This reminds me of the Seinfeld where Kramer just kept telling Jerry big business could just "write it off".

Not sure if you've worked in the LBO world or spoken to anyone high up at Harrah's recently, but as someone who has done both....the pockets aint that deep right now.

They are a heck of a lot deeper pockets than the PPA's or mine. Add to it the potential for increased business and revenue through a legal Harrahs IGD. All they really need to do anyway is use their existing lobbyists to throw their weight behind online gaming.

If only I had some bread then I could have a ham sandwich, if I had some ham ...

Who was responsible for negotiating the poker players side on this bill introduced?... and more importantly, why did they agree for there to even be an opt out clause?

There is a huge difference in "Lobbying" for an issue and "Negotiating" terms.
Congressional staff personnel choose who gets to speak in the hearings not the PPA.

Only lawmakers (Congresspeople and their staff) write and introduce bills or bill amendments, not citizens or lobbyists. Citizens and lobbyists can lobby (visit lawmakers and talk to them) for what they want.

The lawmakers (Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Menendez, etc.) included state opt outs in their bills because no bill would even make it out of committee, let alone pass a floor vote, without it.

The PPA can only ask the Congresspeople (by lobbying) for changes in the bill that are desirable. The influence the PPA has is formed by the size of its membership and the support shown by the number of members who write to their Congresspeople in support of the bills. This gives the PPA clout when lobbying for changes in the bill. However, some changes (like removing state opt outs) are simply impossible, and any stance that the PPA would withdraw support for the bill without such a change would get the PPA laughed out of the halls of Congress and complete loss of any political clout.

States still have some rights. It's even likely the forcing gaming on states without any commercial gaming (Utah and Hawaii) would violate the Tenth Amendment.

I am shocked at how many posters in this forum, a group of people I would estimate as being far more intelligent and educated than the average American, do not know this. I would have expected that understanding the (constitutional) necessity of the opt out provision was a matter of having taken a high school civics course, but I guess things have changed.

I, like you, assumed every American was familiar with the federal nature of U.S. governance and knew which rights the states possess vs. which are federal (both by the Constitution and by tradition and practice). Perhaps everyone should read the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment. It's a good discussion on where the commerce clause ends and states rights (guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment) begin.

Beyond the Constitutional question, it also helps show where the history and tradition are regarding what's under the purview of the states.

TE,

I think it would be prudent to launch letter writing campaigns at the state level notifying the legislature of what may be coming and letting them know that if they want our support in coming elections that they should opt-in. Why wait until the federal legislation is passes to mobilize the PPA members to start punding their state reps the way we have pounded our federal reps.

I would write one myself, but I will wait and see if the PPA crafts a general letter that hits on the salient points. A simple link to our state reps based on zip code with a form letter would work quite well.

Being a NY'er I want to start fighting now in advance of this legislation.

Well said.

I've been responding to these questions as if the posters are arguing for a greater federal role and think we should push the envelope regarding federal authority under the commerce clause. However, I'm starting to see that some here may not even be familiar with the division of powers between the federal government and the states.

We started the letter writing on this over a year ago. Please go ahead and send yours. Thanks!

http://theppa.org/takeaction

I think a big part of this stems from the expansion of the reading of the Commerce Clause over the last generation or two. The whole idea of limited rights of the Federal Government has sort of disappeared from the public eye.

I think you are correct. And, in the event that it was not sufficiently clear in my post, I was criticizing the current state of affairs (the expansion of federal power, shoddy news reporting and an education system that has failed the smart folks posting ITT) much more than I was the posters themselves.

TE, when was the last time that SCOTUS enforced the 10th amendment especially against something directly using in interstate commerce? I don't even know that last time SCOTUS gave more than lip service, or even lip service, to the 10th amendment. Not that I like it, but the 10th amendment may have well just been deleted. Scotus no longer recognizes most of the US Constitution; especially any part dealing with property rights which the 5th amendment due process clause was supposed to protect. At one time, US Congress legislation did not constitute due process. Now the Congress can pass any law depriving us of our property rights, including the right to play poker online, and no one disputes this power. Which is why we need the PPA.

The real problem is that you are trying to argue for a constitutional Republic when what really exists now is a majority rule Democracy, which our founding fathers did not like in the least.

Okay, ...... WHY does the PPA think that gaming, a purely State area historically and traditionally, will suddenly shift to a national scale regarding both regulation and revenue ?

Yeah, maybe it would be swell to have the biggest possible poker player pools herded into a single regulated marketplace, under federal control.

Yeah, maybe it would be swell for the favored operators who are concerned about having to comply with different rules for offering games in different States.

Maybe, not ........ maybe, the folks pushing legislation federally want X, Y or X, for some other reason.

Whether or not you or I think the reasons for a federal bill are swell or not doesn't change the political cards dealt to the historic/traditional gaming regulators....... the States.

Okay, how many of those States have lotteries ?

What percentage of the State budget for NY or NJ are derived from gambling currently ? (Google the New York Times on this ....)

Where there is a will there is a way, ESPECIALLY when there is an existing gaming or lottery authority and a perceived revenue pool to be had .... or they might decide to wait and abdicate that revenue to the Feds, IF a federal bill ever passes.

It would be great to have a player friendly state bill to support.

Alas, all bills so far have sucked for players.

States have had a number of years to pursue intrastate gaming. Where are these mythical intrastate poker sites? True, there are questions about the DoJ and the Wire Act, but states could have at least lobbied for changes or assurances that they could offer these games. To the best of my knowledge, none have.

