Yeah, I hear ya. I'm a realist and I know there are strong forces working against it, but I'd rather see this than nothing at all. If they keep pushing, hopefully one day it'll just go through. Who knows.

A strong offense is better then playing defense waiting for a anti poker bill to be introduced...

The Senate saga has really turned you into a buzz kill

ONE TIME. (I used it for the Senate one, but it didn't work so I am still owed a successful ONE TIME. Damn straight I feel entitled to it!)

I like your optimism.

Internet Gambling Bill Introduced in the House

Interesting that they are starting exactly where they left off last year. That means that we are facing a bill with the same deficiences from the players' viewpoint. Without a Menendez bill in the Senate as a starting point for reconciling these provisions, amending the bill will be a harder process (if the bill makes any forward progress in this Congress).

Also note that the bill that came out of committee last year did not yet included the taxation provisions, which were still in a separate bill. I wonder if that bill will get re-introduced as well.

If anything gets passed it will be written and approved by Harry Reid and proxies, so wouldnt worry about having the Menendez bill to drive amendments. Whatever Harry serves up will serve the same purpose, and anything not poker only is DOA.

The bill is H.R.1174. No text available online yet (that I can find).

Would this bill be the same as the last one as in the US cuts out the rest of the world?

This is a good sign so far so good. Glad that we have some bipartisan with Mr. Campbell also in supporting the bill with Barney Frank. Well, does it mean that were also looking for a bill to the has to do with the taxation process too?

It appears HR 1174 is the marked-up version of HR 2267.

HR 2267 Marked-Up Version Text

HR 2267 Marked-Up Version PDF

Cliffs on HR2267 Marked-Up Version (which, according to the news and rumor is exactly the same as the new HR 1174):

Anyone offering Igambling to anyone located in the US must be licensed by the US Treasury.

Those that participated in "illegal Internet gambling activity", under state or federal law, since the passage of UIGEA are ineligible for a license.

Licensees must have a legal US business entity, with a majority of the officers & board members US persons and agree to US jurisdiction.

Legal age for Igambling is 21.

States (and tribes) can opt out by governor's notice, but probably requires state legislative action to authorize it. States have until the end of their first full legislative session to notify Treasury of an opt out. After that, states can opt out but effective date won't be until the first Jan. 1 that is 60 days after notice of opt out. Licensees have to prohibit play from persons located in opt-out states at the time of play.

License is for 5 years, and can be renewed.

The Secretary of the Treasury can rely on state and tribal gambling authorities for licensing and regulating.

The Treasury can charge the licensees user fees to cover costs. The fees can't be deducted from player deposits.

Sites have to provide protections for game integrity, randomness, security, underage, problem gaming, etc.

All other Igambling, except Horse Racing, state/tribal lotteries and intrastate Igambling is illegal, including all sports betting.

The Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has to make a list of illegal gambling sites (sites that violate this new law starting 10 days after going into effect). Financial Service Providers will use this list to enforce UIGEA provisions.

Credit cards can't be used.

Anyone delinquent on child-support payments can be put on a list to be excluded from Igambling by notice to the Treasury from a Federal or State court or related State agency (and later removed from the list by similar notice).

It is a ciminal offense to use any electronic device to gain an advantage in the game if prohibited by the licensee.

It is a criminal offense to use or possess any cheating device with the intent to cheat or defraud a licensed site or other players.

The Treasury has to issue regulations to implement by 120 days after enactment.

The law goes into effect 90 days after the regulations are issued.

Major deficiencies of the bill, imo:

There is still some ambiguity in the provision wording as to whether players will be blocked based on state residency in opt-out states. Most provisions are worded to require blocking based on the location of the player at the time of play, but the opt-out paragraph itself says:

There is also ambiguity as to whether there is only a complete opt-in/opt-out by a state, or a state can apply limits (betting limits, stake limits, game selection, etc.).

The requirement for legislative action by states, rather than just governor executive action, to opt-out could be tightened.

