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

[TheEngineer]

^^^

I'm pretty sure most understood I was referring to a toss of a fair coin, which has no bias toward landing on one side or the other.

[tamiller866]

My point is that there is no such thing as a fair coin toss in politics, much as there is no such thing as a fair toss of a real coin:

http://econophysics.blogspot.com/200...ic-at-mit.html

To expect a change of the existing orientation of law, we need to have better than 50/50 odds.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

I like talking about potential vehicles and the political environment a lot more than these silly abstract arguments about what % we had to pass 2 years ago.

There is plenty of constructive things we can be talking about instead of acting like 9 year olds imo.

So...what are the big bills moving forward this holiday season? Are there things I should be communicating to my lawmakers concerning the lame duck specifically?

It is too early to be looking to specific bills for potential attachment. The most likely vehicle is one associated with either the tax cuts or the "automatic" spending reductions from the last debt-ceiling deal. But the specific form of that vehicle is still a long way from taking shape.

A lot will depend on the elections, but I believe that whatever the election outcome there will be some clear issues that will generate bi-partisan support (extending middle class tax cuts maybe, or perhaps restoration of certain defense spending). Once a deal is made on this larger issue, then the work of attaching our little bill begins.

The key, I think, is to have a bill with sufficient bi-partisan support that the minor controversy of online poker/gambling will not be able to jeopardize overall support.

I also think the current "grand compromise" is not likely to generate that much principled opposition and that also is a key to success. The whole point of the work Reid and Kyl have done over the last year is to ensure that all the special interests get something and will support the compromise. That means the only opposition left should be the handful of legislators who morally oppose any gaming and can't stomach a poker exception, or the few who think the Feds should stay out of what is, to them, a state issue.

If the number of principled opponents is not enough to jeopardize passage of the underlying bill (and remember, most Congress critters care very little about the issue and will be happy to follow the lead of Reid or Kyl) then the attachment should succeed and the legitimization of some form of interstate online poker should follow.

There are plenty of "ifs" in the above scenario, but none of the "ifs" are that unlikely to break our way, IMHO, except the first one - there has to be a bill that has such a good level of bi-partisan support that the number of Reps who would vigorously oppose a Reid/Kyl the gaming attachment will not make a real difference to the underlying bill's passage.

We shall see ....

Skallagrim

[bippitybop]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

there has to be a bill that has such a good level of bi-partisan support

Which is a rare bird itself nowadays.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

You can't use Bayes theorem to pretty up an outcome-based critique. You have to stick with the data available at the time of the decision. Otherwise, it's the same underlying unsubstantiated argument with a pseudo analysis affixed to it like a cheap facade.

Nope, you are missing the point. That's not what Im doing. Im not even saying you are wrong in your assessment. Just that over time it becomes more likely you are overoptimistic.

Anyways, hope Im writing you a check for $1,000 in the next six months. I doubt I will be though.

[tangled]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

To me it's like the debt ceiling, going to be a real hard slog as it is to get a compromise. Unless it ends up being Obama caving to a full extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and higher defense spending where social conservatives would be hard pressed to kill it...just hard to see this attaching to any compromise that will pass with thin margins.

We need something that needs to get done and that will pass by a huge margin, preferably a Republican priority.

Well, sequestration was designed to cause pain for both sides. That's its point. For republicans, it is massive defense cuts.

Also, the Bush tax cuts automatically expire if nothing is done. Congressional inaction ends them, not the other way around. This effects republicans two ways: the obvious, republicans don't like tax increases, and it also provides a face-saving way around the Norquist pledge. Republicans can vote for a bill that brings in more money, as long as it brings in less than the end of the Bush tax cuts. They can, therefore, say they lowered taxes, not raised them.

Finally, the fiscal cliff, it is argued by people on both sides, could send us into another recession. That would not be good for anyone in Washington and should help motivate action.

