She has officially been nominated for the gig. She needs Senate confirmation (she has been confirmed twice by the Senate before for other positions, so this may only be a formality though)

Do you know anything about her? Any particular cases she has participated in that would correlate to poker?

New to America, are you?

The Republicans have blocked, filibustered, and voted against everyone President Obama has nominated for anything. With few exceptions appointees have been confirmed with little or no Republican support. The fact that she's been confirmed before for other positions means nothing. Sonia Sotomayor had been confirmed years earlier for a position on a U.S. District court, but met widespread Republican opposition when nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court, and eventually was confirmed largely along party lines. There are dozens of open judicial and government agency positions whose nominees have been blocked by the Republicans without a vote, sometimes for years.

This has all happened while they were in the minority. What makes you think they'll be any more likely to vote on Obama nominees now that they're in the majority?

Derail here, but Obama could nominate John Ashcroft and the Republicans would probably block it.

Unless the Dems manage to force an up or down vote during the lame duck period, there likely won't be an AG for the next two years. You might want to do some research on the current acting AG to find out his position on internet poker. Of course there's always the chance Obama will cave and nominate someone the Reps like. Either way I'll bet whatever you want that Loretta Lynch will not be the next AG.

http://nj***********.net/2953/house-...gaming-future/

Republicans need to repay Adelson. It's probably about 50/50 for a ban. Adelson just needs to grease Harry Reid a little.

A greased up Harry Reid... *shudder*
Thanks for putting that image into my head.

The article I linked to above has a link to an article about Adelson's Restoration of America's Wire Act (RAWA) that starts off like this:

He has a lot of grease too...

I wonder what a carve out bill would look like. And what are the other exemptions?

why would he want to do this but make poker and whatever else exempt?

am i missing something. What is the difference between a ban and the prohibition which already is occurring today? Its already illegal for offshore sites like bovada to operate, so what would a ban do to them? I am guessing the only difference would be that states would not be able to regulate online games themselves, and they will try to do away with NJ/NV/DE online gaming. A ban on online poker and online casino gaming should not be called a ban, because it will not change the status quo, because offshore sites like bovada are already operating illegally and people will still be able to play on them. How could a ban change offshore sites continuing in the U.S. market when it is already illegal for them to operate.

The main problem with the RAWA ban is indeed that it would do away with the NJ/NV/DE online gambling (including poker) and prevent any other states from passing authorizing legislation. In addition, currently the prohibition against offshore sites depends on violations of state laws for enforcement of the federal ones. The RAWA ban would make it a clear violation of US federal law to offer US-facing Internet gambling, widening the net for enforcement.

PokerXanadu I do understand how it could effect regulating new sites within U.S. borders, but the thing is, because sites like bovada currently offer sports betting, they are already in clear violation of US federal law. So i really dont understand your take on how this ban could further effect offshore sites that offer sports betting to U.S. customers.I mean lets take NJ for example which has regulations in place and a wider net for law enforcement because of it. Im sure there are specific laws preventing offshore sites from servicing NJ customers, and i know some sites pulled out, but i am positive there are still offshore sites serving NJ. So i dont see in the forseeable future a complete ban on offshore gaming in the U.S. even if the RAWA (newer form of prohibition) gets passed.

It would turn a big hammer into a HUGE hammer and give sites even more reason to stop serving the US market.

So is Adelson honestly against online poker because of Morality or because he thinks it is bad for his business at the moment or forever. Certainly, other B&M casinos think online gaming has potential. Is it a case of waiting for Sands to catchup with the rest of the Casinos in preparing for online poker??.... It seems like he is just a cray and honestly never wants to see online gambling. In which case, we basically need to wait for him to die.

The big issue now is that the Republicans attach this onto something like they did last time in 2007... and the Democrats give up or aren't in a public relations position to fight it... or Harry Reid gets a big enough envelope.

