Pappas believes Reid/Kyl bill is written, waiting for the right time/vehicle

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

Your generalization is just plain wrong. Take Joe Barton, republican representative from Texas, as an example. http://pokerati.com/tag/barton-bill/

Reid and the PPA has been completely ineffective in gaining any movement. His "attempts" to legalize online gambling have gone nowhere

Of course. How could anybody conclude that the fight for openly legal online poker has gained any momentum whatsoever since 2006 and the UIGEA passage ....

Where do these people come from? They must have internet access since they are posting here, do they read nothing but celebrity gossip pages?

Skallagrim

[Doom_Switch]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Of course. How could anybody conclude that the fight for openly legal online poker has gained any momentum whatsoever since 2006 and the UIGEA passage ....

Where do these people come from? They must have internet access since they are posting here, do they read nothing but celebrity gossip pages?

Skallagrim

My statement was that the PPA and Reid have not made meaningful movement. Individual states, specifically NV, NJ, DE, have made significant progress to establish a legal regulatory licensed on-shore structure w/o any help from the PPA or Reid.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

My statement was that the PPA and Reid have not made meaningful movement. Individual states, specifically NV, NJ, DE, have made significant progress to establish a legal regulatory licensed on-shore structure w/o any help from the PPA or Reid.

I guess the Reid/Kyl letter to the DOJ has nothing to do with movement in those states?

[tangled]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

Your generalization is just plain wrong. Take Joe Barton, republican representative from Texas, as an example. http://pokerati.com/tag/barton-bill/

Reid and the PPA has been completely ineffective in gaining any movement. His "attempts" to legalize online gambling have gone nowhere

They have not been effective mainly because of republicans.

Your generalization is just plain wrong.

[Go Get It]

Originally Posted by tangled

They have not been effective mainly because of republicans.

Your generalization is just plain wrong.

Bono Mack tho...

[sba9630]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

My statement was that the PPA and Reid have not made meaningful movement. Individual states, specifically NV, NJ, DE, have made significant progress to establish a legal regulatory licensed on-shore structure w/o any help from the PPA or Reid.

Did you wear the juice when you made this post?

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I guess the Reid/Kyl letter to the DOJ has nothing to do with movement in those states?

I believe that there is a better chance of passing a federal online poker bill now than at any time in the past.

As discussed elsewhere, a number of factors have coalesced to create a possible common ground for cobbling together enough votes to pass the Senate, especially if "netural", disinterested votes are garnered because of attachment to another bill. (This is why the lame duck session and attachment to another bill bring better chances of passage than any stand-alone bill would face in 2013.)

HOWEVER, the irony is that the Reid-Kyl Letter, which you might re-read, got exactly the opposite answer they apparently anticipated. The Reid Kyl Letter was inviting a ban on States' activity, read the nonsense about information packets crossing state lines even for intrastate gaming. The result, the Dec. Wire Act reversal, and its September predecessor for Lotteries, were prompted by the inquiries, but the December answer was hardly supportive of a "federal only" solution.

For federal purposes, the Letter may have ignited a fire under gambling opponents, enough for them to cut a poker deal to fix the online casino/unlicensed poker boogeyman created by DOJ. THAT perceived need to act NOW may help federally, enough to bring a compromise bill across the finish line in fact.

But, no, the States were moving ahead in any event, and will do so in 2013 if no federal bill reigns in or channels that development.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

My statement was that the PPA and Reid have not made meaningful movement. Individual states, specifically NV, NJ, DE, have made significant progress to establish a legal regulatory licensed on-shore structure w/o any help from the PPA or Reid.

While your second sentence is correct, your first statement is simply wrong.

I have always maintained that State movement was more likely than federal, that State movement would come first, and State movement was a necessary pre-condition for passing any federal bill, even one simply blessing multi-state compacts.

However, it is wrong to say Reid has not made meaningful progress on federal legislation.

It is similarly wrong to think that Reid and the PPA are synonymous. The PPA holds, influences and sways no votes in the Senate. Reid does. The LV Sun article on the various interests at play omitted the players as stakeholders because while they may advise, consult, or lobby, they do not really hold sway over any particular votes.

Other folks do matter more than player lobbyists to the passage of legislation. The best the players can hope for is to counsel those others that a player-friendly product will maximize revenues from online poker versus a poor product that also gouges players with excessive fees for service and discourages public acceptance of poker as entertainment.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

HOWEVER, the irony is that the Reid-Kyl Letter, which you might re-read, got exactly the opposite answer they apparently anticipated.

