GUYS WE DID IT!

WE'RE SUPER RICH AGAIN!

yeah I've played at Canterbury. I misread your post.

Shep smith on Fox News is going to have a report on barney frank's bill coming up on his show probably in the next 10-20 minutes if anyone cares at all.

Taxation is a complex matter. My CPA accountant handles and adivises in those matters.

This Bill is not a Taxing Bill. Like I said before UIGEA does NOT PROHIBIT or make on line poker ILLEGAL.

What is the reason for the bill? Sports Betting?...well that would fall under the 1961 wire act.

The bill is not needed and I will contact my braindead congressman to vote against it.

Wait, Im confused, why did you write this if it is not a taxing bill?

we need fish realize online poker legal... who cares if UIEGA can be enforced, this bill will do that, lets hope all big US players come in the market.. Facebook poker? hopefully rake is driven way down

Just because I noted one clause of the bill does not make it a Taxing bill. Maybe you should read the whole bill. What im stating is that the Bill in whole is not needed to play on line poker.

You're entitled to your opinion as there are both pros and cons to the bill. Just wanted to clarify there are no new tax liabilities to players in this bill, the debate is over whether there are additional withholding requirements.

I'm studying for my con law final on Friday, so here are a few things I quickly wrote up about standing, and the commerce clause that the courts will consider if the law is passed, and a state then attempts to ban internet gambling. This would probably be an interesting fact pattern:

The first problem any lawsuit would face is the question of standing. This would be one of the more difficult tasks to face, especially if the court has a moral objection to gambling, as they could throw the case out just on this issue alone. Any plaintiff challenging the law would have to show an injury in fact (ie they are somehow negatively affected by the law), Causation, which means but for the government actions you would not have suffered the injury, and Redressabillity, which means the court must be able to come up with a solution to your problem, ie declaring the law unconstitutional. The most difficult of the situations to prove would be causation, as the plaintiff would have to be a winning player who derives his income from internet gambling. A losing player would not be suffering an injury. Furthermore, the plaintiff would probably have to show they could not derive this income somewhere else. A unfriendly judge could say you could derive the same income in a casino, or in another industry, and refuse to hear the case. It would probably be unwise for a third party such as the PPA to challenge a law, as they would have to show they have a sufficiently close relationship with a internet poker player, and a obstacle why said internet poker player is not appearing in court (not wanting to be audited is not a good reason).

If you get passed the issue of standing, the law will likely be challenged under the Commerce Clause. Here, the first question is does the law discriminate against commerce? The congress has the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce (ie the internet), the instrumentalities (the website) and activities (gambling) that substantially affect interstate commerce. Gambling on the internet would be an activity that goes across state lines so therefore congress can regulate it.

The next issue is whether a state can then ban internet gambling if there is a federal law allowing it. Under the supremacy clause, a state law which conflicts with a federal law is normally unconstitutional. The first question is the law discriminating against commerce. If the court finds the law is discriminatory, as the law is discriminating against a certain class of activities, it will be invalid. A state normally cannot discriminate against and then ban an economic activity that goes across state lines just for protectionism. Therefore, if the court finds a state is banning gambling just to benefit their own casino's, the law would likely be invalid under the commerce clause. However, if the state is an active market participant in gambling ie owns or operates a casino, owns a state lottery that it operates online etc, and shows allowing internet gambling will substantially harm it, it may be able to ban internet gambling, even if the law is discriminatory. However, the court may find that while the state has a legitimate state interest in protecting its own industry, it must find an alternative means of doing so.

If the court finds the law is non-discriminatory, the court will look to see if the state law is rationally serving a legitimate state interest. The state will likely say it has an interest to prevent gambling addiction, underage gambling, and they have a right to police activities as they deem fit as they are entitled to with their police power. The court will apply a balancing test to see if the benefits to the state in preventing underage gambling, gambling problems, etc, outweigh the burden to interstate commerce. If the court finds the benefits to the state prevail, the state will win. However, if the burden to interstate commerce is more severe, the federal law will prevail and plaintiff will win.

The federal government has a right to tax in order pay debts and to benefit the general welfare. Taxes are not allowed to be levied to simply penalize behavior, ie if the tax on internet poker is 60% it would not be allowed. As long as the purpose of the tax is produce revenue, and not punish, the tax will be allowed.

if federal law specifically allows for state carve outs, then there's no preemption problems at all... Just get the hell of Kentucky or Minnesota

That's not alarmism....that's a promise Goodlatte made to us when UIGEA.

He plans to finish what UGIEA started. Do you honestly think B&M casinos will just sit back and watch online sites compete with their B&M gaming while they're prohibited from entering the online market? Do you believe the U.S. will continue to have offshore-only sites? Surely something will give, and I'd personally like to see it break our way.

I agree with you that there are no new tax liabilities for now. However it does allow them to get their foot in the door to do so in the future.

Since there are no federal laws that prohibit or make on line poker illegal, why introduce this bill? You wont have to debate whether there are additional withholding requitements if the bill was not introduced or passed.

