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

[wallstreetpro]

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.

B I N G O

That's exactly why I think threads like this one only serve to separate us as a community !

We need to just shut the hell up and act as a single cohesive unit in support for pro legislation and then iron out the details later.

This is critical because the opposition will capitalize on any weakness they find.

Wake up people !

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by wallstreetpro

B I N G O

That's exactly why I think threads like this one only serve to separate us as a community !

We need to just shut the hell up and act as a single cohesive unit in support for pro legislation and then iron out the details later.

This is critical because the opposition will capitalize on any weakness they find.

Wake up people !

Well, unfortunately the "details" in the current bill would make internet poker worse for most US players. Sort of important to note that!

[What?]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Well, unfortunately the "details" in the current bill would make internet poker worse for most US players. Sort of important to note that!

People don't realize that though. The PPA should make everyone aware of this. If this goes through and people find out what they have been supporting with donations and mail it will really bite the PPA in the ass.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by wallstreetpro

B I N G O

That's exactly why I think threads like this one only serve to separate us as a community !

We need to just shut the hell up and act as a single cohesive unit in support for pro legislation and then iron out the details later.

This is critical because the opposition will capitalize on any weakness they find.

Wake up people !

We should be united for "legal" online poker for US players, but the details of what legal online poker will look like are what we should be debating, and what we would like to see in any bill by congress.

Just to blindly unite behind any bill in congress without debating the pro's and con's is idiotic. As is fully supporting a bill in hopes the details of the bill will be changed in our favor along the way in the legislative process. We should support the idea of regulated online poker and work with those in the congress to get the best bill we can, and work with them to make the proper changes to any bill so its the best for the players.

Discussion in threads like this are good, to educate, inform, and debate so we can help get the best legislation we can, and inform players about the poss outcome of any legislation and how it may effect them.

[bojahc]

You make it sound like the sites are not regulated at all. Pokerstars for example is regulated by the Isle of Man gambling supervision commission which in my eyes is much more respectable than the US government.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Well, unfortunately the "details" in the current bill would make internet poker worse for most US players. Sort of important to note that!

I still recommend that we support these bills as a means of coalescing support around our general position. As we gain more support, we'll have that much more strength to push for the changes we need. We'll see the Senate bill soon enough, and we'll have chances to amend the Frank licensing bill.

For future bills, if we stand up for ourselves now we will be in a much better position to insist that these bills not give the states Congressional authorization to prohibit interstate/international online poker.

IMO, state opt-outs should be just that -- opt-outs from the entire bill, such that the status of online poker in states choosing to opt out does not change. I don't understand why our allies keep providing for statewide prohibitions of online poker in our bills, but thus far it's failed to bring any of our opponents over to our side.

[LetsGambool]

not saying different just was responding to the bad idea thst the details dont matter

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

not saying different just was responding to the bad idea thst the details dont matter

I wasn't disagreeing with you. That what my assumption.

[DavidNB]

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.


Will never happen in a million years. Why do you think Party paid all that moeny to the DOJ. To settle past sins.

The US government is not going to ignore what has happened in the past.

[Self Made]

A bit of good news:

YouBet plans Euro expansion, seeks local partners

Youbet is a US online horse betting site. They plan on partnering with a European company, probably offering poker and other games. This is good for us because it makes protectionism harder if a US company is already paired with an overseas provider. (Also helpful is that Betfair bought TVG, another US online horse betting site, a while ago.) On the down side, however:

The tie up could be with a company targeting one European country or many, but must be one with an untarnished reputation with authorities, Goldberg specified. “In this space there have been plenty of people who have dabbled in online gambling, sometimes in the face of regulators, but we want someone who is squeaky clean,” he said.

Sites that accept US players, like PokerStars and FTP, and maybe even settlers like Party, will probably be gone for us, so the largest network we'd have access to (never took US players) under this scenario might be Everest. They're the ranked #6, with 1/12 the traffic of Stars.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DavidNB

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.


Will never happen in a million years. Why do you think Party paid all that moeny to the DOJ. To settle past sins.

The US government is not going to ignore what has happened in the past.

The US government will do whatever gets voted into law. Note that I did not specify that such sites have amnesty against DOJ actions for past actions. I only specified that they can't be denied a license on this basis.

[DavidNB]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

The US government will do whatever gets voted into law. Note that I did not specify that such sites have amnesty against DOJ actions for past actions. I only specified that they can't be denied a license on this basis.

I understodd what you meant. Its just the US will never specifly that you can't be denied a license because of the past. If anything, they will reward/favour sites that followed their wishes in the past.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by DavidNB

I understodd what you meant. Its just the US will never specifly that you can't be denied a license because of the past. If anything, they will reward/favour sites that followed their wishes in the past.