[LetsGambool]

If all the defense cuts were rescinded or all the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, I could see Republicans being unable to stop an online poker attachment. I dont think D's are agreeing to either of these.

The fiscal cliff will motivate action, but I think the solution is likely a scraped together slim majority and we have no chance of attaching online poker to a bill that is going to scrape by.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

It is too early to be looking to specific bills for potential attachment. ...


I also think the current "grand compromise" is not likely to generate that much principled opposition and that also is a key to success. The whole point of the work Reid and Kyl have done over the last year is to ensure that all the special interests get something and will support the compromise. That means the only opposition left should be the handful of legislators who morally oppose any gaming and can't stomach a poker exception, or the few who think the Feds should stay out of what is, to them, a state issue.

....

We shall see ....

Skallagrim

Is there a link to the "great compromise" bill provisions you cite ?
How does it ensure that "all the special interests get something and will support the compromise" ?

That would be good news favoring passage, if your description is accurate, and not just a "reasonable assumption" that it has been crafted already.

What is in it for the Lotteries ?

What is in it for the State governments, which may prefer to apply State generated revenue themselves, instead of send taxes to DC and hope for some of it coming back ?

What is in it for the small, local casinos ?

What is in it for tribal casinos worried about geopgraphic exclusivity ?

Does it allow for interstate compacts among intrastate licensees ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Skallagrim]

I thought inquiring minds paid attention to reputable news reports and knowledgeable sources and did not seek their information from "broken clocks" that need to be "educated" and spoken to in "simple terms" so that they are not "continuously surprised."

A true "inquiring mind" would already know that all of the interests involved have been spoken to and listened to and have been considered and re-considered numerous times over the past 12 months.

And even a mediocre "inquiring mind" would know that lobbyists and Congressional staffers do more than merely pass checks and eat lunch.

[LetsGambool]

My sources tell me that there still isnt a final deal FWIW, but 3rd hand obviously

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

What is in it for the Lotteries ?

Who cares? Lotteries are not stakeholders. Lotteries are government programs. Asking about what lotteries would get is like asking what Medicare or Social Security would get.

Besides, lotteries tend to operate on an all-or-nothing mindset. If they wanted an opportunity to compete in the marketplace, they'd be in the bill already. Needless to say, such a request has not been forthcoming. I know no lottery officials have reached out to me.

[LirvA]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

John Pappas said today at the PPA Town Hall that he believes that Reid and Kyl have a finished UIGEA-II type bill

PPA, meet the bed you've made. Congrats.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

Is there a link to the "great compromise" bill provisions you cite ?
How does it ensure that "all the special interests get something and will support the compromise" ?

That would be good news favoring passage, if your description is accurate, and not just a "reasonable assumption" that it has been crafted already.

What is in it for the Lotteries ?

What is in it for the State governments, which may prefer to apply State generated revenue themselves, instead of send taxes to DC and hope for some of it coming back ?

What is in it for the small, local casinos ?

What is in it for tribal casinos worried about geopgraphic exclusivity ?

Does it allow for interstate compacts among intrastate licensees ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

That's why Reid/kyl is going have such a hard time trying to attach their bill. It's not so much the vehicle but the votes that are difficult to find.

We know why Reid wants a bill and why Kyl might support it but many other congresscritters will want more then a bill that benefits NV and their casinos or carves out poker while banning other games and the possibility for their state to collect those revenues. It's not like like attaching a bridge project in NV while allowing other congresspeople to allowing their pet projects to be attached for their home state or districts an online gaming bill effects those in every state and their gaming industry.

How is Reid going to attach a bill that largely benefits NV? You think other senators are just going to let that happen without first thinking how that will effect their state? CA,NJ,DE,etc likely have different goals when it comes to online gaming and their reps in DC aren't going to just hand over the whole online gaming industry to Reid and NV without consulting their own state, industry back home and having serious debate on the issue.