Furthermore, The Bill Constitutes Enforcement Legislation

First and most simplistically, the bill is called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The operative word is enforcement. It is a bill whose goal is to enforce laws that already exist.The bill begins in section 5361 by discussing congressional findings. In that section the bill states that Internet gambling is funded by credit cards, etc. Section 5361(a)(4) states in relevant part:

“New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional … mechanisms are often inadequate…”

The Bill Does Not Change Existing Gaming Law

Next, section 5361(b) specifically states that nothing in this new law shall be construed as “altering, limiting, or expanding any Federal or State law… prohibiting, permitting or regulating gambling within the US.” In other words, the language of the statute confirms that this new law does not change existing gaming law. It does not speak to the legality of online gaming. It only applies to the mechanism of funding any Internet gaming that has already been deemed to be illegal. Poker is not one of them.

I know what the UIGEA says. I think the question of whether poker is covered is a little more gray than you make it out to be. Importantly, many Americans believe poker is covered which has a negative effect on game quality.

FWIW, I dont think I support the current bill without revisions to the state opt out clause and I made a long post recently saying that excessive taxation of the game, particularly in the form of sin taxes, are at least as big of a threat to poker as the UIGEA. I dont think our viewpoints differ much there.

I was responding to what looked like an assertion that there were new tax liabilities for players proposed in this bill. There aren't.

No one said it is.

No one here said it does.

We've been discussing this for years. Check out some older threads.

Engineer, do you think rake goes down if this bill passes?

Then, What is the purpose of the bill? Provide me with protection? Maybe the heading of the bill can shed some light.

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.

I like the other purposes one, how about you?

I will be contacting my bible thumping congressman tomorrow to voice my opposition.

And which part is innacurate?

chance of this bill getting passed out of 100 pls

Please, people. Enough of the Hater-Aide. Especially you, Leapfrog. Lol that you boo-hoo it because the state opt-out clause will cause uneven enforcement or legality, then in the next breath say you want the courts to decide what you can or can't do.

Something like this bill is absolutely necessary.

Online poker is not currently illegal right now, but it is shady. I'm talking beyond the collusion, team play, datamining, and other cheating that is always going to be part of the game (and you're dreaming if you think otherwise). What if FTP decide to shut down operations at midnight, have a yardsale on all their server equipment, and just close up shop, keeping all the $$. Would anyone have any recourse to legally get their money back? Would anyone face any criminal charges (fraud, theft, RICO)? Would there be anyone you can successfully sue? Right now, I believe the answer is no to all. And it is probably this fact (at least as much as the UIGEA credit card thing) that keeps allot of potential players away.

If that scenario just sounds too ridic to be possible, let me drop some other names: UB, AP, Microgaming; Dutch Boyd. This bill provides a framework that can protect us (somewhat) and give us recourse and potentially penalize the crooks.

The state opt-out provision is actually one of the strengths here, imo, and makes it more likely for success. It allows for individual states to craft their own laws to their liking. States like Alabama or UTAH, for example, could say all gambling of any kind is verboten. North Carolina or Ohio could say poker's okay, but disallow sports wagering. Texas could allow all wagering except college atheletics. This flexibilty and is what makes the USA so great.

It's certainly no panacea, it's def. not perfect, but it's def. a step forward.

It appears we do agree, and there will always be a "gray" area thats how lawyers generate an income. The fact is no U.S citizen has been brought to trail for playing poker on line. No gray there.

And your second statement that "many americans believe poker is covered" is debatable. Most Americans could care less about this bill, The only people who are interested are the ones who

1) have a vested interest.

2) your average on line poker player who will be swayed by number 1) above.

Your really should be checking out the old threads Ballbat, The issues are far more complex than you seem to realize. Also, the specific part of your post that is inaccurate is that the UIGEA only applies to funding: if you are running a site which is in the business of betting and wagering, and you accept US funds that violate the law, you are subject to a specific CRIMINAL penalty (5 years plus fine).

And it is true that the UIGEA did not make anything illegal that wasnt illegal before. But what was illegal before? The only part of this that is absolutely definite is that PLAYING online poker did not and does not violate Federal law. The SCOTUS has not spoken on how far the Wire Act extends, but the next highest court ruled its provision regarding the operators still only applied to sports betting. There are, however, other federal laws that make providing gambling services in violation of state law a crime. Whether they could be made to apply to poker sites or not is also an open question. When asking whether online poker is illegal under federal law, it is always fundamental to distinguish between players and sites.

Next, whether providing an online poker site and/or playing online poker violates STATE gambling laws is a question that you probably have not yet begun to fully consider. A full discussion of the issues involved in this would take many pages. Google can easily link you to other places where the issue is more fully discussed, if you want I can link you to the places where I have discussed it.

Bottom line, you calling your Congressman and asking him to oppose this bill is very shortsighted at present. He won't appreciate that with a few small changes this bill could be VERY, VERY good for poker. But then again, neither do you, at least not yet - you seem intelligent enough so do some more research. You are not totally off base in your opinion (and you are certainly free to disagree with me once you are fully informed), but you are not yet really familiar with all the facts underlying the questionable legal status of online poker, nor what the government could do to stop our play if the courts ever resolve the legal issues against us, or the legislatures pass new laws that close the loopholes we are currently counting on.

Skallagrim

so whats the chance this bill goes thru?

Is there some sort of a way to check on the progress?

Of course no poker player has ever been prosecuted... the government has gone after operators of online poker sites though. Did you miss the part early in in this thread discussing what happened to the partypoker guy?

If you are actually FOR online poker, there is no reason you should be against this bill. There is no reason to assume the taxes will be handled differently than they are at B&M casinos and this bill opens to door for SAFE, REGULATED, poker sites that will make the masses very happy to be able to plop a CC online and play 1-2 nl.