Here's a good article in today's AZ Central on this: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...oker-year.html

Lawmakers aim to legalize online poker this year
Jul. 10, 2012 12:20 PM
Gannett Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON --- The subject is dicey, the stakes are high and the clock is ticking, but lawmakers are still hopeful they can move to legalize online poker by the year's end.

"Internet poker isn't a crime, it is a game of skill and it shouldn't be outlawed," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

His bill would establish a program overseen by the Department of Commerce for state licensing of internet poker. Barton says it gives states power to decide whether or not to allow internet poker within their borders and a share of any revenue generated......

No surprises from that article. A standalone bill is dead for this year but we knew that from the get go.

Not good to hear there is no consensus to go forward, although not surprised to see a CA representative slow-walk this given CA's desire to go intrastate.

Rep. Barton giving the Shuffle Up and Deal at the WSOP:

If he means a full stand alone vote I'd like to know what kind of Coco Puffs he is having.

That will be a problem for several states such as WV, the lottery "ownes" all the games in WV including all the slots at all the tracks, table games, ect. They issues licenses to tracks / bars to run the games they own (but the track / bar has to pay for the machines) then split the profits 60 / 40 roughly.

So, any Ipoker in WV will be "owned' by the state lottery since poker is considered a game of chance and not a "skill" game here. Our lottery cannot by law offer any games of skill thus the recognized skill games sites are allowed here (World Winner, King, ect.).

obg

Well, not to be ants at a picnic, but I sorta cornered Kyl in a hospital bathroom about 4 months ago..(both of us seeing family with new babies)..and I hit him up about the online poker and asked him to support it ra ra ra, and he said "I will only sign my name to deeper enforcement of current laws, Im sorry, please respect my position on this"....and then he scurried out..not sure what that means, but I left thinking, we'll never have Kyl...
Hope Im wrong and something new has matierialized..

OBG,

Yes, the lotteries are a huge concern. My comment was regarding DQ's post that seem to imply that it's not fair for legislation to exclude lotteries and that poker players should be pushing for their inclusion.

Even if its concerning, great story. Glad you cornered him and spoke for the players too.

It is my understanding that even if this bill was to pass, which, it has about as much chance as a gutter with 2 outs in the burn pile, that it would still be up to each state to implement as they see fit. It will never happen because the Indians and Lotteries have the money and the lobbyist
to whine like Annie Duke about it. I live in NC and if they did pass it we would never be allowed to play in this state, because the EBoCI"s and the state lottery might lose a buck.

As long as they get access to California players I doubt the Nevada casino lobby would mind if all 48 other states opted out, but as the last bill was written, all of these States would be opted in by default, and need to pass a law to opt out:

California.
Colorado.
Delaware.
Florida.
Iowa.
Kansas.
Michigan.
Mississippi.
Missouri.
Nevada.
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
Ohio.
Pennsylvania.
West Virginia.

Any other states that opt in would just be a bonus.

How did they determine which states automatically opt in and which states automatically opt out? It just seems strange that the federal government would treat states differently in this sense, absent some kind of state legislation one way or the other.

lol

It's so absurd that it must be true.

this might have been a factor in the brusk response

Not to over parse "the urinal tapes"...but "signing my name to deeper enforcement of current laws" can be interpreted as supporting online poker when combined with UIGEA II

How many votes did that bill get?

The prospect of prison rape?

What is stopping someone from buying a bunch of cigarettes in one state and bring them into another for resale? All an intelligent person needs is a car and a 7/11 willing to sell them.

Those are the States that currently (at the time) licensed commercial poker, so having no issue with licensed poker, they would have to opt out by passing a Washington type law saying: "poker = good, poker + internet = bad".

What's wrong with states having no issue with licensed poker on B&M facilities, opt in by passing a type of law saying: "you know what, internet poker is ok too"?

Now some players will cringe, but if you think about it, drafting a less than optimal bill that has a chance to become law is probably better than drafting the "perfect" bill that is drawing stone cold dead.

Given the way the States have moved this would make the most sense at this point. They get to say they are trusting the states while also passing something that forms a framework. They already can see the States are gung ho about going after internet gambling revenues.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!

Politically, saying all States are in unless they opt out would have some selling points (huge revenue opportunity!), and saying all States are out unless they pass a law to opt in also has it's advantages (States rights!).

But legally, forcing States to opt out using the Commerce Clause authority is a non-starter, as even forcing States to opt into health care failed except when contrived as a tax.

Barring players from States where commercial poker is legal from playing on US licensed sites (and there is no internet gambling prohibition) might also face legal challenges, so rather than seeking a political advantage, Reid appears to have chosen an option less likely to be challenged in court.

The fact that the legal tightrope he walks happens to benefit his home State may just be coincidence.

What is there to stop international players from playing on the US sites? I mean, it seems like unless there is a rule they can't in the bill (I see no reason for it as long as the other country allows it), its automatic they will be able to.

so you're saying the recent supreme court decision on the health care law set a precedent that the fed gvt CAN create a new tax/regulation system on an industry. great!

That right was never challenged, the big question was whether or not the Federal government could use the commerce clause to force individuals to make a purchase, the court ruled that they could not, but shockingly said the penalty for refusing to purchase health care could be construed as an individual tax, which congress has the right to establish.

Less controversial but more of a parallel question was whether or not the Federal government could penalize (cut off medicare) States for not opting in to the new system, and the court of course ruled that they could not, adoption of the new system would need to be voluntary.

This is not only important in terms of States having control of the decision to opt in to a Federal online poker system, but also the question of whether or not a State like Delaware could be forced to abdicate an intranet system which has already been voted into law.

Because it's most likely that States could not be forced to shut down (the federal government didn't even attempt to that with sports betting), one can understand why there is so much urgency behind getting a Federal bill passed prior to California passing an intranet bill.