I heartily disagree. The Reid/Kyl letter got exactly the answer that they did want. It forced the DOJ to make a reasoned legal opinion on the Wire Act, which had to conclude that the Wire Act applied only to sports betting. This gave Reid/Kyl the perfect political justification for their bill - stop the proliferation of Internet gambling legislation in the U.S. If the DOJ had instead made some political statement that the long-held stance of the DOJ that all Internet gambling in the US is illegal, there would be little reason to bring a UIGEA-II bill to a vote (with or without a poker carveout).

[tamiller866]

I have to a agree with DQ, as I. Nelson Rose put it:

it is clear the real enemies (targeted by the letter) are the state lotteries. The one thing Reid and Kyl can agree on is that Internet poker should be run by their constituents: Indian casinos for Kyl and commercial casinos for Reid. So, it is possible that Congress might legalize intra-state and ever interstate online poker, if they can figure out a way to prevent state lotteries from being the operators.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/blo...y-18-2011.html

It strains credulity to assume that Reid/Kyl were actually hoping that Eric Holder would give States the green light to let the genie out of the bottle before they were able to get the first two wishes.

This is troubling. We respectfully request that you reiterate the Department's long standing position that federal law prohibits gambling over the internet including intra-state (e.g. lotteries).

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/ima...-to-holder.pdf

And if that isn't enough clue as to the response they hoped for, they also asked that the Attorney General - just in case his response might have been something other than what they desired - withhold his response until consulting with congress.

Conversely, if for some reason the Department is reconsidering it's longstanding position, then we respectfully request that you consult with Congress before finalizing a new position that would open the floodgates to internet gambling.

Since the floodgates are open, it's only fair to say that they weren't granted either of their wishes.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

Reid and the PPA has been completely ineffective in gaining any movement. His "attempts" to legalize online gambling have gone nowhere

PPA has been incredibly effective, especially given the strength of the opposition. Also, PPA is not a "they". It's our shared effort to advocate for our rights. If you feel we can be more effective, please share what you're doing to make that happen.

[acecatcher26]

lool @ anyone saying the PPA hasnt been effective. The PPA is responsible for the rally of players that have been reaching out to Congressmen for a long time now. To say that our voice hasnt been heard is just ignorant.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by Doom_Switch

Your generalization is just plain wrong. Take Joe Barton, republican representative from Texas, as an example. http://pokerati.com/tag/barton-bill/

Reid and the PPA has been completely ineffective in gaining any movement. His "attempts" to legalize online gambling have gone nowhere

People seem to forget that the PPA did play a role along with PokerStars in getting AB 258 (Nevada intrastate poker) passed, and it was within days of Nevada announcing the regulations for intrastate poker that the DOJ (coincidentally?) 'opened the floodgate' for any State to move forward.

It was that OLC opinion that prompted in the change in the conversation, which I believe can all be traced back to the PPA/PokerStars effort to push Nevada on the idea of becoming the 'gold standard' in internet gaming regulation.

Everything happening right now at the State level is in direct response to the 'threat' of Reid/Kyl legislation in the lameduck, States wants to get grandfathered in before Congress can do anything, so it would be inaccurate to say that the PPA has had no influence over State movement, since State movement has been in response to the legislation the PPA supports.

No one that has watched the Senate hearings evolve from 'internet poker is a threat to Tribal economies' to 'how can we make sure the Tribes get a competitive edge in online gambling' can honestly believe that the PPA has had no impact.

The situation may not have evolved exactly as it was game planned - Federal movement pushing State rather than vice versa - and they may set expectations too high, but with poker players if you promise the moon they are just going ask about rakeback, so the expectation level needs to be high in order to get any support at all.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

...

The situation may not have evolved exactly as it was game planned - Federal movement pushing State rather than vice versa - and they may set expectations too high, but with poker players if you promise the moon they are just going ask about rakeback, so the expectation level needs to be high in order to get any support at all.

There is nothing in the Nevada Regulations which would prohibit a licensed site from offering rakeback to online poker players. It would be a logical extention of the loyalty programs and comps offered live gaming customers.

I have discussed similar issues with the PPA, who has been receptive to the idea of approaching the Commission on player-important regulatory issues like that, as needed.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

There is nothing in the Nevada Regulations which would prohibit a licensed site from offering rakeback to online poker players. It would be a logical extention of the loyalty programs and comps offered live gaming customers.

I have discussed similar issues with the PPA, who has been receptive to the idea of approaching the Commission on player-important regulatory issues like that, as needed.

I wasn't actually suggesting rakeback was prohibited, I just threw that out as an example of the things glass half full players focus on, as if just getting legal poker wouldn't be a monumental accomplishment.

I could have said 'OMG, TAXES?!?' or 'no international player pool?!?' or a dozen other examples.