The provision that makes the use of any electronic device to gain an advantage in the game if prohibited by the licensee is problematic:

This puts the power in the hands of the sites to determine what is criminally illegal.

There is no transitional period: four months after passage the Treasury issues regulations and three months later the law goes into effect. There may not be enough time in that three months for sites to get licensed and operational, leaving a gap during which any site that wants to be licensed cannot operate. This is certainly better than the blackout period specified in the Reid bill, but could be improved.

Technically the courts will still decide what is criminally illegal. The sites seem to have the ability to pressure the DA into having you arrested but a court still decides if what you did was illegal.

Also I dont see this as a bad thing. It happens all the time. Companies set up policies that if broken can have people arrested. For example in florida if you are trespassing and their is no sign saying "no trespassing" then precedence shows you would be found not guilty if that is all you were doing. Where as if the company puts up a "no trespassing" sign then you would be found guilty.

Think of homeowners associations. They make up rules that if you dont follow they can take legal actions against you even if you are not breaking rules of the local municipalities.

The bill looks pretty good overall.

This is fine with me. I'd like to see it modified to say that a legislative action is necessary for an opt out. I think that would give TX a better chance of staying opted in, but that's going to be a state by state preference.

The only problem is that without any taxes there's no carrot to get this thing passed. It also means that some other bill could come along with ridiculous tax rates that would kill the games for good.

I will snap accept a 3 month blackout period for the major sites, but longer than that costs me a job. Liking what i see so far though as compared to that godawful "pay for his seat" bill Reid put up.

I am sure we all would like to see the actual text. (I take it since our friends at the PPA endorsed the bill, it is available somewhere for their review, even if not on their website.)

There is a lot of ambiguity in press reports. For example, it seems that intrastate sports betting on the internet may or may not be illegal, and NJ may be able to pass it this November ..... depending upon which press report you read.

Also, the devil is in the details as to whether or not FTP/Stars could acquire a US license or otherwise make a deal with an eligible US market licensee, similar to deals cut in Italy. I DO expect that there is plenty of incentive for current US poker providers to challenge UIGEA coverage of poker or poker's legality generally.

The bill seems to allow licensees to ban HUDs.

The Bill is going before Financial Services, chaired by Mr. You Know Who. So this might prove to be an academic exercise federally before the 2012 elections.

I will donate $25 to earthquake relief in the screen name of the first person who posts an actual, working link to the actual langyuage of HR 1174 introduced yesterday.

Im pretty sure the plan isnt to go through Financial Services, did I read a post that its supposed to be going to go before Judiciary or am I just imagining things?

Really? This would be a better chance, yes?

I might be getting it confused with what's going on with the Nevada state bill.

I'm pretty sure the PPA gets that this is dead in Financial Services, so I think there is at least an alternative plan of attack.

The Govt Printing Office hasn't issued the bill yet, so it isn't available yet. Takes a few days. But it seems everyone who got a peak at it says it's the same as the one that came out of committee last year.

PS/FTP will be able to argue that they did not engage in illegal Igambling activity and are therefore eligible for a license. There is an appeals process in the bill for anyone denied a license.

That clause might even end up working for the B&M guys as FT and PS would obviously be denied a license initially. By the time the appeals process was worked through, Ceasar's would probably have their 15 month blackout.

My biggest concern if this bill was actually viable is that the bill that passed committee involved compromises on our side to get a vote of approval. By starting with that compromise bill, I fear our side will end up giving up more concessions to get another favorable vote.

I suspect it will not end up in the Financial Services Committee.

You make it sound like we were on the committee.

I thought the committee result was fantastic, as it didn't add anything to the bill that we opposed - like a blackout, barring foreign sites for a longer period, criminalization of un-licensed play, automatic opt outs, etc. Plus, the committee amendments made the consumer protections in the bill much stronger - a positive for us, imo.

Most of the bad stuff was in the taxation bill.