One problem for Ceasars with the state by state route is that the clock is ticking really fast on the current equity holders. They need a big splash IPO like yesterday to help pay down some debt and provide a path to retaining control of the company. Otherwise, some folks are about to take a zero on a big equity check. I-poker is definitely their biggest growth story (although the analysts know Ceasars is likely full of **** with their numbers as they dont account for, among other things, pesky state opt-outs).

I think Ceasars might (emphasis on might) be able to IPO in a hot market off of the story of Federal i-poker legislation. I doubt they could do it based on passing legislation in NJ. So as long as the current equity guys are in control, it makes perfect sense for them to swing for the fences. When (and if, in my estimation) Ceasars restructures and fixes their capital structure, their approach to this issue might change dramatically.

CKrafcik tweeted a link to a pdf of the bill yesterday

My post #66 above:

Sorry I've been out of the loop the last week and a half, this is going forward. Does this mean this new bill adresses all the conserns that Christie had? When are they scheduled to take up the vote?

TE, I"m a New Jersey resident. Should I be writing any of my representatives on this for fair taxing or should I wait and see what comes out first?

I'd ask for fair taxation, for sure.

Additionally, it's important that they understand we want this right in general. I encourage you to send letters to Gov. Christie and your state reps. I'd start with the PPA one here.

It does eliminate "internet gambling cafes" which was one of Christie's concerns. But I'm pretty sure there were others.

Only some of the concerns Christie had were meet but the biggest one wasn't. Christie will veto this bill once again this is certain,he will(correctly) say its still unconstitutional. The only way Christie or any other NJ governor doesn't veto this bill is if the NJ Constitution is changed expanding gambling which would likely require the question to be put on the ballot.

It almost as if Lesniak wants Christie to veto this again. I don't understand how Lesniak was so stupid as to pass a bill last year he knew Christie would veto and he know even appears stupider for trying again without making sure the bill wont just be vetoed again.

The plain fact is that the Governor's office stated that it would sign the bill last time around, but then reneged and issued the veto.

The "unconstitutional" reasoning was specious then and now. The licensed entities would all be in Atlantic City, as would the gaming servers. This is the 21st Century, the location of the gaming faiclity will certainly be in Atlantic City.

As the State is literally under water now and winter storms often discourage travel to the Shore at other times of the year, it might be nice to assure a revenue stream for AC casinos and the State tax coffers that does not depend upon the weather conditions.

Thanks TE. I'm going to write my own letter right now.

Interesting read, but the distaste for State-by-State is not unique or tied to Caesars' capital structure.

Caesars' abhorance of State by State legalization reflects a general sentiment among national or multi-state B&M operators. It is not just Caesars' view.

There is a widespread disgust among B&M gaming operators for the endless variations, tax structures and changing State rules affecting B&M gaming and new State markets. I have heard tis directly from a number of operators other than just Caesars. They would have LOVED a single rulemaker and market regul;ator for online operations, they just seem unlikely to be able to get it, if they don't get it this fall.

I suspect that the real swinging d**ks at Caesars are the debtholders and Management in any likely scenario legislatively, Federal or State-by-State. Equity will not likely get wiped out legally if States begin passing online gaming bills, especially where Caesars has a leg up as a B&M operator.

I dont disagree with any of this (except the equity part.....50%+ easily Ceasars equity is a zero even if they pass a Federal bill tomorrow). Its pretty easy to see why the big B&M holders would prefer a Federal solution.

I think there's a balance between the preference for a Federal solution vs. the greater likelihood of passing something at the state level where, as you suggest, eventually you start more of a state by state push if there's no action at the Federal level.

Given Ceasars has to swing for the fences, I would bet they continue to push for a Federal solution longer than you would expect and longer than other large B&M operators.

JMHO

I deplore deliberately misleading posts, whether they come from FairPlayUSA or someone else. Given that this thread is about the pending STATE legislation, not any federal bill, I think it is misleading to post a link to a PPA "canned email" about federal legislation.

Without any explanation that the link had zero to do with the NJ STATE bill that is the topic of the thread, it seems just wrong, almost worthy of FPUSA.

I didn't expect the PPA to actually support the NJ STATE bill, but please don't piggyback on it to get support emails for Caesars' favorite federal legislative effort.

There may have been many reasons why the bill was vetoed but a major reason why was the constitutionality of the bill. This issue is still present and isn't going away.

Even if this time the Governor decides not to veto the bill(unlikely) the bill will be challenged. Lesniak is fully aware of this. Many NJ legal minds expect this bill as written to be challenged and the bill to be found unconstitutional. Whether that happens or not will be decided by a court but i expect for these reasons the bill will be vetoed once again.

If Lesniak knows full well the bill will be challenged if its not outright defeated again by veto. then why summit the bill? Why doesn't he go just put the proposal to the voters, have it pass and change the constitution. It might be the only way in the end it gets done and it probably faster in the long run then proposing bills that will be vetoed or challenged in courts.

I clearly stated that I'd START with the PPA email. The context was quite clear. The letters can be sent as-is, followed by a new letter (using the PPA tool as a convenient way to send it), or the original letter can be edited and sent out that way.

