Its a good sentence for us as long as we're committed to the Federal path and "legal gaming" includes Federally regulated (or approved and state regulated) i-poker.

If the Federal effort fails in '12, and its much more likely to fail in '12 than not, then its not good for poker players as there is a growing Fairplay coalition that's going to have a different agenda than we are.

I mean if you weren't a mod Id request a title change to this thread. They literally didnt say a word about poker in the letter.

You don't think poker is included in their statement?

Are you expecting legislation that does not address unlicensed gaming?

I want such legislation, but I don't believe it would have a chance. You know the score there.

What is concerning is the letter primarily addresses unlicensed gaming. It barely mentions creating a legal framework for licensed/regulated gaming, and does not specifically mention poker AFAICS.

I realize this is a journey of small steps, but this one is at best a itsy bitsy little one at best; in the worst case, we have an organization pushing for UIGEA II without any carve out for i-poker.

Without some sort of clarification from them, I don't consider them to be an ally in the i-poker player's cause.

Did the Fraternal Order of Police also happen to mention how terribly unfair the current Federal Tax Code is to amateur (i.e. not able to file as a "professional") poker players?

Of course I imagine they didn't.

But I have to ask... and take the opportunity to point out yet again that without being able to net our wins and losses across ALL our "sessions" during the year, poker becomes ridiculously unbeatable for those of us who prefer to play small stakes.

For those playing at higher stakes, they don't care about the Tax Code issue. The $5200 personal deduction that is lost when claiming IRS-defined "gambling losses" to offset "gambling profits" (which in many instances are not even "profits" at all) is peanuts to them. But most amateurs aren't "high rollers" and the "government rake" crushes us... and like the state lottery system, only the stupidest will continue to play it.

Remember... under a "regulated" framework, your session profit and loss tally will be directly handed over to the IRS for inspection and verification with tax returns. To think this would NOT be a part of any future regulatory framework in the USA is folly.

IMO obv. We need more than "feel-good" statements from "fraternal orders". Please work on revising the Federal Tax Code for amateur players.

The closest it comes is referencing Freeh's editorial.

I would expect the NFO telling Congress to support poker would involve somehow using the word poker.

Is there a compromise there in '12 that we'd all like? Maybe, but that letter doesnt tell me a thing about NFO's thoughts towards poker.

If you have inside information from outside that letter that we might not be privy too, maybe that would add some color about your enthusiasm here. Im a little baffled from the information given though.

I actually think the letter says a lot.

While it does not come out and directly say "we support poker" (although I suspect most of their members would) what it does say is, in practical effect, the same.

In a nutshell the FOP is saying: 1) We want a clear federal law as to what is legal and what is illegal, and - QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY FOR US - 2) we can accept legal online gaming so long as it is properly regulated.

That position is consistent with the basics of the "great compromise" rumored to be talked about in DC.

So the bottom line. as a practical matter, is that they will continue to support new Federal compromise legislation controlling online gaming even if it allows online poker.

I think that is a clear step forward - even if it is far from the last step needed.

Skallagrim

Second to last paragraph, though the letter uses the general term "gaming" and does not mention poker specifically.

Also, I don't understand why people are acting so surprised that the crux of this letter is focused on enforcement tools. This is the Fraternal Order of POLICE, not a pro-gambling group.

... but it sounds like they would also support a new Federal bill that simply banned all i-gaming as well.

That was their old position. Willing to accept some legal gaming is new.

I agreed and said earlier in the thread I think they'll support a Reid/Kyl compromise this year. That's the practical effect for now, fair enough.

I also think they'll be just as happy to support UIGEA/Wire Act 2 in '13 or '14 without a poker carveout if the elections fall a certain way this fall. Given the Fairplay connection, Id suspect they will work against intrastate poker legislation. The window for Federal legislation is getting very, very short, so Im hesitant to view this as an unabashed positive.

Its also misleading to say that the NFOP wants Congress to support poker. They want Congress to clamp down on i-gaming. If they have to swallow Federally regulated i-poker they will. The fact that this letter didnt even mentione the word poker is sort of glaring by omission. Even Freeh mentioned i-poker in his op-ed.

EDIT: One other point, and this is definitely JMHO. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned this would give cover to lawmakers to vote yes on an i-poker bill. Im not sure how true that is because the chance of a bill passing this year through a standard process can be rounded to 0.0%. If we are going to pass i-poker in '12 its going onto must-pass legilslation, which limits the benefit of giving lawmakers cover.

