I was asking Sluggger about his own 16 week plan, not the DAP, and while they (the GOP) hate offshore gambling, few if any of them are aware that the law which produced the Black Friday forfeitures is now (properly) in jeopardy of being off the online poker table.

Most of them likely believe that while the Wire Act is off the table under this administration (in reality any administration, but that's a separate discussion), the DOJ still has other tools (statutes) at it's disposal to seize offshore gambling proceeds.

Reminding them about the PPA's victory in the Weinstein IGBA case in a separate action plan certainly would not hurt the effort.

It seems that there is quite a bit of talk in Washington. And it mentioned that it (the poker bill) will be back after the elections.

I am devoid of hope, but at least they're talking about it, eh?

[URL="http://******/d/MMI"]Heller Letter[/URL]

Bad link.

It's a good link but 2+2 filtered it, click on it directly from the reporter's twitter:
https://twitter.com/STetreaultDC

The letter*...


September 10, 2012

The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
S-221, The Capitol
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

Internet gambling is on the verge of exploding in the United States, threatening the viability of Nevada’s key industries. For many years, Internet gambling was run by offshore operators who, in defiance of US. law, offered online sports betting as well as casino-banked games, such as slots and roulette. Consumer protections and barriers to underage gambling were essentially nonexistent. In 2006, Congress enacted the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in an effort to address this wagering.

UIGEA neither legalized nor made unlawful Internet gambling, but it added enforcement tools to thwart Internet gambling payment transactions. The core federal statute that UIGEA enhanced was the Wire Act of 1961 . The Department of Justice long interpreted the Wire Act to apply broadly; and enforcement of the Act led to federal indictments of several major lnternet gambling operators in the spring and the fall of 2011. But on December 23, 2011, the Department reversed itself, stating that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting, thereby opening the floodgates to all kinds of gambling on the Internet.

In the wake of the DOJ opinion, 16 states are actively considering proposals that would legalize, promote, and vastly expand Internet gambling. Delaware recently took the unprecedented steps to legalize all forms of Internet gambling, and California is expected to quickly follow. Once these and other states act it will become impossible to reverse this course of action. Consumers will suffer and Nevada’s economy will be damaged.

The 1961 Wire Act and other federal laws must be updated to make clear their relationship to Internet gambling, strengthen enforcement tools, and enhance penalties, resulting in a substantial and sustainable decrease in Internet gambling. Failure to act will result in a patchwork regulatory system among states providing little if any consumer protections and jeopardizing the viability of the regulated gaming industry.

To preserve the gaming industry within Nevada, we decided that Internet gambling laws needed to be reformed while providing a path forward for regulated online poker. Since the root of the problem is the DOJ opinion, it is important to address that matter. This opinion has effectively rewritten the law and opened the door to the wholesale expansion of gambling online. Congress must put federal law on a sounder and firmer footing. The problem should be addressed by both Chambers in a way that maximizes the chance for passage of meaningful legislation that will resolve this issue for our state.

As discussed, it would be beneficial for the House of Representatives to first address this issue and then proceed with Senate action. Any change in this strategy jeopardizes the passage of this issue in both Chambers If you think for some strategic reasoning that something should originate in the Senate than it should address the root of the issue that is plaguing our gaming industry in Nevada, namely the Wire Act. I remain committed to providing a path forward to regulated online poker and believe this is an issue that would be best addressed in the Senate after the House has acted on the core issue at hand. I am concerned by any actions that would deviate from this process and possibly jeopardize passage of this legislation. I, along with Senator Kyl, have met with more than half of our conference to educate them on this matter. We have been working hard on this issue and, while we have received significant support from our colleagues, it is predicated upon having an open and transparent legislative process, in addition to reviewing updated legislative text.

Given the widespread support this issue has received from organizations such as professional law enforcement groups, nationally-recognized Internet child and consumer protection advocates, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I believe that we have an opportunity to pass meaningful legislation that will benefit Nevada and the country. With over a dozen states already taking steps to legalize and expand Internet gambling, I recognize that we must act quickly. I am concerned with attempts to impose a deadline on a Friday afternoon during recess, providing little if any time to reconfirm the necessary support among my conference. This was not a strategy we discussed, and I am deeply concerned such a process would harm this effort. With the tremendous amount of work that has been done to secure support for this issue and regulated online poker, it would be extremely disappointing to let process set this issue back, or worse, negate all of the bipartisan work that has been done to date.

Sincerely,

DEAN HELLER
U.S. Senator


* I edited several OCR errors, it may still contain some.

Thanks sba. Pretty good letter imo

I am still shocked that Red is pushing to get a bill through this month. That continous spending bill would be a perfect vehicle as there is a deadline September 28th. Still, I doubt they could pull enough votes together...sigh.

big sighhh i wish we had a few people that were able to talk in person to each senator and give them the break down of poker and sway a few minds.

Gives us some general details on Reid's bill.

