besides the fact that he was a gay prostitute, hes a ****ing moron politician who doesn't understand contractual agreements and bonuses.

Comps are better than cash to you? You can just take the cash and get a room if you want. You also get to spend the money on whatever else you want.

So would you rather have them send their lobbyists home? If the answer is yes then I got some news for ya bub. With UIGEA enforcement getting better and better if will get increasing harder to get money on and off sites. As this continues the player pool from the US will get smaller and smaller. So it is a good thing if their lobbyists help get something passed because the player pool will only get larger with the passage and this and this is a good thing. Also who cares why they are doing it. They may not be doing it for our benefit but you cannot tell me that all online players will not benefit from this in some way.
Thank you,

I think someone who has a law degree from Harvard might know a little more about contract law than you. The reason he does what he does is not about law but about politics.

hmmmm, would i rather play at an unregulated offshore site based in Costa Rica or who knows where, at the whim of an industry that has been plagued with scandals and will continue to be because a large amount of money is involved, or would i play at location where the play would be regulated, observed and monitored, my money would be 100% safe, a company that any hint of improprieties would cost them hundreds of millions overnight, licenses revoked, stock value, etc. They wouldn't dream about being nothing but 100% legit. It's not rocket science, ill pay the taxes and be very happy.

When choosing whether to support or not support regulated (and therefore at least possibly over-regulated) and taxed (no one likes more taxes) online poker, I have found that the deciding factor is one many folks miss: things cannot stay as they are for any real length of time.

Virtually all the various important US gaming interests want in on online poker or they want online poker effectively banned. They will not stand for a status quo that excludes them and creates substantial, and (US) tax-free, profit for foreign corporations. Eventually that force will prevail, probably within a few to several years (we can fight legally to keep it alive, if necessary, but even that at best merely delays the inevitable political solution).

The main reason we have gotten as far as we have politically is because we have gained many allies in the US gaming industry. Right now, the majority of them are coming around to the "we want in" position.

Their interests are not always identical to ours.

But if you accept my belief that the status quo is doomed, then there is only one path forward for the long term (IMHO): we must support regulation and (bites tongue) taxation and thus open competition for US based sites.

And in that support we have to be players in the crafting of the result (and we are through the PPA). And that also means sometimes we have to compromise. Such is life.

If I really thought it possible to sustain the status quo for the foreseeable future, I might be inclined to be more stubborn. Unfortunately, I think just the opposite is more likely: either a consensus around openly legally, regulated, taxed, online poker is achieved or the law will be enforced/changed to really crack down on online poker.

Skallagrim

Critical factor in taxing online profits, is how they do it. If you have to report gross winnings then deduct gross losses, this will be bad for many players. It could drive a lot up into paying the minimum tax, on income that is not real. We'll be forced to file as professional gamblers, pay both sides of social security as well as the taxes, etc. Taxing net win would be much better for many players. Even better, tax the sites, and then leave the players alone.

As much as we would love this, it doesn't seem to be likely.

We need more people calling congressmen/women.

What are the talking points when we call?

More government revenue?

In b4 Harrah's faces a Sherman anti-trust act smackdown.
[Whoever really runs tilt and stars oughta put some lawyers on this imho]
U guyz saw what Harrah's did 2 Vegas and AC... right?

Allizona-
re:Barney Frank...
Compared 2 some guy who admits to chewing coca leaf daily, that runs Venezuela,
and some guy who runs Iran that wants 2 build a mosque in NYC next to the 9/11 site...
well, I'll letcha think about that awhilez...