Im not surprised it focused on enforcement tools. Freeh's op-ed did as well, but notably singled out i-poker. The letter doesnt use the word poker a single time. Its unclear to me how it calls for "a strong regulatory framework for online poker".

LG, no Senator can get something through without allies. The more allies the better. If the FOP letter helps even one Senator or a small number of House Members to decide to jump on board, that is good and positive. Indeed, that is precisely what is needed to make a "must pass" move work.

Skallagrim

I wouldn't look to the FOP to fight our battles regarding fair taxation.

PPA, OTOH, does support tax fairness. We're public with it and, in fact, I see PPA's mission following passage of federal legislation of one where we work to get opt-out states into the system and where we lobby for improvements to the tax system.

Not to the lawmakers who allowed it to be included in a must-pass bill.

Probably because there is no discussion on the Hill of federally licensing gaming that does not include poker.

Ignore the JMHO part, as that is JMHO, and address the rest.

Ok, I'll stick to my position that to ask Congress to support poker youd probably use the word poker, but cool.

They call during dinner, soliciting donations.

OK.

The FOP is indicating that it is on board with the proposed compromise of creating legal and regulated online poker while simultaneously banning other forms of online gaming.

The FOP does not specifically endorse the idea of online poker alone, but are willing to accept it as part of the compromise.

Similarly, the PPA has long indicated it is on board with the proposed compromise of creating legal and regulated online poker while simultaneously banning other forms of online gaming.

The PPA does not specifically endorse the idea of banning online slots, BJ, roulette, etc., but is willing to accept it as part of the compromise.

That means we are basically on the same side and the FOP joining us is a very good development in terms of ultimately making the compromise a reality.

If that is not enough to justify the thread title, it sure seems close to me.

But if you still want to complain that the thread title implies that the FOP said more than what the FOP actually said, you certainly have a basis to make that semantic argument.

Skallagrim

I know both the logrolling game and the score;

Are you deliberately oblivious to the fact that the FOP letter calls first, foremost, and pretty exclusively, for an amendment to the Wire Act ?
You ignore Big Government when you are grasping at straws.

FOP told Congress to amend the Wire Act, that is their agenda. It is a jobs bill for them.

Those Anne Arundel County, Md. police and their department sure made out from subcontracting their services to DOJ ...... Do you seriously think that major score, and the benefits of selling your services outside your jurisdiction, went unnoticed in a tough economy, with limited opportunity for additional funding at the local level ????

Do you understand they would support a federal criminalization of online poker even if no authorization to play is going to pass ?

I, for one, don't like the tone that this "coalition" is taking. First we got FPUSA, who has their 10 principles to strengthen law enforcement against illegal online gambling and regulate online poker in the US, but won't take a stand on any specific legislation. Then we have Ridge and Freeh testifying and lobbying for the LE along with "strict regulation" of online poker. Now we have NFOP telling Congress to strengthen LE and mentioning just in passing a strict regulatory framework for "legal online gaming".

You would think that forging a coalition would involve everyone either getting behind specific legislation or everyone stating clearly their willingness to compromise to include iiPoker. Perhaps the PPA and the players are the ones being led down the primrose path and in the end be the ones on the outside saying, "Hey, we no longer support this new coalition bill which we thought was going to be good for players."

I am still hopeful that this will all lead to the compromise we are willing to take, but this letter is not something to celebrate imo, absent some other inside information about the NFOP position and intent.

But thats not what they called for in this letter.

2nd page, 1st paragraph. not getting enough love imo.
"there are no controls...to give US consumers recourse to US courts to provide prompt and accurate payments"
"no protections to prevent or detect money laundering"
"no firm and transparent licencing of operators exists"
"no regulatory controls are in place to prevent criminals from entering the marketplace, rigging games, or misusing customer financial data"

why would they say, 'not allowing US players to go to court to seek prompt and accurate payments' is a problem if they wanted to make it illegal? How could a player do that if it were illegal. These comments are made from a perspective of 'these are the current problems that we think regulation and law enforcement can fix'. They are not 'these are reasons that it should be made illegal'.

This whole paragraph clearly implies a list of specific features that they want included in a legal online gambling bill.

Who knows what they mean by gaming. I do not know and if you have not talked to them, you do not either.

PX and DQ,

I don't want to strengthen UIGEA either, but surely we're better off with FOP saying that they support licensing online poker as part of a broader plan than we are for them to state that they oppose online poker under any circumstances. After all, they already supported UIGEA, so the change here is that they are now more supportive of online gaming and, by definition, online poker.