I don't think online players will get arrested, convicted, fined, or jailed by WA state courts without any warning. They will send the player a warning letter, notifying them that betting on the Internet is a felony. If a player’s name appears again, charges may be filed. Check out the below link from Washington State Gambling Commision and scroll down to the Enforcement paragraph:

http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/faq/internet_gambling.pdf

Enforcement
Enforcement is focused on larger, higher level Internet gambling activities, such as gambling sites and service providers.

Players gambling on the Internet, whether playing poker, slots or other gambling games, run a risk of a felony conviction. If players’ names appear in an operator’s seized records, the Gambling Commission would likely send the player a warning letter, notifying them that betting on the Internet is a felony. If a player’s name appears again, charges may be filed. There is not an active campaign against regular players.

Well just hope they dont want you for something else and tack this on

Sure PS wants to look like a business that follows law if they ever want to have a chance at receiving a US license. IMO,PS isn't only concerned with the US,they operate internationally and have to operate "legally" in order to receive and maintain their license to operate in place like France and Italy. Other nations are starting to regulate/license online poker, PS has to be a company that obeys the law around the world or they will be left out of any and all regulated jurisdictions.

PS may not have left WA right away because the law was being challenged. Like any business they made that decision weighing the risk/reward of staying in WA, once the high court of the state ruled they decide the risk was higher the the reward as the law was upheld and left WA. IMO, if the US regulates online poker and stars doesn't get a US license, after exhausting all appeals, PS will leave the US. They'll need to in order to be allowed to maintain good relations in other jurisdictions where they operate once the US law is clea. Farnks bill, by itself, had little to do with their decision.

FTP would be idiotic to pull out. The court decision changes the law since by a big fat 0%. PS pulled out for some unknown reason that only makes sense with regards to a particular aspect of business, not for legal reasons.

I agree with the assessment of Federal bills. I think this is a little to broad though. Its pretty clear from the tenor of the hearing that there is a movement, even among allies, to try and restrict sites that currently offer service to the US from getting licensed. We can be pretty sure this will be addressed in some way in any bill. I agree its probably a minor factor.

I question Stars strategy then to be honest. Waiting for the result of this case was pretty clearly grasping at straws. Im happy they did it, but if that really was what was keeping them in the state...yikes.

Its also definitely possible they would have left the state earlier without a challenge, but the logic is just difficult to me given that they didnt leave the state between the time the law was in effect and the time the Rousso case was settled.

I would hope that the PPA figures out Stars motives and the potential effect of a Federal challenge on other states before continuing.

I also dont quite see how its a major difference in posture given the law was still valid last week and players could be arrested, yet Stars was still OK with it.


There wasn't really a change in legal status though. Wouldnt the proper response have been to pull out pending appeal? Im struggling to see how the fact there was a low probability appeal out there changed much. The bad law is obviously the root of the problem of course.


The corporate reputation point is exactly correct I think, you said that better than I have been able to, but a corporate reputation decision isnt the same as a legal decision IMO.

I think that's probably right, and I think it matters how we continue going forward. Stars does tend to follow Federal laws (although I do believe they still serve China despite a new law), but until now they have basically ignored state laws. So where is the line for Stars on state law?

Is it whenever a State Supreme Court rules on the subject, because until then they feel comfortable saying "we don't think this law will be upheld"?

Is it that when a law goes into place they wait x amount of time to see if an appeal is filed?

Stars is breaking the law serving customers in the meantime, but there does come some point where they feel it hurts their reputation and they can no longer justify providing service even though the law they are breaking is unjust. That's fine of course, and our anger should be directed at the law, but it changes how we need to think about strategy.

For example, I think it matters as to whether we appeal the decision in Federal Court? Does Stars feel they still have an argument that the WA courts got it wrong and they aren't subject to state law?

Are they going to feel compelled to leave other states if a Federal Court rules against them? There are definitely other states with laws that, while not as bad as WA, are not favorable to online poker.

The risk/reward of an appeal changes depending on how Stars is thinking about its corporate reputation.

I also do think the current US licensing proposals also had to have been factored in. How could they not have been? The bills are the current blueprint for determining the future of PS's biggest market. The bill has language around the behavior of current US facing sites related to getting a future license. They're making a decision how to proceed in the face of an adverse court decision? How could the licensing proposal not have an effect?

With few exceptions, no one is blaming the PPA for PS leaving Washington State. Without the PPA, we'd have a title that says "Stars to stop serving WA and MA customers". I think we have the potential to screw up future strategic decisions if simply conclude "Hey this is a bad law so Stars left" and don't look at all the reasons Stars left Washington.

