ground, Slick Eddie won't be governor when this comes to action and there may be no direct benefit to the state.

Even if this falls to the PA legislature, I don't see a majority supporting it after the fall elections, but we'll see.

wow what a piece of ****

so when will we find out about this? thanks.

McDonnell is a class A wanker. Here's some snippets.


He declared that Va should celebrate its racist heritage:

Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell has declared April to be "Confederate History Month," the first time in 8 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the state.

In the statement, McDonnell says that the Confederate history "should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered," and that its leaders "fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today."


His thesis (from Regent no less) is a study in sexism, bigotry and the anti-sex culture endemic to the foaming-at-the-mouth Christian right. Of course, it is precisely this kind of person that is found propositioning at public restrooms or hiring someone to carry their bags from rentboy.com.

McDonnell's 1989 thesis for Regent University[41] was a 93-page document titled The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade. The document explored the rise in the numbers of divorces and illegitimate births, and examined public policies that may have contributed to that increase and proposed solutions.

The document gained attention in the campaign because it outlined a 15-point conservative agenda, including 10 points McDonnell pursued during his years in the General Assembly, according to press analysis.[42] This agenda includes opposition to abortion, support for school vouchers and covenant marriage, and tax policies that favor heterosexual families.[43] In his thesis, McDonnell wrote "government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'"[44] McDonnell also "described working women and feminists as 'detrimental' to the family."[44] McDonnell "criticized a landmark 1965 Supreme Court decision" which legalized the use of contraceptives and wrote that "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

And being the nice guy he is:

On February 5, 2010, McDonnell signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veteran, reversing protections for gays and lesbians in Virginia, and rescinding the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed on January 14, 2006, that covered all of these groups.

Maine is very likely to opt in to this imo, they need revenue from declining tourist sales. Lived in Maine 12 years fwiw

Ohio

This state just passed Issue 3 last November which is an ammendment to the Ohio Constitution and allows casinos in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo. The northern part of our state( Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron) has been decimated by the economic downturn and the state is trying hard to come up with creative ways to increase revenue.
One of the major arguments for allowing the casinos in Ohio is the estimated $600M in tax revenues for the state and $50M in licensing fees from each site. Another major selling point of the casinos is that Ohio is in desperate need of jobs and it is estimated that these casinos will provide 20,000 new jobs.
At this point I am unsure whether Ohio will opt in or not. We just passed issue 3 and I'm not sure if the state wants competition from online gaming sites before ours are even built yet. As I mentioned earlier, a major reason Issue 3 passed was the potential for creating so many jobs that we badly need here. I am worried that Ohio government officials will see the competition as a threat to some of the new jobs that were promised ( Our Governor, Ted Strickland was opposed to Issue 3 btw).
Ohio IMO is still up for debate

Georgia won't even allow alcohol sales on sunday! Internet poker?! yah, right.

That's the kind of good christian man I want to be!

Robert Hubbard - favorable





LirvA,

Thanks for contacting me with the things that are of interest to you. I say, if it's your money go for it. I don't see a problem.

Have a great week, Robert

Could a PPA member please answer this question:


What is the chance of this bill passing through congress and the senate in the upcoming vote and made into a law, is it likely or not likely?

If Governors are allowed to opt-out then Rick Perry absolutely will. Do you disagree with that?

That's really optimistic IMO.

I could see us staying in by default if the issue doesn't get much press and there is no vote at all.

However, if that's the case I think it could work as political ammo for campaigns. "so and so is soft on gambling". If that happens they could force a vote with enough attention that people vote to opt out just to cover their own...ya know.

Current predictions:

Predicted Good Guys (18)

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Maine
Massachussets
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
New York (One time!!)
Nevada
North Dakota
Oregon
West Virginia
Wyoming

Predicted Bad Guys (10)

Alabama
Georgia
Hawaii
Louisiana
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas (Would like to hear more on this one since Texas is a huge state with tons of online poker players living in it)
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

Toss Up/Some Debate (9)

California
Idaho
Kentucky
Minnesota
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Washington
Wisconsin

Not Yet Discussed (13)

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Maryland
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota

Regarding New York, I agree with the previous poster's assessment that Gov David Paterson would definitely opt-in. This guy has already tried to put a "fat tax" on soda, and he'd tax your trips to the bathroom if he could. That said, he's only governor till the end of the year when he will be replaced with (more than likely) Andrew Cuomo, the current state AG. I have no idea what his position would be.

So until the end of 2010, New York opts-in.

From NoahSD's summary, it seems about 15-20 states will opt out. However, if a state statute is required, then I believe the number will be lower just because half the state legislatures that want to opt out just won't get around to passing a law.

Yeah. I think people are being pessimistic. A lot of people don't realize that the state gov't will have to bother to take this up in order to opt out, and most really just don't care that much. Also, lots of people who are pro-online poker are pretty anti-gov't in general, so they tend to be pessimistic about this stuff.

When I was making my post trying to get Congress' GPA from the ratings of the individual Congresscritters that the PPA had done, one thing I noticed was that almost the entire New York Congressional delegation was A rated by the PPA.

Obviously, they are not the ones who will make the opt in/out decision, but it's hard to imagine that they would be so completely unrepresentative of prevailing attitudes in New York.

I would think that NY is one of the safer opt ins.

This won't be Paterson's decision, so his position on the issue doesn't matter WRT New York.

I would also assume New York will opt in because of its fiscal crap and also because its state legislature has a really hard time getting anything done right now, so it likely won't take this up. I don't really know much about ny politics, though.

Yeah as a Virginian I unfortunately agree that VA is likely an opt out state.

My only hope is that a few things will happen. A) It will be more difficult to opt-out, not just the governor's decision and B) They will realize that if all of our neighboring states are either tolerating, embracing, and/or benefiting from gambling that someone within the state will realize how foolish it is not to take advantage of the potential revenue.

Just look at the opening of the Hollywood Casino in Charles Town, which has people flocking from northern Virginia and the Shen. Valley to West Virginia to spend money on gambling.

This is by far the biggest reason that I think many states will opt out. States that already have casinos will not want to create competition for their casinos, thereby threatening the jobs of the casino workers. I live in the tri state area of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia - and they all have or will soon have casinos and tracks. I don't see any way that these casinos are going to openly welcome online gaming, unless those casinos can offer their own online casino games (blackjack, roulette, slots, etc) - and even then I think it's a longshot that they would welcome the competition. Call me pessimist, but I think all three opt out to protect their in state gambling interests. I also fear that many states will follow along with this line of thinking.

Noah's summary is also optimistic. He has MA as a clear good guy even though the Governor has tried to criminalize online poker. The number could be higher.

I completely agree with your solution too, that's how I would like the law to be written.

Could someone clarify what happens to the tax that the fed is collecting? Will some of it go to states that opt in?

If opt out requires action from the legislature, then Kentucky should be OK. The Kentucky legislature has enough trouble passing the bills required to keep the state government doors open. For the legislature to pass an opt out bill it would have to be near the top of someone's (actually an influential someone) priority list. I could imagine, however, an unholy alliance among the social conservatives/horse industry/lottery/maybe some other interests causing an opt out bill to get passed.