State legislation watch thread

[roundar]

I live in Georgia. It will be another 20 years before these bible-belt'ers even consider a poker bill.

But, solid thread, will be tracking.

[G NASTY]

Miiiiiichigan?

[b finkelstein]

oh god please illinois please...........

[ScreaminAsian]

Originally Posted by G NASTY

Miiiiiichigan?

I hope hope hope we can get an online poker decision in front of Rick Snyder. I'm a liberal and i voted against him but I trust he'll be the kind of republican that sees the benefits of ipoker outweigh the "downsides". I mean if he'll replace elected city counsels with CPAs to balance budgets I hope he'll jump on a big revenue-raiser for a big state by increasing the personal liberties of adults.

the only downside I could come up with (and I'm coming up with this) is since he's a former computer/Internet business executive he may have preconceived notions that online industries are too insecure to bother regulating.

but overall I'm confident in his determination to balance budgets.

and we've already got tons of charity poker rooms licensed across the state.

[DrewOnTilt]

Originally Posted by G NASTY

Miiiiiichigan?

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

I hope hope hope we can get an online poker decision in front of Rick Snyder. I'm a liberal and i voted against him but I trust he'll be the kind of republican that sees the benefits of ipoker outweigh the "downsides". I mean if he'll replace elected city counsels with CPAs to balance budgets I hope he'll jump on a big revenue-raiser for a big state by increasing the personal liberties of adults.

the only downside I could come up with (and I'm coming up with this) is since he's a former computer/Internet business executive he may have preconceived notions that online industries are too insecure to bother regulating.

but overall I'm confident in his determination to balance budgets.

and we've already got tons of charity poker rooms licensed across the state.

Michigan residents: Stefanie Murray from the Detroit Free Press responded to my post on their Facebook wall asking if there is a Michigan-specific connection to this.

See this post here.

Respond to her and maybe we can get some good press!

[GatorXP]

My fear is that Ipoker would be handled by lottery divisions in states, this scares the jebus out of me. No free market competition would all but garuntee high rakes and no RB deals.....this could spell disaster.

[ScreaminAsian]

Originally Posted by GatorXP

My fear is that Ipoker would be handled by lottery divisions in states, this scares the jebus out of me. No free market competition would all but garuntee high rakes and no RB deals.....this could spell disaster.

a lot of players have a fear that their next session will be the start of an uncontrollable 20bi downswing. the only thing we can do is get out there and do our best.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by GatorXP

My fear is that Ipoker would be handled by lottery divisions in states, this scares the jebus out of me. No free market competition would all but garuntee high rakes and no RB deals.....this could spell disaster.

There might be states where it is the lottery or no i-poker at all. Half a loaf is better than none.

[tamiller866]

Many people seem to be looking at this backwards, I don't know where this fear developed that once a State begins offering poker that Congress doesn't have the authority to come in later and regulate the interstate commerce.

The one thing Congress can't do is the one thing everyone is shouting 'one time' for, which is to tell states that i-poker is legal within their borders.

We should not only be cheering for i-poker authorizations we like, but even harder for i-poker authorizations that we don't. The more dysfunctional intrastate poker is, the more likely congress is to 'clean it up'.

Some lobbyists want us to believe that the passage of a 'bad' state authorization bill will mean we will be stuck with bad i-poker in that state even after federal legislation, but all it really means is that the state has opted itself in to future federal legislation and that the companies signing the lobbyist's paychecks will be stuck with additional competition after federal legislation.

A 'lottery' state might never opt in to a federal bill, but if their lottery begins offering poker, they won't be allowed to opt out down the road when a federal bill is passed, so even the worst possible poker authorization bill should be deserving of a 'one time'.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Many people seem to be looking at this backwards, I don't know where this fear developed that once a State begins offering poker that Congress doesn't have the authority to come in later and regulate the interstate commerce.

The one thing Congress can't do is the one thing everyone is shouting 'one time' for, which is to tell states that i-poker is legal within their borders.

We should not only be cheering for i-poker authorizations we like, but even harder for i-poker authorizations that we don't. The more dysfunctional intrastate poker is, the more likely congress is to 'clean it up'.

Some lobbyists want us to believe that the passage of a 'bad' state authorization bill will mean we will be stuck with bad i-poker in that state even after federal legislation, but all it really means is that the state has opted itself in to future federal legislation and that the companies signing the lobbyist's paychecks will be stuck with additional competition after federal legislation.

A 'lottery' state might never opt in to a federal bill, but if their lottery begins offering poker, they won't be allowed to opt out down the road when a federal bill is passed, so even the worst possible poker authorization bill should be deserving of a 'one time'.

Barring some kind of huge disaster, the federal government won't be bothered even looking at i-poker once a bunch of states set up their own laws. And "high rake" or "unbeatable games" aren't gonna qualify as being disasters in their mind.

[tamiller866]

A disaster would be nice, say a super user scandal in IA or a licensee in MS running off with player deposits, but it might only take one player taking the issue to court, arguing that if's legal for him to play in NV eg, he should also be able to play on any CA site e.g.

We don't really need full blown federal legislation and tax, just a simple IHA type bill to break up monopolies, because if Congress doesn't break up the monopolies the courts might, and the feds might not like the result if they leave it to the courts (welcome back, Antigua?)

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

A disaster would be nice, say a super user scandal in IA or a licensee in MS running off with player deposits, but it might only take one player taking the issue to court, arguing that if's legal for him to play in NV eg, he should also be able to play on any CA site e.g.

We don't really need full blown federal legislation and tax, just a simple IHA type bill to break up monopolies, because if Congress doesn't break up the monopolies the courts might, and the feds might not like the result if they leave it to the courts (welcome back, Antigua?)

Would love to know the argument the player in NV would make given that the CA law says CA players only. Which court? What would the basis be?

[tamiller866]

I just threw out two states which have bills, a better example would probably be a player in a state like MA that (hypothetically) decides to go full blown lottery monopoly (as opposed to regulatory consumer protection), arguing that he should be legally allowed to play on NV sites.

Like I said, the worse the bill is, the more likely it becomes we get federal legislation, CA was a poor example of a 'bad' bill.

[GatorXP]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

There might be states where it is the lottery or no i-poker at all. Half a loaf is better than none.

Not True. Plenty of Fish will play lottery run sites with high rake. Most of them hardly even have an idea that rake even exists. High rake will make the game unbeatable even for skilled players and with no RB deals it will be unplayable.

So then you say let it be broken....they Feds will step in and fix it......

Ya because they had the 50K american (and non american even) pros best interests in mind for black friday.

Let the lottery take over....trying to get it changed will be even more unlikely...we will then have a new enemy to add to the list.....States and Govs and Reps who's states are raking big profits......ya they will be all for a free market.....they wont let that go for anything.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by GatorXP

Not True. Plenty of Fish will play lottery run sites with high rake. Most of them hardly even have an idea that rake even exists. High rake will make the game unbeatable even for skilled players and with no RB deals it will be unplayable.

OK. So people who want to play poker get to play, and the state collect a bunch of revenue. Doesn't work for you (or me for that matter), but it is NOT a total loss.

So then you say let it be broken....they Feds will step in and fix it......

I'm not saying that at all. I said if a couple of states open up, the feds will lose whatever small interest they have in this matter.

Ya because they had the 50K american (and non american even) pros best interests in mind for black friday.

No, they didn't. They still don't. And they never will.

Let the lottery take over....trying to get it changed will be even more unlikely...we will then have a new enemy to add to the list.....States and Govs and Reps who's states are raking big profits......ya they will be all for a free market.....they wont let that go for anything.

Again, in this scenario I don't see "it" ever get changed.