One more afterthought....I think this shows we still have challenges related to comminicating and getting membership on board with opt outs. I continue to fear a harmgful backlash against the PPA from players in opt out states should a Federal bill pass.

Thanks as always for your thoughts Skall.

EDIT: To be clear, Im aware we cant appeal this specific case to Federal court, but someone else with standing could bring a case in Federal Court.

I appreciate the show of support. Thanks!

We don't have a mechanism for site-to-PPA transfers, as that would appear to be a donation from the site itself (sites do contribute, but through the IGC and not directly). Rather, it's best to withdraw the funds via the usual methods and then visit http://theppa.org/donate to donate. If you're a premium member now (or if you upgrade to premium status first), you can donate to PPA's PAC, the PokerPAC, at http://theppa.org/about/pokerpac/donations.

maybe an idea to get them altogether?
like the 'great Poker is rigged' debate - collected threads
this would be the natural home for it, being as it is

ideas are in danger of getting lost amongst the 3 as it is

+1 from the home of Spencer Bachus. I support the PPA and their efforts. I support licensing, regulation, and taxation. Because I want certainty. It will come at a cost. There isn't even a lottery in my state (don't send your kids to public school here). Can you guess which direction Alabama will go when they're given the opt in/opt out choice?

Poker is important enough to me that I just might have to move once we finally know which states will not criminalize online poker. And then, of those, which ones will allow for the largest possible field of players. I don't want to live in a state where you can only play residents of that state.

BTW, for those of you contemplating moving from WA to NV to play online, I'm pretty sure NV is not an online poker friendly state so there are still risks. (My info is from 2007, so do your research.)

And for anyone who doesn't want to write a letter because maybe you don't write so well, ask for help. I am willing to proof/edit letters or articles to help the cause. Just DM me. Write your rough draft and let me or someone else help clean it up for you. (I'm not a professional writer but have had several magazine articles published in the past.)

For an "afterthought," this is very very important. If and when Federal legislation passes, there are going to be tons of unhappy people. Because within a year of passage, any number of states will opt out. They will either criminalize all online poker (my state, for example), or they will criminalize all online poker except what is strictly licensed in their state (and ONLY their state) -- several states could go this direction. That limits the playing field to whatever percentage of the population in that state plays online poker. So, I know that passage of a Federal bill will kill my online poker here. I just wish I had a clearer picture of where I will have to move if I want to play with the largest field possible. The status quo works for me right now. I don't want to move in a couple years when it's all decided. But in the back of my mind, I'm packing. And in the meantime, I support the PPA and I advocate for myself and fellow players every chance I get.

I agree its very important, afterthought maybe wasnt the right word, more just that it was tangential to my post. Its a theme Ive been trying to emphasize for awhile now.

This is great.

Also, please also state in your letters that you are a tax payer and pay all your taxes. Additionally, the amounts of any volunteer contributions is good too stating what WA state will be missing out on if they continue the ban.

Politicians want votes and money. You've gotta put it into a perspective that speaks to them and lets them know that this is not helping anyone and in affect, hurting their chances for reelection and/or money to the state.

I really would start planning as if FTP will leave the market if I were you.

That is going to happen anyway in at least as many states, if not more, if no federal legislation passes. At least with the federal legislation in place, in all the other states that don't opt out iPoker will be clearly legal. And it may prevent some states from choosing to pass their own ban or intrastate licensed. And, once some of the states that opt out discover that revenues from intrastate iPoker aren't up to snuff (due to limited player pools, etc.), it will be an easy path for them to opt back in to the federal system.

Xpost from nvg thread:

It is important to note that the Federal licensing bills do not "create" opt-out states. States can take measures NOW to get some sites to stop servicing players in those states. This is what the Government did in WA, what the Governor of KY is trying to do, and what has been proposed in a few other states, and what we stopped in MA. In plain English: if your state wants to ***k up your ability to play online poker, it can and will whether Federal legislation passes or not.

The idea that we could get the Federal Congress to force each state to allow online poker within the state is, much as I wish it were otherwise, not politically possible. No one in Congress would even agree to file such a bill, much less vote for one.

If we hold out for a bill with no state opt-outs we will be marginalized and by-passed as the future is being created without our input or influence. At some point Congress will act in this area, that is for certain. We are not strong enough as a group to play obstructionist forever; maybe not even for that long if we run into a series of legal defeats, maybe for a few years if we have some legal and political successes.