Dean Heller tells Harry Reid that House, not Senate, should lead on poker*legislation

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...enate-schedule

rush rush rush

Sorry to have to throw cold water on hopes here, BUT this public sniping is clearly a finger-pointing exercise because the prospects of Senate passage of a bill are nil. Reid has been pointing at Heller, and Heller is throwing out a red-herring of "Let's go through the House first".

In July at the PPA Town Hall at the Rio, Joe Barton, the House Republican pushing online poker very clearly explained how proceeding thru the House first was NOT possible in 2012 at that point, due to House Rules. Barton was very specific and candid that ANY bill in 2012 would have to come from the Senate, to which the House could agree. He cited some House Rules, altho you might need to check the tape to see what they were. (He reiterated this point to me in the hallway later.)

Is someone blowing smoke about now proceeding thru the House for a lame duck effort or was Barton blowing smoke in July ? (I personally felt Barton was very credible in July.)

I read the theories posted above about how it is best to pass an anti-gambling House bill first, then offer a Safe Harbor in the Senate, but that presupposes that a House bill or attachment is feasible .... Barton said it was not, back in July.

I would be pleased to be wrong on this, but this "rift" really looks like a fallout from failure, especially in the context of a close Senate race between Heller and Berkley.

^ agree. Just from skimming the recent posts in this thread, it looks a lit like pure posturing knowing that chances are grim. Trying to push it before the recess seems really dubious. On a related note, I really want 538 to start running their congressional models. I am interested to see how those compositions are likely to change.

I don't know what 'rule' he could have been talking about, under the Constitution's Origination Clause, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."

Barton likely meant he couldn't get a full blown bill to a vote in the House because of all the partisanship, but could round up the votes for one if it passed through the Senate first.

The likely reason Reid wouldn't want the bill to originate in the House is that it would then be open for not only his own poker amendment, but any other amendments such as Tribal interest group proposals or even generic GOP tax cuts.

But if the Senate, intentionally or even inadvertently, originates a revenue-raising bill, any Representative has the right to motion for a "blue-slip resolution" to kill it.

I actually see all of this as having nothing to do with online poker and everything to do with Heller vs Berkley. My view is a complete 180° from you. I see it as a great sign that they are quibbling over strategy and not content. Quibblers gonna quibble.

Interesting, according to this the states would have to opt-in to the federal framework. Its looking like Heller can't get any GOP senators to commit to the bill publicly before the election. I suspect some are ready to support it but don't want their position to be known by the public. Because Reid wants Berkley to win, he is trying to make Heller look bad, and Heller is defending himself by saying "This has to start in the House anyway to pass, so don't blame me for not getting GOP support." Just political posturing before Nov 6th.

We aren't gonna know where things stand for passage until after the election. Heller could be hearing "I'm ok with the bill, but keep that to yourself" from various GOP senators at this point.

My paranoid worry is if it becomes apparent to Reid and Heller/Berkley that the support just isn't there in the lame duck for the poker carveout. Would Reid and his Vegas casino backers then just try and clamp down on all internet gaming including poker, reasoning that a 50 state free for all is even worse for them ? That theory is just crazy talk, right?

I understand, but they should not diverge in purpose.

IMO we ought not encourage lawmakers to seek to ban offshore poker. The ones opposed to us already wish to ban it. Supportive ones will back our bill. Our goal is simple -- demonstrate widespread public, organized support for online poker.

I 100% agree with the bolded, but the best (and realistically, only) method of demonstrating this is by continuing to play on tracked US facing sites, sending out organized 'please let us play' messages may diminish the grassroots impact.

But now that the DOJ has invoked the nuclear option of deploying the Travel Act in the Black Friday claims, the Federal government is now taking the legal position that anyone who deposits money on an unlicensed poker site is a co-conspirator in an organized criminal enterprise.

We should be reminding them that we are not criminals, we are going to continue to play, and because we are organized they will either have to arrest all one million plus of us or regulate it.

Note: Unsubstantiated speculation/rumor, seems highly unlikely to me.

Random vague rumblings among anti-poker organizations/groups that the administration is considering doing something via executive order as part of a cyber security move.

I've heard this a few times re: cyber legislation but what possible place does poker have there? Are these folks suggesting an executive order amending the Wire Act coupled with cyber security amendments?

I don't really see how it would/could work, and they had no clue, but they definitely were talking executive order.

Maybe some kind of directive to the DOJ to make a new ruling? I can't see how anything that could be done here would hurt the anti-gambling crowd. hmm

obama's gonna make an executive order explicitly allowing any state to legalize any kind of online gambling they want, prizes can pool and cross state lines freely... republicans spearhead hr2366 into passage before the election.

Not before the election. It's a no win either way

Well, I agree also this has everything to do with Heller v. Berkley. Where we differ is, I believe that fight has been taken up public priority over online poker because they both know online poker ain't passing and want to smear some blame.

get a ****in avatar