Warning about U.S. Licensing and Regulation: what is happening in Italy can happen to us!

[What?]

Why would a state opt out?

[LeapFrog]

Originally Posted by What?

Why would a state opt out?

one example: someone aligned with tribal interests throws a sack of money at the governor

[PokerXanadu]

I just sent the following email to my Senators and Congressman, and Obama and Biden (through safeandsecure.org):

Please Support Internet Gambling and Gaming Licensing Legislation

I am writing to once again express my support for federal legislation which will license and regulate online gambling. I support the current bills that have been introduced, although I believe the bills need some changes as follows:

H.R. 2267, The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling activities by the Secretary of the Treasury, to provide for consumer protections on the Internet, to enforce the tax code, and for other purposes.):
1. States should only be allowed to opt out of Federal licensing of online gambling facilities only if their state law specifically makes online gambling illegal within the state.
2. The bill should specify that a license cannot be denied to any person or entity, domestic or foreign, on the basis that they previously offered online gambling facilities to U.S. citizens.

H.R. 2268: Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2009 (To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate and tax Internet gambling.):
1. The Federal Fee collected from each gambling site should be charged only on customers who are U.S. citizens.
2. In addition to the 2% Federal fee on deposits, and additional 2% States Fee should be collected on deposits from any U.S. player who resides in a state that does not opt out of the Federal licensing. This States Fee should go to the corresponding state.
3. The fee for Unauthorized Bets or Wagers, to be paid by individuals who place wagers on unlicensed sites, needs to be removed from the bill.

H.R. 2266 Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act (To delay for 1 year the date for compliance with certain regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code.)
I support this bill in its entirety.

In addition, it is expected that there will be a bill introduced shortly in the Senate to license and regulate Internet skill gaming - distinguished from Internet gambling, as peer-to-peer games where the outcome is predominantly determined by the skill of the players. I support this legislation as well to go hand in hand with licensing of Internet gambling, but feel these provisions must be included in such a bill:
1. U.S. players should be allowed to play against players of any location.
2. There should not be any limits to the betting or wagering amounts set by the Federal legislation or subsequent regulations.
3. Tax regulations should be specified to allow players to net their winnings against their losses and report only the net for tax purposes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

One item of note, that previously slipped my attention:

H.R. 2268, for taxing deposits, does not specify in its wording that only deposits by U.S. residents are taxed. If this isn't changed, we'll probably end up with Pokerstars.us, etc., and be allowed by the sites to play only against other U.S. players. Let's not let this one slip by as is.

[phils08]

.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by What?

Why would a state opt out?

I think the real ? is why wouldn't they opt-out if the frank bill stays as-is.

There is really no financial incentives in the bill for states not to opt-out. unless the states can get some of those license fee's and or taxes from the sites, many would see it as competing with there B&M rooms, lottery, ect. and without any of the revenue.

It may come down to how easy it is for states to opt-out and if they can given the time frame to do so. I would think there is a real possibility many will find a way to opt-out unless there is some direct "MONIES" for there state.

[KEW]

What does the State Opt out really mean to the player????

If a State Opts out...

-Is there magically a Federal Law making the player in that State a criminal??
-By an "opt out" does the State automatically create a Law against the player??
-Will the onus to block players solely be on the "registered" sites??
-Does the Govern or State Legislator have this power??? Will there need to be at least in several States be a vote????

I guess what I am trying to say is the States Opt out seems to have a lot of open question and could open the States(or Federal Gov't) to a number of Legal challenges..I am no Lawyer so I am just guessing...

[What?]

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

I think the real ? is why wouldn't they opt-out if the frank bill stays as-is.

There is really no financial incentives in the bill for states not to opt-out. unless the states can get some of those license fee's and or taxes from the sites, many would see it as competing with there B&M rooms, lottery, ect. and without any of the revenue.

It may come down to how easy it is for states to opt-out and if they can given the time frame to do so. I would think there is a real possibility many will find a way to opt-out unless there is some direct "MONIES" for there state.

Why would anyone consider to support this bill then?

[What?]

[QUOTE=KEW;12184643]What does the State Opt out really mean to the player????

If a State Opts out...

I would guess Tilt, Stars and any US facing sight would block that state so they could operate in the legal states.

[JPFisher55]

If a state opts out, then an online gambling site cannot legally accept US citizens from that state. FYP, PS and other online poker sites may, or may not, obey this law depending on how many states opt out.

Keep in mind that Rep. Franks bill will probably be amended and merged with Rep. McDermott's tax bill with changes before a final version reaches the full house. Then it must be reconciled with anything that passes the Senate. So the odds of anything becoming law are likely less than hitting a flush draw on the flop by the river.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

If a state opts out, then an online gambling site cannot legally accept US citizens from that state. FYP, PS and other online poker sites may, or may not, obey this law depending on how many states opt out.

Keep in mind that Rep. Franks bill will probably be amended and merged with Rep. McDermott's tax bill with changes before a final version reaches the full house. Then it must be reconciled with anything that passes the Senate. So the odds of anything becoming law are likely less than hitting a flush draw on the flop by the river.

Good point, I don't know what the plan is to get around Kyl killing this in the Senate.

[andyg2001]

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

If a state opts out, then an online gambling site cannot legally accept US citizens from that state. FYP, PS and other online poker sites may, or may not, obey this law depending on how many states opt out.

Keep in mind that Rep. Franks bill will probably be amended and merged with Rep. McDermott's tax bill with changes before a final version reaches the full house. Then it must be reconciled with anything that passes the Senate. So the odds of anything becoming law are likely less than hitting a flush draw on the flop by the river.

I don’t think this is automatically true. If a state that has no law prohibiting online gambling opts out why would it then become illegal in that state?

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by andyg2001

I don’t think this is automatically true. If a state that has no law prohibiting online gambling opts out why would it then become illegal in that state?

Not sure if "illegal" online poker in the opt-out state would matter as far as having a specific law on online poker. The effect would be that licensed sites (in the US) would not allow players from opt-out states. This would be a term in the sites getting a license in the US that they could not offer poker to players in opt-out states. So the net effect would be the same for licensed sites any way, state law or not if they opt-out. IMO this is what would happen reading the current bill as it stands now.

[Lottery Larry]

Originally Posted by wallstreetpro

Americans do capitalism better then everybody.

Originally Posted by BigAlK

If you consider capitalism to be protectionist laws to give them an advantage, then sure, they do.

Methinks you should check out the Japanese and Chinese- I think they're much better at your "capitalism" than we are.

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

Methinks you should check out the Japanese and Chinese- I think they're much better at your "capitalism" than we are.

Japan is still in a recession that has lasted much longer than ours. And I don't think what's going on in China is sustainable, that is, I don't believe that China's current rate of economic growth is sustainable in a country where the internet is officially moitored and censored.

[BigAlK]

Originally Posted by Poker Clif

Japan is still in a recession that has lasted much longer than ours. And I don't think what's going on in China is sustainable, that is, I don't believe that China's current rate of economic growth is sustainable in a country where the internet is officially moitored and censored.

I think he was referring to protectionist laws. In that arena they probably are better. Maybe they're paying for it now with their economic woes.