I support the concept of an opt-out mainly because that's all we'll get through Congress. I didn't say I'd support ANY opt-out, though. For example, the 50% player tax on deposits to unlicensed sites, provisions that give states authority to prohibit online poker, and the part of the bill that permits state governors to opt out on their own are very problematic. I hope we can improve these aspects of the bill.

I work full time as an engineer, but I have had years where I've made more from poker than from engineering. I like knowing that I can fall back on poker whenever I want. It makes my life much less stressful.

I don't wish to lose poker short-term in my state (or even to be stuck at different sites and a hefty deposit tax while waiting this out), but let's think long-term. The way things are now, it's hard to plan into the future. Governors keep attacking, Congress keeps attacking, the DoJ has been relentless, and Republican Party put a ban in its past three platforms (2000, 2004, and 2008). On top of that, American B&M casinos and lotteries can't be expected not to push back against offshore sites if they aren't permitted to compete. On top of all that, the Focus on the Family crowd thinks God told them to stop you and me from playing poker in our own homes. This isn't really a recipe for stability, and if you do something for a living, it's nice to know it will exist in five years.

IMO, this work to get poker taken care of in a manner where it's stable and growing throughout the US is what will get us where we need to be for long-term success.

Nice summary TE. Lets be clear that we are asking for a lot of sacrifice from people in opt-out states to support this, which is why I think that outside of these forums the PPA should emphasize the state opt-out issue more.

Yes we don't know the final form, but we do know that state opt-outs will be in there and, even in a good bill, the PPA is going to be asking for some people to support reducing their access to poker.

I just think being completely and totally up front about that is the best way to go even if it makes picking up support for the bills a little bit harder. Im not saying the PPA hasnt been up front about it, but I would bet a significant minority of membership is not aware of this and I think the PPA should be working to correct that. Its just the right thing to do and will prevent both A) backlash and B) support collapsing at crunch time because people thought they were supporting something different than they were actually supporting.

PPA is currently planning to put out an action alert in September to have everyone contact their state officials. It will be based on the one I posted here and on my blog at http://poker.townhall.com . The opt out issue will be explained there, by definition.

You asked us questions and we're answering them. The problem is that you're demanding apologies from people who were not involved and who are not PPA employees.

I just want to make sure we dont softpedal it. I think that's a great idea.

Why not a bill that addresses US companies instead of global companies? Couldn't we push for legislation that doesn't say anything about foreign companies, but does say that US companies would not be committing a crime if they offered poker in the US, and states could opt-in or out of that or whatever they wanted? The point is in changing legality for US companies, but not hurting foreign companies (and thus not hurting the positives of the status quo)

How do we get Congress to pass a bill that puts US companies at a competitive disadvantage?

I'm not sure.

The current competitive disadvantage is WAY worse than it would be though. In fact, the US advantage is exactly zero.

Is there no way to get US companies and more US players involved without harming certain current companies and players? I think this is where my disconnect lies (and probably the disconnect of many people who don't pay attention to the legislation forum). Those of us who are lay never envisioned that a push for US legislation would involved a pull back from the status quo. We think "Just get the US involved, just make it not a crime for US citizens and companies, it's that simple". Well, it's not that simple obviously, but when being confronted with the notion that it's not possible to get the US involved without harming other interests it's strikes me in a bad way

I'm probably not explaining it well. Here's my disconnect: It's not currently a crime for PS and FTP to service the US. Now, why is it said to not be possible to get the US involved in the market without punishing what sites like PS and FTP currently do? I don't understand this. We want to make fewer criminals out of poker, right? Why then are pushing for legislation that will make more criminals?

I could very easily be wrong on all of this, I have enough experience to know that I've been wrong a lot, and I know that I don't understand the details nearly as well as others here. But I also don't understand why we can't take two steps forward without having to take one step back

Is it not plausible to push a bill that essentially just says 'It is not illegal for online poker companies to operate out of and service the US (or certain parts of the US)'? Why does the Frank bill, or any bill for that matter even have to address foreign companies? Is it really the case that there can be no domestic poker legislation that doesn't address foreign companies?


Also, I hope you guys know that I'm not trying to argue. I'm trying to understand the issue correctly, and express my concern.

It's possible. We'd have to amend the Wire Act to clarify that poker is not part of that act, then pass a bill facilitating interstate poker. Unfortunately, there is no interest in Congress to do that. In fact, until 2006, Congress was going the other way and wanted to stop all interstate poker. We're gradually changing that, but we're not quite at the point where anyone on the Hill is looking to open it up.

Unfortunately, the DoJ and many others in government believe PS and FTP are breaking the law.
We couldn't even introduce such a bill, much less pass it. Congress isn't there.

Nope, you got this right with the caveat that the DOJ is working to get this declared a crime. Its a completely legitimate concern and question.

Its just unrealistic that Congress is going to say "OK, we're going to regulate and license poker, but only if you are a US site. If you are offshore everything's cool, serve the US and don't pay us a deposit tax or subject yourself to our regulations"

Pretty much in any politically feasible sense.

Believe me, scan my posts, I share your concerns. That solution is just a non starter. Ron Paul would be the only yes vote in either the House or the Senate. Barney Frank instavotes no on that bill.

Where can I get the sign the petition banner to put on my website?