So there are really only two questions to answer: is it better to fight to influence the future, or fight to hold the future at bay as long as possible? and, will a federal licensing scheme mean more or less states ban online poker as the future progresses?

Although I am sure there will be some states where the knee-jerk anti-gambling crowd will force an opt-out, I believe that the best way to keep this number of states to a minimum is to have a federal licensing scheme in place that guarantees site legitimacy, social protections, consumer protections, and provides a nice little new revenue stream for the state at no direct cost (and no more societal cost than already exists).

The PPA does not intend to end if a Federal bill is passed, but it sees its job of fighting state efforts against online poker a lot easier if a good Federal law is in place.

Every poker player and every PPA member and official wants every American to enjoy the right to play the game of poker online. We see very clearly that we cannot make that happen anytime soon. We also see very clearly that something must happen soon, indeed, is already in the process of happening. Battles over online poker are already present at the state level. IMHO, faced with this situation the best way to get to poker for all Americans in the long run is to take the first step of creating a good Federal scheme with opt-outs and then taking the long term steps of fighting to get each and every state to join that scheme.

To those of you who do live in the impossible states that will still opt-out, it will be bad. Online poker will not be non-existent for you, but no licensed site will let you play. And leaving you with unlicensed sites is small consolation. But there is no way we can realistically get a Federal law that tells your state that it must accept "gambling." And if you do live in one of these states you also have to realize that your state is also probably one that will screw with your ability to play anyway, whether or not there is ever Federal licensing.

Skallagrim

PS: plus what PokerXanadu said.

Most of your questions about the change after a State Supreme Court opinion can be answered easily, but only in a way that lawyers will appreciate. While the Rousso case was pending final resolution, anyone else in WA arrested or hassled because of the law could raise the same objection: "this law is unconstitutional." And any one of those cases (had they been brought) would have been delayed one way or another (in order to allow Rousso's appeal to be decided). That is no more. Anyone brought before a state court in WA cannot challenge the constitutionality anymore (unless someone has a new constitutional argument) and the case will go straight to verdict/judgment. That is a big difference to lawyers.

I also think you are overly fearful of what a Federal Court loss would mean to PokerStars. I say this only because the only issue in the WA case that would apply to other states we won: the WA court agreed that laws on online poker are subject to Commerce Clause analysis - there is no "gambling" exception. From there is was just a question of applying the standards the US Supreme Court has mandated. Our loss in WA court was in how they applied these standards (especially without any evidence) - not in what standards they should have applied. The application of the standards is dependent on the specific state laws. No other state's gambling laws are the same as WA's.

I think I covered your afterthought probably too thoroughly in my previsous post.

And I thank you for the kind words. Your posts are also much appreciated and always thought provoking.

Skallagrim

I agree with you both. I just think the PPA might want to somehow communicate this often and very clearly to their constituents so when the inevitable (I hope) Federal bill passes and states start opting out, the players don't blame PPA. I don't think there is much hope for my state when it comes to online poker, but supporting Federal legislation is still the best thing to do. Without it, AL will eventually outlaw online poker. But with Federal legislation, there is a glimmer of hope that AL will see regulation and dollar signs and just MAYBE not opt out.

skalls post #267 great post skall



+1

Can we contact someone at stars who could set up an account for this purpose?

Also, I posted this in NVG already, but can we organize another rally at the Capitol? I will show up and bring as many peeps as I can. I'm also willing to offer a free hour of poker coaching to anyone who shows up and says hi to me. I'm a high stakes mixed game player fwiw.

the ability to donate via p2p transfer on poker sites would probably increase donations quite a bit

+1

HI All,

While we are always appreciative of donations via the PPA website, the most important thing you can do is become a PPA premium member. As Rich mentions above, this allows you do a bunch of things, as well as allows you to find out more about what PokerPAC does. Joining the PPA has never been easier. Just click the link below, we have streamlined the process a bit, and will be working hard to make it even easier.

Click here to join as a premium member

Thanks,

Bryan Spadaro
PAC Director
PokerPAC

Membership Manager
Poker Players Alliance

I sent this to PPA with a recommendation that we try to figure out how to do this if at all possible.

I hope we can. The trips are always fun, and they help us make our case to Congress. It's also great for everyone to see what things are really like on the Hill.

Is the PPA going to put resources into Washington lobbyists to try and get this changed next year like they did in MA? Is there any plan to try and get this repealed? Any friendly legislators? Ballot initiative potential?

We're discussing our options, but we'll definitely be heard in Washington state in 2011 and 2012.