I mentioned the Freeh/Ridge op-ed in an earlier post Its the most compelling argument you make. I personally discount it, partly because I dont think Freeh and Ridge are strong supporters of poker themselves and partly because it would have been very easy to mention poker specifically in this letter.

The other points I dont find compelling. The letter doesnt talk about giving millions of players access to additional legal gaming and I dont read anything in the letter saying they want increased authorization of legal gaming.

Again, I think they would support a Reid compromise this Congress. Thats good. I think if in 2013 AG Santorum pushes that he needs tougher laws to ban online gaming, they'd work to steer UIGEA II/intrastate ban through a friendly Republican Congress as well.

Exactly. The forest is that NFOP would like to crack down on as much online gaming as is politically possible.

Its good news that we might have reached the position politically where its possible they need to compromise and allow Federally licensed i-poker.

Finally, we seem to be reaching a consensus.

Just like I know this about the NFOP, I believe they know that if in 2013 Gary Johnson gets elected and declares he needs a law stating that all internet gambling is a personal right and should be free from prosecution, the PPA would work to support that.

Skallagrim

...which the NFOP would oppose and/or look to water down because they dont support poker.

Glad we're all on the same page as this is pretty basic stuff. I figured it must have been a communication issue or PR campaign to boost morale, I give PPA leadership credit enough that they're smart enough to know the NFOP hasnt changed how they feel about poker.

Damn, just when I thought the disagreement was over. Maybe the NFOP has not changed how they feel about online poker as a matter of personal taste, maybe they still dislike it for some reason. But I know lots of cops who play poker ....

Regardless, the NFOP has definitely changed how it feels about laws regarding online poker; where before the only Federal law they would not oppose was one banning online poker entirely; now the are saying they would not oppose a Federal law which licenses and regulates online poker.

That distinction is important and useful and worthy of some PR, at least that's MHO.

Skallagrim

Good news for the Federal Legislation front in '12. Havent seen an argument against that.

Are they supporting the rights of our fellow players in Nevada and New Jersey? Folks in those states have a real good chance of getting cards in the air in 2012/2013, Im excited to see what supporters of poker rights such as the NFOP can do to help drive that process.

I don't know where to post this, and I don't think it was thread worthy but, my GF, for a politics class she is taking had to watch a bill this semester. Obv I got her to watch/write on H.R. 2366.

She called Rep. Barton's office today to see "if the bill will move anytime soon". She asks a secretary who says "It's likely the bill will move in the next month". No idea if that's true or not, but it was on speaker phone and that's verbatim what the secretary said.

so basically, they're not, not supporting it?

didn't they basically just tell them to shut down carbon/cake

The FOP has spoken again:
http://onlinepokerreport.com/5433/fop-reid-kyl-support/

It's a little more clear this time their true intent: Strengthen the Wire Act and the UIGEA. Hopefully that will translate into support of a bill that includes licensing of online poker, but once again they have made no mention of it.

What a wierd thread.

It is perfectly obvious that a coalition for regulated licensed poker that wins needs to include some who recognise the strength of the argument that regulated sites are better than unregulated sites on the range of issues that concern those opposed to gambling - in this case money laundering, potential off shore frauds and an archaic and ill defined wire act that is impossible for the police to enforce.

Similarly those concerned about addiction and the harm to "families" can be won over to the position of supporting regulated, legal sites with safeguards and funding for treatment and research.

It is self evident that the views of those wanting to limit the harm of gambling via regulation and those who believe that enforcement is made more effective via regulation of legal sites may not agree with us that poker is a social plus, that freedom to play is a right to be defended and a whole load more on tax etc but it is also perfectly clear that this letter is a call for regulated online gambling including regulated online poker that should be welcomed as a significant change from the previous position of just backing more powers to interdict financial transfers.

Quite how this welcome news has been castigated as insignificant or harmful is beyond me. There is clear spport here for a regulated online gambling environment from a previous opponent.

All you have to do is work out how angry and upset our real opponents like FofF will be at this development to know that this is a welcome and significant increase in the pro regulated online poker coalition.

Prohibition is also a from of "regulation". I don't see anywhere that FOP has stated support for a federal program to license online poker. They do call for a strong "regulatory framework" for legal online gambling, but UIGEA strengthening and Wire Act amendment alone could meet this without a carveout for poker.