The PPA has done a good job getting people to contact their lawmakers. Lawmakers are aware of the issue but they haven't quite figured out what to do about it yet. Do they let the state figure it out or do they try and come up with some sort of federal legislation compromise that many of the states,casinos, lotteries, horse racing,tech companies,etc can agree on. No one is going to simply let Reid attach a bill to benefit NV without fully debating the matter.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Who cares? Lotteries are not stakeholders. Lotteries are government programs. Asking about what lotteries would get is like asking what Medicare or Social Security would get.

Besides, lotteries tend to operate on an all-or-nothing mindset. If they wanted an opportunity to compete in the marketplace, they'd be in the bill already. Needless to say, such a request has not been forthcoming. I know no lottery officials have reached out to me.

What has changed over the last three months or so to weaken lottery interests so much that they can't stand in the way of a Federal poker bill that ignores their interests?

Even if they are irrelevant in terms of passing a Federal bill (which, again, seems like a change from a few months ago)....arent those lottery officials going to have an extraordinary amount of leverage in deciding whether states are going to opt-in or opt-out?

I dont see how we can just bulldoze a solution through that many or most state lotteries dislike. We wont just get a few Senators and Reps opposing poker for moral reasons, we'll get a material number of Senators and Reps opposing us because they're getting an earful from local reps about the Feds threatening precious lottery local aid. If a bill passes, states where lotteries are stronger than the Ceasars of the world are opting out.

I dont see a successful solution on the Federal level without lottery buy in. Thats one of the main reasons Im bearish on passing a bill this year. I dont think they're onboard yet, and doubt they will be until they get preferential treatment in offering service and money promised directly to local aid/guaranteed revenue takes. Thats what casinos had to do in MA to get a bill passed and still there's talk about what else needs to be done to "protect lottery revenues" in light of casinos coming in.

Thats for a casino project is going to generate more money for the state as a whole and generate a number of union jobs in a moribund construction industry in a heavy pro-union state. Remove the job creation carrot to a powerful special interest, start taking gambling dollars out for the Feds...even if we defy the odds and pass a bill, lotteries are going to drive states to opt out en masse if a Federal bill doesnt address their interests. As frustrating as they are to the process, ignoring their interests are suicidal.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Who cares? Lotteries are not stakeholders. Lotteries are government programs. Asking about what lotteries would get is like asking what Medicare or Social Security would get.

Besides, lotteries tend to operate on an all-or-nothing mindset. If they wanted an opportunity to compete in the marketplace, they'd be in the bill already. Needless to say, such a request has not been forthcoming. I know no lottery officials have reached out to me.

TE, someone posted that all the potential opposition special interests had been "accomodated" in a "great compromise bill". When asked for details or a link to this "great compromise" bill, he went into his usual hissy-fit,

However, it is foolish politically to think that interests such as Social Security or Medicare or the DOJ or the Pentagon, while government programs or agencies do not have supporters or influence on the Hill, whether or not you like it.

Similarly, State Lotteries certainly have the ear of their respective State governments, and the elected officials who make up those entities or are their allies on the Hill. I expect you understand that State and local governments regularly lobby the Hill in their own interests. Hell, even the States Attorneys General were trotted out to promote a ban on online gaming by your opponents.

I take it from your answer, that despite what the Great and Powerful SkOz has proclaimed, the draft legislation he likely has not even seen, does NOT "accomodate" or otherwise co-opt Lottery-driven potential opposition.

Tribal interests also may need better accomodation of their less-than-uniform interests with a "National" solution. Last I heard, the California Poker consortium of tribes and cardrooms was looking at building a big wall around that very large market, for themselves.

FWIW, thw Town Hall discussion and information shared by John Pappas was pretty conservative on the prospects for passage. I sort of recall that he attended a lottery conference on online gaming, so there may have been some outreach in that regard.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who reached out or did not reach out, if there is no "accomodation", then there remains potential opposition from Lottery friends and beneficiaries, as well as other potential interested parties. (I am not saying it is sufficient to block passage, just that it should be something of which you are cognizant.)