So, it seems the only states really looking at this are the ones where legislation has been introduced.

The reality seems to be that sites fear operating poker sites in the current atmosphere. That what we heard in California. They said they feared competition and quickly conceded the fact that the proposed small, overraked, overtaxed sites necessitated by the greed of all the self-proclaimed online poker stakeholders in the state could never match what players expect from the sites we all enjoy today.

After all, the current sites offer bonuses to switch to their sites. The CA bill offered jail to those who didn't switch.

If intrastate sites require an effective ban on unlicensed sites, I guess our efforts to stop that from happening will also keep states from moving on this.

Your proposal for sites to operate online casinos with poker as a loss leader could work. I wonder if any state will come out and try it. Too bad states won't be happy with some play, instead assuming that they OWN the poker market.

Why do you think any player would want a bill that forced them onto an overraked intrastate site, even criminalizing play on unlicensed sites?

I imagine every party there has its own interests. PPA is there to protect the rights of poker players.

The Internet is not traditionally regulated by states. Interstate commerce is not traditionally regulated by states. Interstate games of skill are not traditionally regulated by states. There's nothing set in stone giving this to the states. As the states aren't really moving on this, it does not even appear to be something the states want.

It is because they have not been educated.
Lotteries started small with the same fears.
Think POWERBALL.

I'm glad you and I have had these discussions. It really helped me fine-tune my points on this.

I mentioned earlier that I presented at the state legislators' annual meeting. Here's the info I presented on this part of the issue:



Intrastate online poker licensing bills typically begin as a means to provide online poker players with safe places to play while earning the state a little extra tax revenue on an activity that is already occurring in the state. Unfortunately, these can end up as high-tax, monopolistic bills. There are market-based reasons for this:

• Online poker players now compete with other individuals from across the United States and the world. This ensures games of all stakes and opponents of all skill levels. This also allows many sites to offer poker services, keeping competition in the market.
• Intrastate poker – even in the largest states – runs the risk of having fewer players than the numbers needed to sustain the wide variety of games that exist on today’s sites. That means fewer games and fewer stakes/limits – especially during off-peak times. This also makes it more difficult for states to offer multiple sites, reducing or even eliminating competition in favor of a single state-backed site.
• Without competition, players will expect higher rakes and fewer promotions.
• Some bill authors have recognized that intrastate poker may not be able to offer players the same experience as that offered by larger sites with more players. Unfortunately, the “solution” has typically been to counter market forces by turning players who prefer the playing experience offered by out-of-state sites into criminals.
• Infighting among the various (non-playing) stakeholders can drive legislation that demands higher and higher revenue from this activity. This infighting alone can keep bills from passing.
• As all this revenue comes from the poker players, bill authors can stop seeing poker players as stakeholders and start seeing them as the targets of the legislation. This can cause significant erosion in the support of players – the intended beneficiaries of the legislation – potentially dooming it.
• Rather than fighting over 100% of $0, states can benefit by allowing the federal government to license this activity.
• As the Internet is interstate and international by definition, and as our Founding Fathers crafted the commerce clause for situations exactly like this, this approach is ideal. It keeps the player base large enough to provide for a positive player experience. As players will prefer the security of playing on licensed sites, the market will drive compliance. This is far superior to trying to figure out how to coerce players into playing on poorly conceived sites.
• Market-driven compliance is also a great reason not to opt out of federal legislation. There are online poker players in all fifty states. Opting out of the federal legislation will just drive those players to unlicensed sites, while participating in HR 2267 will bring them to the licensed sites.
• Stakeholders may quibble over their fair share of the revenue generated from online poker, but this will not stop the state from getting revenue from poker. Rather than fighting over poker itself and getting stuck with nothing, quibbling will come down to negotiation over a known amount.
• Nationwide sites will be able to offer services internationally. That means money from online poker will flow INTO the U.S., rather than out of it. The game is not called Antigua Hold’em. It is called Texas Hold’em. It is ours, and we should be offering it to the world.
• Despite the fact that the Wire Act was passed in 1961 to target interstate telephone sports wagers, and despite the fact that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in 2001 that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting, the Department of Justice continues to assert that the Wire Act includes all online wagering. Without clarifying federal legislation, the DoJ could apply this broad application of the Wire Act to licensed intrastate wagers. While PPA does not agree with this interpretation, we do believe that federal clarification is a necessary precursor for intrastate gaming.
• To be clear, the PPA does not oppose state-based licensing and regulation of Internet poker. We are concerned when state proposals seek to cut Internet players off from the rest of the world and limit their choice in the marketplace.

Well TE, those are interesting bullets, but noted gambling law authority, Professor I. Nelson Rose, says California is going intrastate; so I suppose that means California is a sure opt-out.

http://houseofcardsradio.com/pages/July_26_2010.html

Former DJ

LOL at the dismissive tone.

Nelson Rose is an awesome at gaming law. He's either the best or one of the best. However, I don't know that his expertise extends to politics, so I don't think I'd take that at face value.

We just saw the last CA bill break down not from opposition, but from infighting. If they're not passing it now, when they have the head-start they'd need, I question their desire to opt out and then try to go intrastate when national sites are already up and running.

They may or may not opt out, but they are definitely focused on keeping the national sites out.

Its not certain California opts out, but I think its better than a coinflip. Its especially true if we dont pass a bill this Congress. I think California figures it out sooner than later. Its one of only a handful of states (if that) where intrastate makes sense.

any solid reads on illinois or florida? (i can live in either place based on what each opts for)