So am I understanding your article correctly in thinking that if no federal legislation is passed, states will be able to offer casino games aside from poker, but only ipoker will be allowed if it is passed at a federal level? Kinda curious since Im a bit of a blackjack / slot degen.

Currently, the only gambling that is federally illegal is sports betting. The whole agreement between Reid/Kyl is reliant on strengthening existing laws to include all gambling. There would be no reason for Kyl to support a poker bill otherwise. If legislation goes the state route, there is nothing from stopping states from allowing online blackjack or slots.

Twuffered Mitch McConnell and John Bohener every day in February asking them to support a tax cut attachment for good measure.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm kinda torn now LOL. Eh nvm actually I could live with live slots and bj. Online vs live poker is no contest as to preference.

93-2? Seems like a slam dunk to me.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_87...1.html?pos=hme

Reid is pushing this one pretty hard but he's realistically probably putting poker on hold till the lame duck. But what the hell! Might as well turn every major legislation this year into a mini-sweat.

Awwww I miss Roll Call.

This is awesome news. We should call Kyl's office and thank him for considering getting behind online poker. Tweeting/ facebook stuff great, but I believe more weight is given to personal communication. It's not that hard to call his office and say something like "I favor regulating online poker and thank Sen. Kyl for considering lending his support to online poker legislation." Takes about a minute. Probably worth calling our own reps as well. Kyl's office numbers are at the bottom of this page. DC office is probably the best one to call.

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

They mentioned this on cnbc this morning and the general sentiment was that "this hasnt been done already?". So imo, its a slam dunk. However, can they pass anythig before the native aamericam review next week?

Sorry for spelling, im on my phone

The Indian meeting is IMO irrelevant to attaching poker as a rider

Casino-owning Indians give more $ than the PPA, and matter in state fundraising even more. They don't have as much sway as the big corporations, but even getting one Senator can mean blocking ipoker. Their neutrality would be bigger than ANYTHING the PPA is capable of ATM. Outright support would be bigger, especially for a state by state opt process.

Realistically, the bill isn't being attached as a rider, so everything is sort of irrelevant.

I would like to note I didn't say the Indians are unimportant. The Indian committee meeting is irrelevant in the context of the question I was answering.

Realistically we don't know either way. I still don't get how folks can make such definitive absolute statements like this.

Does the proposed legislation have a bill in the Senate I can look at or is this still more preliminary than that? Is HR2366 irrelevant?

no bill in the Senate. I think HR 2366 is going to struggle to move forward, but much of the language will probably look similar in the supposed "Reid Bill"

No, the little peoples don't get to look at the phantom bills.

Thanks guys. let me know if it's better to take this to PMs. Is it easier if the Senate bill stays "phantom" and then they can just attach it to another piece of legislation or does it have to appear at some point and go through some other process before it can be attached?

Sorry if these questions are basic, our legislative process confuses me.

Anything the House and Senate both pass in the same exact form is law. Rarely do they both pass exact bills without setting up a conference to reconcile slight or major differences. Whatever emerges from those committees is usually voted through(see Safe Ports).

Committees are not in the laws or Constitution, but are parliamentary rules erected by each House to give more power to themselves and more opportunity for staging shows and soliciting bribes. Bills don't have to go anywhere near them. It takes an incredible amount of agreement and lobbying to move a bill the long way through committees, hearings, floor votes, amendments, and reconciliation, then passage. If poker happens it is much more likely to go the phantom route than the long route. And, almost nothing happens the long route in Congress now. Maybe a bill saying the sun rose in the East.

Some stuff from @pokerscar on the Western Indian Gaming Conference today:

Just a weee bit of hope for the payroll taxes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...for-two-months

It is only a ray of hope if our allies in congress act. Gop reps will go along with many provisions if a 1 year agreement is reached. This T-party segment of the gop is quite evangelic. However if a stop to the ongoing charge of internet gambling is tacked on with provisions for governed online poker they may take the crystal in the mud.

Otherwise a straight vote seems to me like an open ended straight flush draw. Totally depended on what cards and suits the opp holds. could be +/- ev

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72523.html

So Reid is stonewalling progress, and then because of this lack of progress threatning to push forward an alternate plan

Kyl is also on the conference committee so if Reid introduces poker in this alternate plan with Kyl's support we will have a real sweat. If they both think this is their best chance to get their bill passed they should both be motivated to reach a compromise and get this done!

I'd withhold any hope until Adelson speaks. He is wielding enormous clout in the GOP, and kyl and Reid are in his grasp locally.

Adelson has spoken: He is anti-Internet gambling. That's what HR2366 The Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011, or similar legislation, is for.