From what I understood, the senate doesn't matter with respect to Frank as Chair. Only the house.

From the article:

And 'too close to call' is a generous statement. Most sources say the GOP is favored.

Republicans taking the Senate is still about the same as perf perf, but no matter if they do or don't, this may be one of the strangest lame duck Congresses ever.
I think barring a bounce back to Dems or major proportions, Pelosi is gone. Hell, voting her out of the Speaker's chair now might be the best electoral strategy Dems could do. The Senate will be odd because of all the retiring Senators of both parties, sitting appointed Senators for 7 or 8 states, and incumbents already defeated in primaries. You have a good 15-20 people who won't be there next Congress regardless of the election results. Then, the very real chance of Reid not even winning his seat back. It could be paralysis or major horse trading. We still need that one Congressperson willing to take up our cause in a conference committee, and we still have no progress there.

As for 2011, if its Republicans running one branch of government, forget it. Too many of the leaders are willing to listen to the hard, social right on a very minor(which we are) issue.

Sorry. Frank is done as chairman, IMO, Dems loose the House. I was addressing the posters Senate question.

For poker I hope I'm wrong. For the country I'm not sure. Divided government at least gives us less government, which IMO is a good thing.

Does Frank's bill support all forms of gaming (except sport betting)?

I was under the impression that this bill only dealt with online poker.

"Manion added, “Another criteria would be poker only. The Frank bill as it’s currently written authorizes all types of gaming. That violates Federal law and breaks agreements of states and tribal nations."

From commerce casino response http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/commer...slation-15152/

Frank's bill as it currently exists is all gambling, and in fact currently does not distinguish poker from other gambling (other than sports betting) in any way. There is some speculation as to an eventual possible political compromise being to modify the Frank bill and its eventual companion in the Senate to be poker-only, but this has not happened yet.

What I don't get is how 2267 will get us around the Justice Department's insistence that the Wire Act applies to all internet wagering, anymore than the 2000 amendment of the Horseracing Act doesn't get HR around the Wire Act, in the view of the Justice Department. And if the Justice Department asserts that IPoker is illegal, banks will still not want to handle our transactions, 2267 not withstanding.

But I am willing to accept that it does. But that brings to my mind another question: If 2267 does get us around the Wire Act even in the view of the Justice Department, then why are we talking about this becoming a poker only bill? Why don't we make it a, poker and HR, only bill? We know HR wants an obvious statutory exemption to the Wire Act, and we know that if we get HR on board, passage of 2267 would become much, much easier.

I know I'm missing something.

HR2267 states that licensees may accept bets or wagers from persons located in the US. In other words, it expressly legalizes licensed iPoker. In addition, the bill contains two provisions that protect licensed sites from enforcement of the Wire Act and the UIGEA:

It's not really up to us to make it anything. We can only lobby for what we want. The bill is likely to evolve to poker only because that is what is palatable to the majority of politicians, will bring enough votes for passage and matches what has already been proposed in the Senate (the Menendez bill). Including HR in the bill would help bring on board the HR lobby, but could also create additional opposition.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see the HR lobby attempt to attach their legislation in the Senate mark up process. Passage of such an amendment in committee would be a good indication that the Senate leadership expects that adding HR to the bill will overall help it pass - most amendments that pass do so because they are needed to get more votes on board.

Have we gotten so late in this session that the chances of passing this into law have reached next to impossible?

Would just a vote on the house floor be a victory at this point?

I don't know. Would like feedback from people more informed.

PPA sent out an alert yesterday evening asking that everyone who resides in a House Ways and Means member's Congressional district send this letter to their congressmen:

http://www.capwiz.com/pokerplayersal...677501&type=TA

hey guys,

this seems to be the lc/nc thread regarding legislation so,

i may have posted this before, but this TED talk has some very solid info regarding contacting politicians and getting them to actually listen

http://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_...and_paper.html

If this bill doesn't pass, what are the chances that it passes next year?

What will happen to poker if these bills don't pass?

Response from Congressman Devin Nunes (R) California:

Dear Nate,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

HR 2267 would amend HR 6667 of 2008. The goal of HR 2267 is to develop a system in which U.S. based companies are able to obtain licenses that legally allow them to operate federally regulated online gambling sites.

HR 2267 is currently being reviewed by the Financial Services, Judiciary and Energy Commerce Committees, all of which I am not a member of. While these committees continue to review the merits of HR 2267, there are several issues that still need to be addressed before I can support it. Rest assured, as they continue to review the legislation, I will keep your support in mind.
---------------------

I wish he would have listed the issues that need to be addressed, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope here. He's a very conservative Republican with a rating of D by the PPA....if we can get him on our side it would be a big plus imo.

This is very true. I wrote to my congressman via e-mail, fax, and twitter, and I called as well. The only response I got was from the snail-mail letter that I sent.

Nice work Nate.

From The Engineer's PPA website suggestion - I sent an email again from last month with exactly same script:

Response seems to be great so far!

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for writing me about this important federal legislation. Should it become law, I will support Virginia's participation.

Sincerely,
Janet Howell

From where I sit, at the present, many people think the Reps. are the best of two awful choices. The GOP is not favored by many, just disliked less than Dems. at present.

Any chance left?

Maybe closer to lower pair vs higher pair on the flop, but pretty close to accurate IMO