I agree about the Bono Mack comment, but if a Reid/Kyl bill is introduced, Bono Mack will be run over quickly. The House hearings are the appetizer. The Senate gets the meal.

In what sense is seeking public investment, for about 10% of what was originally planned last year, a "good vote of confidence"?

Caesars IPO is not Caesars "investing', it is Caesars selling equity.

Why is this IPO 10% of the planned offering which was cancelled last year ? Confidence it can "sell" a few investors on ipoker ?

Let's see how it goes.

I'd wager that a Reid and Kyl collaborated bill (written with heavy input from the AGA) is the only way to get legalized online poker via the Federal route, because it will have to be done on Kyl's terms, with strengthening of the UIGEA.

I do agree with you that if Reid and Kyl introduced a bill, Bono Mack will be steamrolled immediately.

While I am happy to see the tenor of the two hearings being "not if, but how", I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the Bono Mack committee hearings approach. Her "if at all" commentary and having the next hearing (out of potentially more hearings) in the spring doesn't encourage me that much.

I really think Nevada (which claims to be ready to regulate online poker in a few months) and the AGA want to get the ball rolling on online poker ASAP and they will have to work with Reid and Kyl to get it done, if this is going to be done on the Federal level.

I'd wager that a Reid and Kyl collaborated bill (written with heavy input from the AGA) is the only way to get legalized online poker via the Federal route, because it will have to be done on Kyl's terms, with strengthening of the UIGEA.

I do agree with you that if Reid and Kyl introduced a bill, Bono Mack will be steamrolled immediately.

While I am happy to see the tenor of the two hearings being "not if, but how", I'm still having a hard time getting excited about the Bono Mack committee hearings approach. Her "if at all" commentary and having the next hearing (out of potentially more hearings) in the spring doesn't encourage me that much.

I really think Nevada (which claims to be ready to license online poker sites in a few months) and the AGA want to get the ball rolling on online poker ASAP and they will have to work with Reid and Kyl to get it done, if this is going to be done on the Federal level.

Total agreement on the first part of your premise. Nevada/AGA wants to start now.

What does that give you? 2 senators and a couple of representatives. Big EF-ing deal.

There are fifty states in this country, which is supposed to be a democratic republic. Stop trying to promote a "secret bill" that is designed to favor one or two states, and exactly one market segment.

We're not talking about just any two senators of course. The Senate Majority leader plus Senator Kyl make a super powerful combo.

congress wouldn't have anything to do then...

If the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Whip are "only" 2 senators, I guess it's not much, is it? Especially the Senate Minority Whip, who has stood in our way for a long way. I'm sure he'll just step aside, play nice and whip up support for any poker legislation that he has no input on.

You are right, every piece of legislation that goes through the DC sausage grinder ends up with Kumbaya between all 50 states.

The "two senators" I was speaking of are the two senators from the state of NV.

It amazes me how many people are assuming Kyl is now a supporter. Based on what? A one sentence statement in a blog, which isn't even there anymore?

Please. Get real.

I did not proclaim or assume that Kyl is a supporter of a poker bill. I am saying that we NEED him to be behind this for it to work while he is still in the Senate. If he does not get what exactly what he wants, he will obstruct any attempts at a poker bill and it's my opinion that we will get no movement on this until he leaves the Senate in 2013. Again, it's just my opinion.

It is my opinion that for him to be a supporter of an online poker bill, the UIGEA will have to be strengthened to give the "death penalty" specifically to online sports betting, online non-poker casino games and online poker in opt-out states. I may be wrong, but it appears that the Barton bill and the Campbell bill won't go far enough for Kyl's liking. Again, it's just my opinion.

It also appears that the AGA also does not appear to support the Barton bill or the Campbell bill.

The best way for Kyl and the AGA to get what they want will be to be a part of process of putting a bill together with Reid. Again, that's just my opinion.

CKrafcik Chris Krafcik
[2] There are simply too many issues left to sort—e.g., taxes, tribal sovereignty, states rights—to think that a jam-through bill will work.

