Or a tab for lottery games in place of the "Casino" tab offered on most sites, linked to the state from which you play. So if you play on Caesar's and live in Kentucky, for example, the Caesar's client will have a tab for the Kentucky Lottery with whatever games or tickets they offer. Caesar's ships the net profits from these sales to the Kentucky Lottery.

But this would displease gambling opponents, Kyl, et al.

I just posted this to the Senate Homeland Security Facebook wall, at http://www.facebook.com/permalink.ph...d=120604954443. It captures most of my thoughts on the issue:

This is how I'd deal with the lotteries. I'd introduce them to the religious right. The lotteries are against UIGEA II (with a poker carveout) because they want to force online scratch offs, the equivalent of a slot machine, down our troats. There not concerned about the children, they want to foster a click your mouse, loose your house type environment. All this when they already steal from the middle class and poor more than even the government!

Then when it's time to negotiate, send them some industrial strength lube and tell them to get out. Only at the very end and if they beg do we let them in as a potential provider. Even then, we could make it only if every single state they operate in opts into the federal poker.

Cliffs: Make the lotteries the bad guys.

should there be a bigger focus on shutting down offshore sites and enforcement?

I feel like the majority of your post was about the Commerce Clause, but in reality I think more people would jump on board if you make it clear we're strengthening illegal gambling laws (with poker as exception).

States traditionally regulate gaming in their own states, but they do not have any traditional authority to erect trade barriers with other states.

Everyone is all in favor of states allowing online poker where instate and out-of-state businesses are able to offer services that conform to the laws of that state, of course. That would be great, in fact.

PPA has been recommending that states and tribes get 100% of the revenue from online poker. The federal government will gain from improved income tax compliance and from an easier to enforce online gaming policy.

The question isn't about a payoff. It's if interstate poker can raise the revenue for a state that a state-run monopoly offering instant scratch-off lotto tickets + instrastate online poker could.

You're missing the target audience. Do you remember Blagovich trying to sell obama's senate seat? The lotteries have something golden here and they aren't going to give it away for free. Look at them as the gatekeepers to state gaming along with the casinos.

The difference lies in that the state lotteries are compromised of a large number of small stakeholders who are not all,able to benefit from I gaming. Vendors, advertisers, distributors, licensors, the whole corrupt bus load. The state budget guys know they will be better off. But, the power lies in the hands of the purveyors of the lottery who make a fat percentage the state never receives. That is who has to be paid off. They, right or wrong, perceive themselves as losers. And, they hold enough power to hold things up.

Someone needs to make thm an offer.

Call it trade-related assistance. Displacement adjustment assistance. Whatever.


Difficult to track? Everyone who contracts with lottos is in the public domain. The Treasury, the states, whomever can easily cut the checks. Until these interests are pacified we are shut out. All that talk of a suitable vehicle was crap. Tribes and lottos shut it down.

Offer the lotto commissions the right to offer non profit poker tourneys?

You can skim a ****load of money as a nonprofit. And, it is a way to tie them into the poker sites.

sigh this article makes me sad http://www.businessinsider.com/anoth...cs-contributor

I feel like we are going to have to give lotteries the ability to expand their current business online as TE has the right calculus. Not casino games, but online scratch tickets. Unfortunately that's Kyls call, right?

Otherwise prepare for the intrastate battle. Logical arguments and freedom arguments are great, but we have to cut them in. I like the 100% to the states idea and I think we need a horse racing like subsidy progrM where we give part of the rake to the lottery. Of course that comes out of our pockets, but whats the alternative? The DOJ ruling gave the lottery guys a good hand.

Good idea with the subsidy. Most of the states that were late to the lottery(mostly red) have "funds" dedicated to scholarships or teacher bonuses. How about offering to cover some percentage of those subsidies, returning the lottery providers part of the difference. And, offering them the chance to sell tickets on the sites and be "reload" and purchase sites similar to WU or MG except instant, with their markup of course. It gives them higher profits and expanded business without totally perverting the marketplace. Tribes could simply be allowed to count poker revenue against a percentage of state tax or licensing.

Use this guy:



Seriously, why burn money with the lottery guys?

