I hear you, it just seems like you are talking past each other, as seen by his latest posts.

The professionals are going to play whether it's in their state or another state so why would the non-professionals be against this?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

No one's really against it, but the people writing the bill want to give states the right to opt out of offering poker in their state, including saying that they dont want online poker pros.

I don't think anyone would be against it. It's just hard to imagine Congress putting something so detailed into a bill like this.

Yeah, you're right. I'm kind of looking at it similar to the opt-out clause where certain players will be allowed to play at licensed sites while others will be prohibited. I justify it because its the states right to dictate gaming in their own state. This would take it to another level, allow some but not others within the state itself. Just doesn't really sit well with me is all, just like the opt-out doesn't sit well with others.

Another way too look at it is from a states point of view. The states that do opt-out, for whatever reason it may be, did it to not allow you to participate in the federal system. Why would they go through the trouble of setting up a system like this just so a select few can play at the licensed sites? It certainly won't be for revenue as it would be simpler just to opt-in (or just not opt-out) that will garner more revenue as less hassle of setting up such system. I would look at it as if the state is opting in, but get to specifically choose who can play or not based solely on their tax history.

There’s a huge contradiction in PPA’s strategy. Why would the PPA push for new laws to license and tax poker sites since they are U.S. lawful already? Is it...

...DOJ threats to status quo? What would DOJ say is the violation since no law applies? And why would a judge do more than laugh the DOJ out of town if they tried such a stupid move?? It’s one thing for the PPA to be concerned about failing if the JPFisher strategy is pursued with litigation over an applicable law. But a court win for sites (if it even got that far) is a guaranteed slam dunk since there’s an ‘absence’ of applicable law. (The PPA press release did mention a prohibition, but that only applies to sites other than the lawful IP rooms under discussion.)

...State crackdowns? Nope, see above, still no law to enforce.

...Sites? Are sites pushing PPA for this government power grab? Why would they want to extend bureaucracy and add more taxes and license fees to their thriving, lawful business? Do they think it cuts competition somehow? Does it cut costs or add to profits? Does a license make them more lawful?

...Players? Do players want PPA to push for new taxes and regulation for the current lawful, trusted businesses? If so, maybe we need a new PPA poll, one where it's made very clear to players that the status quo is lawful, stable, untouchable…do they want to see new taxes and Fed agencies promoted or not?

Instead of burdening business with new Fed schemes, we should help these lawful IP sites grow, and also call for new competition. No opt out worries, no new tax, no income reports and DOJ told to butt out of transactions and free enterprise.

I call for a PPA push to make it better known that it’s lawful for anyone to currently operate, massively advertise, and even open new U.S. sites.

One main question; what is the reasoning behind PPA strategy to push for changing the currently lawful, trusted, stable, defensible status quo that players enjoy? Unless I’m missing some downside, my vote is to leave lawful IP sites alone!

The DOJ contends that the current Status Quo is illegal. They just haven't gotten around to arresting anyone yet. My feeling is the DOJ is fully aware that the owners of the four major US facing sites will fight all the way to the US Supreme Court. This would endanger their beloved Wire Act and right now they are not going to push it. However, the DOJ is more than happy to chip away at the edges (Payment Processors, Advertising Agencies, Sponsored Events, etc.....)

The Status Quo only means you die slower.

They are not lawful - they are blatantly violating UIGEA. That is why Party and other publicly traded sites had to suddenly pull out of the US Markets. They pulled out the moment UIGEA went into effect. No other laws past or present including the wire act really affected them - only UIGEA.

Why do you think Lederer is not listed as the "owner, CEO, or President, etc." of Full Tilt - he is getting paid through some shell "software" company of Tilt to keep him out of jail.

This:

In addition, without the PPA pushing for licensing and regulation, opponents to iPoker would find an open door to push for a change to the Wire Act to make iPoker illegal. That alone is a good enough reason.

Party and the other publicly-traded sites pulled out essentially because they are publicly-traded: the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank finance the public offerings of these sites. Because these banks can't be associated with activities that are [incorrectly] viewed by the DOJ as illegal (due to their US banking presence), these bankers threatened to immediately call in the loans of the sites, which would have bankrupted the sites. The sites had no choice but to pull out. It had nothing directly to do with whether or not the UIGEA made the sites unlawful.

You've asked this tens of times, only for you to ignore the responses and repost the same question later.

Well... obviously it had EVERYTHING to do with the UIGEA making the sites illegal - payment processing (you just said it didn't you? )

Party lost millions in stock value and potentially BILLIONS by leaving the US market. Why in God's gracious earth would they do this if they weren't breaking any laws? It don't wash - ducy! Trust me, I'm sure they had a room full of superstar high-priced lawyers trying to find a loophole - remember we're talking potential billions at stake (and millions in market value losses)

As they say... just follow the money.

Anyone know how and when this moves through Ways and Means? The congressman from my district is on the committee and I want to call/write/e-mail him, but I'd like to do it near to the time when he actually sees the markup.

Or should I just do it now? Does it matter?

One thing that we NEED to be doing about hr2267 is facebook messaging. If even half the users on this forum sent out facebook messages to their friends with a ppa letter link, it could make a serious dent.

Here is what I have written to hundreds of facebook freinds. Anyone can feel free to just copy/paste this as you'd like to message people:

Done and posted it to my website as well.

I'm not american. How does this affect my games? Will I still play with americans (I play on Stars)?

Nothing in the US legislative bill forbids this. There will likely be a separate site skin for US players, but with a combined international player base with the foreign skin(s).

Not sure that ends up being true, but its possible.

Nothing in the language forbids it,at least not yet. IIRC It doesn't mention international player pools at all. I don't think we can say (as of right now) if the final regs will allow international player pools or not. This something that might have to be clear in future amendments.

I hope you're correct PX.

I hope so, too. Based on the wording of some of the recent bill amendments that passed (which indicated to me an awareness that gambling sites will have both an on-shore and an off-shore presence), and the involvement of casino corporations that will also want an international player pool, I expect this to be the case.

However, the bill is far from complete and bill amendments, or later Treasury regs, could pose a stumbling block - to this as well as other issues. This is the best argument for remaining a partner* in the process of passing this legislation. We need to continue to have a strong voice so the end result is a player friendly bill. Opposing the bill now, way before it is in final form, due to disagreement on some of the current provisions is a sure way to get a bad bill.

P.S. Thanks for spelling you're correctly!

[*Insert the TPCEO disclaimer.]

^^I don't oppose the legislation.

Yes, I know. Just taking the opportunity to drive home the point once more, for the benefit of the spectators.

Loving the extra exposure. Even Attack of the Show on G4 had a segment about this

http://g4tv.com/videos/47934/Federal...line-Gambling/

lol super random but sweet

I'm sure this has been answered a dozen times already and for that I apologize - but does this bill allow Europeans to play on US-licensed sites? Or does us-licensed imply us-only? Thanks in advance.