+1

I just got my PPA mail with number of my rep to call and a form to send an email. Every mass resident has to do this!

Okay guys. I'm far from smart but I'm done some digging.

1) The language in the bill isn't final. This is a draft and any bill is done over alot before a draft is final and to be put to a vote.

2) In the past there have been similar bills proposed in the state for brick and mortar casino gambling. in those bills initially there was language similar to this but as far as I know was removed. those bills never had traction though so weren't going to get passed regardless so it never probably was going to effect online poker even if the language was in the bill.

3) Barney Frank is not a state rep. He represents us in the HOuse of Representative which is federal. The bill here is an in state bill, and the people we need to be in contact with is our local State and House Reps on Beacon HIll not in the capital.

4) What you should do, is one, realize that this isn't hte final bill so its not like we are at a crisis point. But the bill has a lot on momentum. The approach is two fold as I see it :

a) Call your state reps (google who they are its easy) and let them know that you are against this specific provision in the bill. You have the exact location here in this thread and if I wasn't playing now I'd write it but this is all stream of thought. Make sure you let them know that you are appalled that there is language in the bill that will criminalize something that is not illegal rihgt now, you playing poker in your private home.

I called my state rep this morning and talked ot her staff. One thing, was the policy guy wasn't well educated about the while UEIGA and actualyl though online poker was illegal. That is fine, so I just simply said it is not illegal for me to play cards online and there is language in the bill that would make me a criminal.

b) I'll wait for the PPA to comment further and let this develop for a bit. Hopefulyl the language gets pulled, cause honestly I don't really care about getting in state casinos. So hopefully they get it pulled and we won't have to worry about about the outcome. If it is in there and doesn't get pulled which in theory could very well happen, then the best thing for online players to do might be to get behind the anti casino bill altogther.

I hope that made a little sense but thats what i"m seeing right now. Obviously someone more into the political or legal side of this might be able to correct some things I may have mispoken on cause I'm not an expert by any means.

Good summary except for this, we are at a crisis point because some bill is very likely to pass and this language is in the bill.

Check the thread in the PPA forum for a PPA alert if you have not received one and are a MA resident. It has a very easy form to fill out to contact your state rep opposing the language.

I wont copy the whole post, but the link is here. It takes 30 seconds to do, every MA resident should send one.

http://www.capwiz.com/pokerplayersal...ertid=14905671

What is the PPA in MA doing to get the online criminalization language out of this bill? What can I do to help? I sent the standard PPA letter to my state rep and I plan to call when I leave work.

This is not good news. Every news article that I have read covering this new bill basically reads as if the bill is sure to pass. Ugh!

TE just posted that the language will be OUT of the bill through a technical corrections package coming out by Friday.

He asked us to STOP CALLING, but continue to e-mail (the state reps were sick of hearing from everyone )

Great news. As LG said, the language is out! Discuss at Anti-online poker language to be stricken from Mass. bill!

WOO HOO!

I swear to God, calling, emailing, supporting the PPA in this fight for our rights feels a lot like 20-tabling at times. The positive/negative emotions and periods of tilt are going to kill me. Ha!

Thanks TE and thanks Gambool. I don't always post, but I follow your posts (along with Skall's) closely. I appreciate the diligence.

it would also violate WTO treaty obligations and the US always lives up to its free trade treaty obligations

WOOT!

HA HA!

Good work TE and everyone else.

Does anyone think that it is possible to pester Kyl and his cronies into submission too?

Awesome news thanks for all your hard work TE.

Awesome news! I sent the email and was planning on calling but I guess I will hold off. Was also planning on alerting all of my friends and relatives to email/call but now I think I might just go out and have a beer and hope that this provision is out on Friday.

Thanks for all the hard work TE.

Can someone in the know post here and let us know if this truly got dropped from a revised bill?

+1

Below is part of an email that I received on one of my mailing lists. It implies the wording is in and they need to amend it (later?)....or maybe I am reading too much into it.



> The Honorable William N. Brownsberger
> Massachusetts House of Representatives

>This provision is definitely coming out. Not to worry. I have this
>from both the Chair responsible for the bill and from his staff. They
>say they didn't mean to target internet poker, rather something about
>simulcasting. They have filed an amendment to fix it. I will support
>this.

In another thread TE said that this was going to happen ( http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...s-bill-753915/ ). This response is a good one since it independently indicates the same thing.

+2

I love how awesome politics is now because of online

Didn't notice the response from Brownberger. That's nice. Now if only the uigea was this easy!

Here's the list of amendments to MA. House Bill 4591 (the casino bill):

http://www.mass.gov/legis/house/text..._bill_4591.pdf


The relevant amendments in regards to online poker:

(Same as amendment #7)

(Same as amendments 7 and 72)

It was removed from the bill yesterday. I received a call from my rep, BobNyman and it was confirmed by Speaker Deleo to talk show host Dan
Rhea last evening.
Nice work all

That's fine, but something like the amendment Kevmath found... ...would be much better. Here's why. The bill currently has a change to the MA gaming crime statute, it will cover all gaming unless it’s ‘permitted’ under the new Chapter 23K. The gaming permitted in Ch. 23K includes banked or percentage card games offered by a few licensed casinos. The bill currently would not permit online poker, so something saying poker is not covered under the gaming crime would be a real coup. Alternately, an addition permitting the new casinos to offer online poker would be good.

Get the language out perma, then worry about the amendment. The language makes gambling online in MA an explicit felony and will be terrible for poker and poker players in MA.

Language is still IN the bill at the eve of floor debate according to the BostonHerald article. Dempsey amendment has been offered, but has to get voted on up or down by the House as a whole.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/pol...osition=recent

The skill amendment would make the 'language', indeed the whole bill, inapplicable to poker. It would be a huge boon to MA poker and poker players.