States don't need their blessing to have intrastate i-poker. Get this going. In ____ states, it will be done by the ____s (fill in the blanks with either commercial casinos, tribal casinos, lotteries, or horse racing; depending of course on the state). Everyone gets their piece of the pie. Everyone is happy. Well, maybe not everyone, but as many as is possible.

Next figure out what needs to be done to have pools merge.

Kyl and Reid misplayed their hand. They had leverage before they sent the letter. Now they have none.

Take my state (NY). They get more revenue every year on their lottery then the whole country could dream of getting from i-poker. They want to expand to the internet. The Wire Act can't stop them. And they don't want a bunch of Okies from Muskogee sticking their casino backed i-poker on us and at the same time telling us we can't sell Powerball subscriptions.

Not gonna happen in an election year.

Thanks. I may hit up that angle in a future post.

People have been saying this kind of stuff for our entire fight. IMO it's no more true today than it was then. We'll keep pushing forward and will either win federally this year or will start getting poker at the state level next year.

I wonder about this as well. I feel like soon I'll be able to play intrastate poker soon.

You're leaving reality behind. Lotteries are MORE powerful at the state level.

You are talking about outright bribery of lottery suppliers, and accuse me of "leaving reality"? Ha.

I know the lottery is more powerful at the state levels, especially in some states (including mine, unfortunately). In those states, they will be the ones providing the i-poker. The NV casinos get NV i-poker; casinos would also be involved with NJ and IA. CA i-poker goes to the consortiums of commercial card rooms and tribes. UT will ban all forms of i-gaming ...

We are 50 states, not one country. If you can't understand that, at least try to accept it.

Wait, we arent one country? When did this happen?

I agree this is more likely to go state by state and agree that the DOJ letter hurt us on the Federal level, but this whole discussion is taking that we are trying to go the Federal route as a given.

I think it a fair view to say that many posters not only take it as a given that "we" are trying to go the Federal route, but also feel that the Federal route is the one true path and those posters who suggest otherwise are heretics, agents of socialism and trying to shred the Constitution.

I am sorry if you read bribes as literal criminal acts. Payoffs in legislation are deemed quite legal if morally repulsive.

Lottery corporations do not wants poker. Federally or state by state. They print money, now. Online poker run by the lotteries would cut out a lot of people who profit in the lottery now. Why would they want to lose a little money and let someone make a lot?

Unless Reid outperforms his past, we have to find a way to buy the lotteries off. That means GIVE them money for NOTHING. Sucks Ass. Also reality.

I'm sorry, but the bolded part went over my head. Please explain.

I don't think anyone has said there are no player-friendly state-level paths to licensing.

What has been said here is that one approach -- intrastate lotteries granted monopolies over online gaming in their states -- would represent socialized gaming. That approach would, IMO, violate in the intent of the Commerce Clause in seeking to ban out-of-state competitors.

Is this the lottery interest/lobbyists current offer/viewpoint? Is the view relatively consistent across different state lotteries? This is dead on, intrastate licensing like nevadas or njs is good for players.
Anything that's a monopoly not so much.

Edit: also thought you had speculate in the past that lotteries were mor likely to go for non poker games than poker. Is that the case?

Okay, you see it "that way"..... lotteries are socialist and shredding the Constitution and "fortunately, casinos and tribal interests are "pushing back against socialized online gaming".

You might want to review a good historical analysis in the PPA forum of how lotteries and State-sponsored gambling was seen as a benefit by the Founding Fathers in colonial times, including financing the War for Independence.

Before you go further in red-baiting States who want revenue for the good of their residents public needs, consider that:

"In the case of the early colonies, the necessity for funding spawned a host of lotteries. English venture capitalists held lotteries to bring in investments, colonies established lotteries to raise revenue for public works, and Congress attempted to finance their war for independence. Not only did the increased presence of lotteries add an air of legitimacy to gambling, but according to some scholars, “playing the lottery became a civic responsibility” (Clotfelter and Cook, 1989)"

If casinos are "pushing back" against lotteries politically to fight for market share, that is one thing. However for you to opine, seriously, that "fortunately", casinos and tribes are "pushing back against socialist online gaming" is nonsense, even for a CPAC audience.... and I am all in favor of free market solutions.