NJ online poker legislation (passed)

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Don't know. Does Christie really have that much support in the Legislature? He is a bit of a maverick with plans for Washington, DC. I would be careful of carrying him if I were a member of the Legislature.

Here is a good test case:

http://www.theridgewoodblog.net/2011...-override.html

The veto over-ride votes may have been there the last go-around, but Sen. Lesniak did not pursue that course, as it seemed better to just try and meet Christie's stated rationales for veto and re-introduce a new measure.

Although the votes may be there this time as well, you cannot take the CO2 emissions veto as an accurate test case. The issues and interests do not match up in any projected vote count.

I think that the NJ effort and the nature of any opposition may provide a canary in the coal mine indicator for Caesars' perceptions of federal viability in 2011. Jan Jones has said that if the federal effort fails this time around, then the battle may proceed to a State by State effort. While failure or success of federal bills may not be conclusive until late November, there may be some political bet hedging going on before then.

In NJ, Caesars already has a huge market presence, as it does in Nevada ..... If there is no real prospect of federal passage, it seemes likely thta there would be little opposition to Sates proceeding forward, in Nevada and NJ, as both give a bit leg up to existing gaming licensees.

Winning the battle for the "cause" of legalized online poker may take a State by State campaign, in the short term, out of poltical necessity, not some "hidden agenda" or nefarious plot to undermine the PPA.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

.

Winning the battle for the "cause" of legalized online poker may take a State by State campaign, in the short term, out of poltical necessity, not some "hidden agenda" or nefarious plot to undermine the PPA.

Not may, will. Federal legislation by itself doesnt give anyone access to (well, DC players I guess) to regulated online poker as every single state has to choose whether to opt-in or opt-out.

How difficult each battle will be may change based on the final structure of Federal legislation (auto opt-ins, time period to opt-out, whether a state can opt-out after opting in, etc), but poker players are going to have to win battles in each individual state.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Not may, will. Federal legislation by itself doesnt give anyone access to (well, DC players I guess) to regulated online poker as every single state has to choose whether to opt-in or opt-out.

How difficult each battle will be may change based on the final structure of Federal legislation (auto opt-ins, time period to opt-out, whether a state can opt-out after opting in, etc), but poker players are going to have to win battles in each individual state.

There is no doubt that any federal legislation will include state options, and states will be able to change their option year-by-year. So, yes there will be state battles to be fought even with a federal bill. But if you want inter-state player pools, it's far better to start with a federal bill than a smattering of intrastate bills. The latter can eventually lead to the same, but it's a longer path. Of course, absent passage of a federal bill, starting at the state level is a 'better-than-nothing' option.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

There is no doubt that any federal legislation will include state options, and states will be able to change their option year-by-year. So, yes there will be state battles to be fought even with a federal bill. But if you want inter-state player pools, it's far better to start with a federal bill than a smattering of intrastate bills. The latter can eventually lead to the same, but it's a longer path. Of course, absent passage of a federal bill, starting at the state level is a 'better-than-nothing' option.

1. Powerball got there pretty quickly and States moved way up the learning curve as a result.

2. The political landscape, including the traditional State level regulation of gaming and capture of revenues, has not changed over time.

3. The "all or nothing" Federal-only approach taken by Caesars and its minions caused a veto in NJ last time around, but even it has morphed into a State-level enabling legislation piece.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

1. Powerball got there pretty quickly and States moved way up the learning curve as a result.

2. The political landscape, including the traditional State level regulation of gaming and capture of revenues, has not changed over time.

3. The "all or nothing" Federal-only approach taken by Caesars and its minions caused a veto in NJ last time around, but even it has morphed into a State-level enabling legislation piece.

1. As we have discussed many times, the legal issues for inter-state i-poker are much different than for powerball. We aren't even sure that intra-state i-poker won't be squashed by the DOJ.

2. The political landscape for passage of a federal i-poker bill has changed tremendously. In 2006, most of Congress was for a ban on all internet gambling (including i-poker). Today, even our staunch Congressional opponents are willing to talk compromise.

3. Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill, but I'm not so sure they alone caused the veto. I think it had more to do with Christie's presidential aspirations. The legislation this time around isn't "morphed" - it's virtually the same as last time, except for the addition of an express ban on internet cafes. Neither Ceasars nor Christie has expressed any change in tune about the NJ bill. As I understand it, Lesniak decided to re-introduce the bill despite no statement of support by Christie. And Ceasars strategy remains federal-only-legislation, for the moment at least.

[TheDarkElf]

^^^ @PX: I think you meant to say 3. "Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill" above.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

2. The political landscape for passage of a federal i-poker bill has changed tremendously. In 2006, most of Congress was for a ban on all internet gambling (including i-poker). Today, even our staunch Congressional opponents are willing to talk compromise.

On a more serious note:

• Do you really think UIGEA would have passed in the Senate on a stand alone vote in 2006?
• If there really is a different landscape in our current Congress, why must every poker bill be attached to something else? Not strong enough to stand on its own?
• There is but one year left for our current Congress (and it's a presidential election year). The next Congress may be radically different. Isn't time running out for this one?

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

There is no doubt that any federal legislation will include state options, and states will be able to change their option year-by-year. So, yes there will be state battles to be fought even with a federal bill. But if you want inter-state player pools, it's far better to start with a federal bill than a smattering of intrastate bills. The latter can eventually lead to the same, but it's a longer path. Of course, absent passage of a federal bill, starting at the state level is a 'better-than-nothing' option.

