Open Side Menu Go to the Top

03-09-2013 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
I am glad you put "IMHO" in this post. Your legal theory, while interesting, is pretty unique to you.

Nearly everyone else thinks that it is no big deal for Congress to draw distinctions between various kinds of internet gambling. It already, for example, prohibits online sports betting while allowing online horse race betting while prohibiting interstate (but not intrastate) sales of lottery tickets.

The actual general consensus among the legal community is that so long as all the rules (whatever they are) are applicable to all the states, Congress's actions will be judged under the rational basis test just like almost all other Commerce Clause preemption issues.

Skallagrim
You might try speaking to a gaming lawyer who isn't on the industry payroll, Professor Nelson Rose for one spoke up with concern about the Barton bill possibly being a Trojan gift horse.

The precedent established under Garcia and reaffirmed in Reno v Condon is that the restriction/preemption on commerce must apply to everyone in order to apply to States, and in those cases the restriction did apply to everyone so a rational basis was sufficient.

SCOTUS has yet to review a case in which Congress attempted to use a rational only basis to prevent States from entering into an area of commerce while in the next breath entering into that area itself.

A good argument for what Barton does is likely the one the authors attempted to make, that Congress isn't actually entering into the commerce of online gambling, by asserting that poker doesn't fit the traditional definition of gambling.

That at least gets them back into the realm of rational basis, but the mistake in Barton was isolating poker while restricting States from offering even less historically problematic games such as bingo or more predominantly skill based-contests such as bridge, doing that doesn't even pass the smell let alone rational basis test.

If I was assigned the task of writing the statute, I would not ban States from offering 'games with drawing more than once daily', I would preempt States from putting Class III gaming online (allowing them to do as they please with bingo and bridge etc.) and base my argument for federal regulation of online poker on it's wide spread popularity and potential for consumers to be defrauded, etc.

Under that construction, the States would not be preempted from authorizing commerce which the fed government would itself be authorizing, both States and the Federal government would be able to authorize online Class II gaming, with the preemption on poker regulation rationally related to consumer protection.

I do believe it's possible to write a statute which accomplishes much of what Reid/Barton would like to do without us getting bitten in the ass by poker being severed, but it wouldn't be easy and neither of their previous attempts at writing one succeeded IMHO.

Last edited by tamiller866; 03-09-2013 at 05:40 PM. Reason: doh!
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring
03-09-2013 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricAAne
What's the legal basis for the law being subject to strict scrutiny rather than rational basis?
In this case, both the Barton bill and leaked Reid bills attempted to put State governments on a lower footing under the law then they allowed themselves to be placed on - preempting States from authorizing online gaming while authorizing it themselves.

Congress can do that, they did it in the case of atomic energy e.g., but my guess is that the courts may rule that fewer lives could be lost to playing online poker than a nuclear meltdown.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-09-2013 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
FYP. The Reid bill sucked.
I should have been more clear, I agree the Barton bill is better, but I'd even be happy with the Reid bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
It's the reason they are 'trying' that should upset all US poker players, and that reason is that they know if they don't pass legislation to keep the genie in the bottle before cards go in the air, millions of Americans, whether it be through commercial or government lottery authorization, with a smart phone or home computer will soon have a casino at their fingertips, nullifying the billion dollar investment the AGA members have in territorial monopolies.

These folks were our friends when they were using the skill element of poker as an excuse to achieve their own goals, but now that we've won the argument as to whether the benefits (revenue) of online gambling outweigh the perils in many States, any 'skill game' related arguments only serve to tip the scales back in favor of the opposition.

There just isn't that much revenue to be made (in government terms) from online gambling if it's relegated to poker only, and even less if it's shared with the Federal government and regulating (Nevada) States.
Good points, and I agree their motivations are frustrating and not conducive to the best interests of poker, but yeah, as you mentioned, any time the government's motivations appeared to be in the best interest of poker were probably just a coincidence. Personally, I can be frustrated with the politics of it but still be happy that some politicians are continuing to take their (long) shots at passing something which would lead to broader licensing of poker.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-09-2013 , 07:40 PM
A year ago, posting this thread would result in 'omg one time'. Now it's all meh. Don't really care.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-09-2013 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerok
A year ago, posting this thread would result in 'omg one time'. Now it's all meh. Don't really care.
which explains why the article was on the wire for almost 4 hours when I saw it, and nobody had posted about it yet.