LOL at branding it as the Caesars effort. We may have to settle for state legislation, as state legislation is clearly better than the current post-Black Friday situation, but most here would prefer federal legislation. It's better for the players in every area.

Maybe by eleminating the "cafe" or remote poker room Lesniak feels he's eleminated the veto. It does look like this even if passed Christie may veto again. I hope we get some "closure" in this state. It seems there are reasons to hold out hope that this does pass and we can play some poker....as asked before do we have any idea what time frame we are looking for when it comes up fpr vote?

Federal legislation is not better if it doesn't pass. Failure to pass a bill is not better for anyone, except maybe bounty hunters looking for player funds to seize.

The Hill/DC were a fine defensive forum, but there has been years of wasted neglect of better options for advancing the cause itself. Gaming regulation has always been a State-level matter.

The PPA's blind reliance of FTP, the IGC, and Stars for funding pre-Black Friday, and the host of DC-centric advisors retained for it meant years of ignoring building meaningful member-based organizing or presence at the State level in likely future battlegrounds.(aside from PX in Fla.)

I have been consistent in arguing that a better effort for affirmative legislative action on behalf of players would have devoted fewer resources to lining the pockets of DC advisors and doing the sites' and Caesars' bidding and more to building a State level player presence where the likely action will end up.

Few DC lobbyists or advisors would tell you that, it would not have been in their own interest to do so. Welcome to Politics 102.

I'm bumping this because with LV Sands CEO saying he "morally opposes online poker" it caused me to think about something. Intrastate gaming is something that we do not want generally. Depending on the wording of any intrastate gaming bill, it may or may not work out in favor of the players. The intrastate bill in NJ seems to be a step the right direction so other states can follow but in the end Christie vetoed and lawmakers were not going to fight against the veto. I'm interested in whether NJ will draft up a new intrastate gaming bill to make it so that it has fixed the problem that Christie had with it in the first place. All-all, we still need something done federally for poker players to have a collective player pool instead of one pool within one state.

I have been told there will be a new bill introduced in NJ.

Keep in mind that Nevada is taking applications for licenses in February, 2012. That is NOT gpong to be an academic exercise by the Silver State, regardless of whether a federal bill passes by June, 2012.

I don't have sources handy, but from what I've been reading, Lesniak is looking to try another push for the NJ intrastate bill in 2012 (probably early 2012) and he believes Christie is more willing to consider it now. I believe Lesniak's goal is to get an online gambling referendum on next November's ballot, which I believe would address the most important of Christie's concerns.

One thing that gives me something to chew over is the relationship between Mitt and Christie. Mitt has promised a position on ipoker before the NV caucuses. Christie has hitched his wagon to Mitt's for 2012. So............

I can't wrap my head around whether Mitt will look to Christie for a position, or Christie will look to Mitt. I'm not sure it even matters, but that is as important a dynamic right now as the Christie/Lesniak.

@joebrennanjr Joe Brennan Jr
Update: The NJ legislature to vote on intra-state i-gaming bill, Jan 5th & 9th. Gov Christie said to be reconsidering signing this time.
30 Dec

https://twitter.com/#!/joebrennanjr

Answer this, if Christie signs it, then there is no need for a referendum on the voters part right?

I believe the NJ State Constitution must be ammended, and that involves a voter referendum:

"2. No gambling of any kind shall be authorized by the Legislature unless the specific kind, restrictions and control thereof have been heretofore submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast by, the people at a special election or shall hereafter be submitted to, and authorized by a majority of the votes cast thereon by, the legally qualified voters of the State voting at a general election, except that, without any such submission or authorization:

...

D. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law the establishment and operation, under regulation and control by the State, of gambling houses or casinos within the boundaries, as heretofore established, of the city of Atlantic City, county of Atlantic, and to license and tax such operations and equipment used in connection therewith. Any law authorizing the establishment and operation of such gambling establishments shall provide for the State revenues derived therefrom to be applied solely for the purpose of providing funding for reductions in property taxes, rental, telephone, gas, electric, and municipal utilities charges of eligible senior citizens and disabled residents of the State, and for additional or expanded health services or benefits or transportation services or benefits to eligible senior citizens and disabled residents, in accordance with such formulae as the Legislature shall by law provide. The type and number of such casinos or gambling houses and of the gambling games which may be conducted in any such establishment shall be determined by or pursuant to the terms of the law authorizing the establishment and operation thereof;"

Currently the constitution only permits casino style gambling (and poker) in Atlantic City.

But the NJ bill states that the online poker servers have to be located within Atlantic City and that the bet takes place at the location of the servers. Obviously this is a way to skirt the constitutional restrictions, but the legislation may go forward without a voter referendum on this basis. Christie's official reason for vetoing last time was this conflict with the state Constitution. It's unknown so far if he will relent this time and sign the bill. I imagine that Ceasars won't oppose the bill this time, now that the DOJ's stance on the Wire Act is no longer an impediment to establishing and interstate player pool between NV and NJ.