Oh yeah, of course, just pointing out that the real fight for us eventually has to be at the state level.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

^^^ @PX: I think you meant to say 3. "Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill" above.

Quite right. Thanks!

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

On a more serious note:

• Do you really think UIGEA would have passed in the Senate on a stand alone vote in 2006?
• If there really is a different landscape in our current Congress, why must every poker bill be attached to something else? Not strong enough to stand on its own?
• There is but one year left for our current Congress (and it's a presidential election year). The next Congress may be radically different. Isn't time running out for this one?

• Yes, given enough time to make it through the legislative process.
• Although the landscape has changed, it doesn't mean that we've won. Getting anything through Congress is a tedious process. Attaching a bill is just an expedient to getting a popular bill through the beaurocracy (just like what happened with the UIGEA in the first place).
• Maybe. Which is why attachment is our best hope right now.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

1. As we have discussed many times, the legal issues for inter-state i-poker are much different than for powerball. We aren't even sure that intra-state i-poker won't be squashed by the DOJ.


2. The political landscape for passage of a federal i-poker bill has changed tremendously. In 2006, most of Congress was for a Safe Ports Act, to which legislation about payment processing for illegal gambling was attached at the last minute. Today, even our staunch Congressional opponents are willing to talk compromise.

3. Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill, but I'm not so sure they alone caused the veto. I think it had more to do with Christie's presidential aspirations. The legislation this time around isn't "morphed" - it's virtually the same as last time, except for the addition of an express ban on internet cafes. Neither Ceasars nor Christie has expressed any change in tune about the NJ bill. As I understand it, Lesniak decided to re-introduce the bill despite no statement of support by Christie. And Ceasars strategy remains federal-only-legislation, for the moment at least.

FYP re the legislative history of the 2006 Safe Ports Act.

As for the other points, I agree that Caesars is pushing for a federal bill today, August 30th and doing a really good job at it. However, pushing a bill up Capitol Hill this fall may once again prove Sissyphian. If you do not think they would hedge their bet come November, if it looks like a federal effort will once again fall short, then we have to disagree about how strategic/smart/adaptable/pragmatic they are.

I don't know who "we" means, but I am pretty f**king certain that DOJ would not prosecute Nevada on the basis of the arguments presented in the Reid/Kyl letter. Nevada currently licenses an intrastate sports betting system, based online. The UIGEA expressly exempts coverage of data packs crossing State lines incidental to licensed intrastate online gambling.

You misunderstand my post about evolution on the Hill; what has morphed is the Hill proposals, not the NJ bill. The push on the Hill has evolved from something other than a Uber Federal Poker Authority legislative effort. What is seen as more realistic is a federal bill which allows States to license/regulate/gain revenue from online poker .... if they so choose.

Also, the competitive landscape has not been static. Consider that Caesars biggest feared competitors, FTP and PStars now are out of even the intrastate online landscape. Their other fears of mutliple State licensing aside, Caesars has had to have re-evaluated the potential upside of going the State by State route, if it fails on the Hill this year

[LetsGambool]

One problem for Ceasars with the state by state route is that the clock is ticking really fast on the current equity holders. They need a big splash IPO like yesterday to help pay down some debt and provide a path to retaining control of the company. Otherwise, some folks are about to take a zero on a big equity check. I-poker is definitely their biggest growth story (although the analysts know Ceasars is likely full of **** with their numbers as they dont account for, among other things, pesky state opt-outs).

I think Ceasars might (emphasis on might) be able to IPO in a hot market off of the story of Federal i-poker legislation. I doubt they could do it based on passing legislation in NJ. So as long as the current equity guys are in control, it makes perfect sense for them to swing for the fences. When (and if, in my estimation) Ceasars restructures and fixes their capital structure, their approach to this issue might change dramatically.

[ScreaminAsian]

CKrafcik tweeted a link to a pdf of the bill yesterday

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

CKrafcik tweeted a link to a pdf of the bill yesterday

My post #66 above:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

New Jersey S3019
An Act authorizing Internet wagering at Atlantic City casinos under certain circumstances and amending and supplementing the "Casino Control Act", P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-1 et seq.).

Text in html.
Text in PDF.

[raradevils]

Sorry I've been out of the loop the last week and a half, this is going forward. Does this mean this new bill adresses all the conserns that Christie had? When are they scheduled to take up the vote?

[savant111]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

That doesn't excuse statism at the state level.

I'm not sure why you are so accepting of state-level statism, but none of these state bills are better for players than the Barton bill.

Additionally, it may be possible to pass legislation in NJ, CA, and NV, but may of live in states that will require constitutional amendments to authorize intrastate online poker (or would require them to be run through that state's lottery...would that be statist enough for you?), while that limitation is not a factor with federal legislation.

PPA does not oppose the NJ bill, of course. PPA may very well endorse it once we complete reviewing the new filing, but your posts seem to be limited to "the federal government is evil...keep them out at all costs," when the reality of our situation is that it's the states (aside from NV) that treat gaming as something to be permitted solely for revenue -- and the maximum revenue at that.

TE, I"m a New Jersey resident. Should I be writing any of my representatives on this for fair taxing or should I wait and see what comes out first?