Yeah that string of tweets was pretty discouraging. My gut still says the feds have to act before NV does, but it could be blind optimism at this point.

Its really hard for me to have any faith in my government at this point. The fact that they want my taxes and votes are so laughable when they don`t represent me they represent whatever puts money in their pocket.

In 2006, Congress thought it was representing the will of the people in voting overwhelmingly against our right to play. It's our job as players and enthusiasts to convince them that Americans want this liberty.

I realize that, but its so incredibly frustrating to have to push this hard to get peoples attention. Not that its not worth it. A perfect illustration of this is the state I live in Illinois. I can vote, I can make my voice heard, I can do a lot of things, but at the end of the day, what chicago wants, chicago gets, and the people downstate just don`t matter.

I continue to fight for online poker, and I won`t stop, but I "feel" like legislation is more a matter of when the casinos spend enough money to pull politicians heads out of their asses. Ive worked 100 hour work weeks since black friday to survive, Ive bounced checks, watched my credit rating plummet, all while politicians get paid a quarter mil a year to "represent me", and they cant even get things like a super committee done.

I thank God everyday that a politician hasn`t showed up at my door asking for my vote, because quite frankly he may get his head ripped off.

Washington is in need of serious change but its not the kind of change that can happen in weeks, months, or even years, and the lack of leadership there is only going to exaserbate the situation.

I normally agree with you Engineer, but this time you seem to be re-writing history. In 2006, a very tiny handful of conservative republican ass-wipes (namely Kyl & Frist) had enough power to slide a anti-poker bill into an anti-terrost port bill that they knew would get passed. Congress didn't overwhelmingly vote against poker or even give a crap about the issue, it took getting it attached to something else to doom us. Your "Congress thought it was..." is way off this time.

fail

7/11/2006 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 317 - 93 (Roll no. 363).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:HR04411:@@@R

I don't know why so many poker players believe that, but it is a pervasive theory. Unfortunately, the reality is significantly different.

The full House voted for HR 4411, a tougher version of the legislation that became UIGEA, as a freestanding bill 317-93. It was debated on the floor in the open, where most lawmakers were thrilled to have the opportunity to show "leadership" in attacking the "scourge of Internet gambling." The GOP thought so highly of this as a way to gain votes that they adopted an anti-online poker plank for the party platform. Democrats as a whole were only slightly better, as the majority of them voted for HR 4411 as well. Testimony from that hearing is at UIGEA House Testimony: July 11, 2006.

Just three years prior, the Senate voted to ban online gaming by a vote of 90-10! For the full history, check out Federal online poker & gaming legislation history (updated 7/6/11).

When I first went to DC to meet with my Congressman's staffer (in 2007), she listened to me politely, but it was obvious that she thought I was representing a fringe position. I was taken far more seriously by that office on my last visit.

This has changed dramatically since those dark days, and it's due to the hard work of the poker community in letting lawmakers know that we demand this right.

What was the tally in the senate on this?

Agreed. TE is absolutely correct on this. Most members of Congress didn't give a hoot because they thought voting against "the crack cocaine of gambling" was as popular as voting for apple pie.

it never reached the Senate. Maybe you're not aware, but bills take time to pass. Safe Port Act passed the Senate in May and didn't pass the House floor until September (and it was a slam dunk bill that was going to pass). DC doesn't move in a day and obv there's a damn good chance that bill could have hit the Senate given it's support in the House.

The Senate did not vote on it as a freestanding bill. It was part of the SAFE Port Act when it passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the move to the broader bill was done because the session was running out of time, not to get around (nonexistent, sadly) opposition to the bill within the Senate.

Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) thought showing leadership on this issue was the ticket to reelection for him in 2006 (he lost that election, BTW).

And Frist thought the way to the Republican presidential nomination was to suck up to Leach on Igaming because of the importance of IA in the nomination process. When Leach lost, Frist lost an important ally in IA. Just deserts to both of them.

Its just not good looking if none of this gets action before the new calendar year...election years suck