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. We need such wording in the bill or sites like PS and FTP will never get a license. Don't just say it will never happen - it's possible if we, and the PPA, lobby for it. But it will certainly never happen if we don't say anything and just give up because we think it can't happen.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. We need such wording in the bill or sites like PS and FTP will never get a license. Don't just say it will never happen - it's possible if we, and the PPA, lobby for it. But it will certainly never happen if we don't say anything and just give up because we think it can't happen.

First of all, I want to say thanks to PokerXanadu for all his thoughtful posts on this issue. Same goes for LetsGambool.

Both of you guys, and countless others too numerous to name, have made very good points about what's bad about the Frank and McDermott bills. The PPA has noted those concerns, and you have seen TE in his posts advocate a specific bright line on the 50% tax on unlicensed sites.

But it is important for all to recognize (as I know you guys do) that the Frank bill is far from final form. How much does the House Health Care plan resemble Obama's campaign plan?

That said, the main reason I am posting now is to suggest we move on from discussing the problems in the Frank bill as written. Instead, I suggest about where we talk about just exactly where we draw lines in the sand. Here are my preliminary thoughts:

1) The 50% tax on PLAYERS, I agree with TE, has got to go. NO other Federal law on "gambling" has ever set a penalty for the individual player; its not time to start now. I think we will win this issue, at least to the extent that the player, but maybe not the unlicensed site, is exempted. I am willing to settle for that. You?

2) I hate state opt outs as much as all of you. But they are the political reality. We cannot win if we insist of forcing, for example, Tennessee and Utah to allow their citizens to play online poker. But I predict the language that appears to let "opt-in, opt-out" be solely in the discretion of the governor will NOT survive - that's very unprecedented, some recognition of state legislatures and courts will be there in the end. Is that enough? So long as we are guaranteed at least a fight in the "bad" states, I think it is. It also may have to be.

3) Nothing in the current bills specifically bans FTP or Stars from getting licenses. The ability of the Feds to negotiate for back cash is clearly in there, but its still a negotiation - the clear ability to demand it is also not present (the gov. would have to prove that specific US taxes were owed by the foreign sites .... name the law and a lawyer can reasonably argue it does not apply to online poker). I don't expect this to change a lot, however; the desire for more money is never not present when dealing with politicians. But even if Stars and FTP are required to pony up a some dough like Party did (and that's a big IF) I think they could handle it. Especially since if they can't, they can simply sell to the highest licensed bidder. So in the end I don't really have a problem with the current bill IN THIS REGARD, though I agree better clarification of this issue would be a good thing if we can get it.

CLIFF'S NOTES: I think we can get rid of the 50% tax on players, but probably not on unlicensed sites. I also think we can limit state opt outs to states having specific laws against poker/online poker. I also think that is enough at this point. I also think if I am wrong and these issues are not resolved before a floor vote (as I think they will be) then yes, that will be the time to openly voice opposition.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

But it is important for all to recognize (as I know you guys do) that the Frank bill is far from final form. How much does the House Health Care plan resemble Obama's campaign plan?

Thanks Skall. That's absolutely right, as always. We all need to support the legislation while working to improve it. That's how we'll get the best outcome.

That said, the main reason I am posting now is to suggest we move on from discussing the problems in the Frank bill as written. Instead, I suggest about where we talk about just exactly where we draw lines in the sand. Here are my preliminary thoughts:

1) The 50% tax on PLAYERS, I agree with TE, has got to go. NO other Federal law on "gambling" has ever set a penalty for the individual player; its not time to start now. I think we will win this issue, at least to the extent that the player, but maybe not the unlicensed site, is exempted. I am willing to settle for that. You?

My comments were specific to penalties for players as well.

2) I hate state opt outs as much as all of you. But they are the political reality. We cannot win if we insist of forcing, for example, Tennessee and Utah to allow their citizens to play online poker. But I predict the language that appears to let "opt-in, opt-out" be solely in the discretion of the governor will NOT survive - that's very unprecedented, some recognition of state legislatures and courts will be there in the end. Is that enough? So long as we are guaranteed at least a fight in the "bad" states, I think it is. It also may have to be.

I absolutely agree that we won't be able force gaming on states that don't want it. Hopefully we can simply be neutral for opting out states.

CLIFF'S NOTES: I think we can get rid of the 50% tax on players, but probably not on unlicensed sites. I also think we can limit state opt outs to states having specific laws against poker/online poker. I also think that is enough at this point. I also think if I am wrong and these issues are not resolved before a floor vote (as I think they will be) then yes, that will be the time to openly voice opposition.

That's the right approach in my opinion.