I really don't trust Harry Reid. Why did he let the first one get through in 2007?

thats pretty much the worst explanation/response i could have ever read in regards to my post. Did you even read the response i wrote, or did you just feel the need to throw in your opinion without stating any facts. As i stated there are already State/Federal laws against sites like betonline, yet they still continue to serve all 50 states. How could another federal law make them stop serving U.S. ? Your theory has no justification or even one fact to support it.

Thus illustrates the folly of attempts at prohibition. You are correct in assuming there will still be offshore sites serving US players, even if RAWA is enacted.

What you seem to be missing, or not hearing, is that enactment of RAWA puts to an end any and all hope of regulation in the US. Maybe that isn't important to you, and perhaps that is the point you are trying to make. But it is important for the future of online poker in the US.

Passage of RAWA would also mean Pokerstars never returns to the US

curt it is important to me, you obviously didnt read my first post on this page which i quoted above. i do want regulated online poker in the U.S. but to call it a ban on online poker and online casino gaming is misleading. The title of this thread should be changed to Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson escalates effort ban U.S. regulated poker/casino sites in the U.S. , not a ban on online poker all together.

Adelson says it is a moral issue for him. It is obviously also (or maybe primarily) a business decision, to prevent competition to his b&m casinos.

It is my pet theory that Adelson's primary motivation is the destruction of one of his primary competitors - Caesars. The Caesars empire is crumbling under their excessive debt. Their way out is online gambling. If they can be prevented from expanding online gambling in the US, they will likely go out of business. They might go bankrupt on the b&m side anyway, but in the meantime build a new online empire. Adelson wants to stop them.

That's my fiddy cents.

We are speculating about the future so it is hard to cite facts. I think RAWA would eliminate any ambiuguity that exists now and turn the big hammer into a huge hammer. Look how many sites left already. Imagine if RAWA passes and DOJ goes after a couple of the current biggest sites and a few of the smaller sites. I'd imagine sites would be pulling out right and left hoping the US doesn't come after them.

twotimer, as I said in my post, the main problem with RAWA is how it will affect US-regulated online gambling. It is also an effort the clarify the federal law in regards to offshore US-facing sites, so the title of this thread still applies perfectly (unless you want to nitpick and insist it should say "US effort" instead of just "effort"). It is hard to say exactly what the effect will be on the offshore sites, but there will no longer be any ambiguity about any of the online services they offer as US law will clearly state it is all illegal under US federal law.

The change in the law may or may not extend the ability of US federal law enforcement to reach the foreign-based sites, but my guess is that it will. It may also scare the bejeezus out of any payment processors who still service those sites.

Has anyone here actually read the bill? If you're interested:

https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/s...113s2159is.xml

It's largely about making changes to section 1084 of title 18 of the US Code, which can be seen here:

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?r...tion:prelim%29

At first read it seems to be about making minor changes to the wording of the code. It isn't clear to me how it would change anything. Can anyone who's actually read the bill shine any more light on it?

The slight wording changes are highly significant:

1. Currently, the Wire Act statute applies to "any sporting event or contest", which the DOJ recently (in 2011) said means gambling on any sporting event and any sporting contest, and not any other type of gambling (casino, poker, lottery, etc.). The change in RAWA will take out "any sporting event or contest", and therefore the Wire Act will apply to all gambling.

2. RAWA will add a definition to the Wire Act that explicitly includes use of the Internet in the definition of "wire communications facility", removing any possible grey area. It is also worded such that use of the Internet for intrastate gambling transactions would also be banned in most instances, since Internet transmissions are often and usually carried across state lines even when the starting and ending points are in the same state.

PX, I'm not very knowledgeable in Internet communications. Let's say (God forbid) RAWA passed. If someone is playing on a site in Europe and their transmission went through a network in the US, wouldn't they 'technically' be breaking the law? Or is the purpose of this bill strictly to prevent US-based players from playing on sites (based on ISP)?