Shifting political winds. Gotta love 'em.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthief09
is there a chance that a Reid Bill would be deemed unconstitutional? I thought gaming is states' rights. is it the internet that makes everything muddled?
Well, the District Court that enjoined New Jersey's sports betting rejected that argument. NJ will appeal all the way to the Supremes if needed, according to Gov. Christie.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 02:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
...
To preempt States from authorizing commerce within their borders via a mere rational basis argument, the courts have consistently held that the preemption must be generally applicable - if it's such a severe threat to preempt States from authorizing it, they must also prohibit everyone else in the Federation from doing it......
Even the Federation gambles, when necessary to satisfy some contrived plot device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royale
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote
Well, the District Court that enjoined New Jersey's sports betting rejected that argument. NJ will appeal all the way to the Supremes if needed, according to Gov. Christie.
Judge Shipp within his own ruling tacitly admitted that PASPA on it's own unconstitutionally prohibits States from the commerce of sports betting by not also extending that prohibition throughout the Federation .

He did a Chief Justice Roberts impersonation however, by interpreting the statute as 'plugging a hole' in Title 18 - under which everyone other than States are prohibited from the commerce of sports betting through State law predicated enforcement statutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote
Even the Federation gambles, when necessary to satisfy some contrived plot device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royale
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 07:39 AM
This is nothing more than attempt by Caesars to exclude PS From the US market.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 07:41 AM
>.< no bueno, need PS in the US!
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 07:49 AM
Quote:
But polite conversations between politicians aside, is there any substantive, directed process under way to produce a poker bill before it’s too late for federal intervention?

Those who have been past architects of the effort — from Reid’s chief of staff to top casino lobbyists — say no.
Quote:
Soon, the point of federal legislation could be rendered moot, advocates of a federal bill argue, because there will be too many state systems that would need to be grandfathered into new federal rules.
Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...#ixzz2N8WeCFUf

This is startling, they literally, publicly admit that the true 'purpose' of Federal legislation is to keep other States out of online gambling, just as they did with PASPA in sports betting.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 09:48 AM
"Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring"


hahaha, likely story every year from these clowns. It is just their way to slow down the state legislation process from passing gambling related material at the state route because these bills have a 99.99% chance of failing in our stupid government layout to pass bills. Federal route would be the way to go but obviously any questionable bill will never make it through congress... we should concentrate all efforts on the state route.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
You might try speaking to a gaming lawyer who isn't on the industry payroll, Professor Nelson Rose for one spoke up with concern about the Barton bill possibly being a Trojan gift horse.

The precedent established under Garcia and reaffirmed in Reno v Condon is that the restriction/preemption on commerce must apply to everyone in order to apply to States, and in those cases the restriction did apply to everyone so a rational basis was sufficient.

SCOTUS has yet to review a case in which Congress attempted to use a rational only basis to prevent States from entering into an area of commerce while in the next breath entering into that area itself.

A good argument for what Barton does is likely the one the authors attempted to make, that Congress isn't actually entering into the commerce of online gambling, by asserting that poker doesn't fit the traditional definition of gambling.

That at least gets them back into the realm of rational basis, but the mistake in Barton was isolating poker while restricting States from offering even less historically problematic games such as bingo or more predominantly skill based-contests such as bridge, doing that doesn't even pass the smell let alone rational basis test.

If I was assigned the task of writing the statute, I would not ban States from offering 'games with drawing more than once daily', I would preempt States from putting Class III gaming online (allowing them to do as they please with bingo and bridge etc.) and base my argument for federal regulation of online poker on it's wide spread popularity and potential for consumers to be defrauded, etc.

Under that construction, the States would not be preempted from authorizing commerce which the fed government would itself be authorizing, both States and the Federal government would be able to authorize online Class II gaming, with the preemption on poker regulation rationally related to consumer protection.

I do believe it's possible to write a statute which accomplishes much of what Reid/Barton would like to do without us getting bitten in the ass by poker being severed, but it wouldn't be easy and neither of their previous attempts at writing one succeeded IMHO.
TAMiller, I don't have an opinion about whether a law authorizing online poker, but prohibiting other online gambling would be tested under a strict scrutiny or rationale means test. However, I will opine that it does not matter because SCOTUS will uphold the law regardless of the test. When was the last timme that SCOTUS ruled that a federal law violated its power under the Commerce Clause? It should have done so in the Obamacare case, but Justice Roberts folded at the last minute.

If SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, it will uphold any federal law dealing with online gambling. I'm not saying that it should be that way, just saying that it is that way.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 12:45 PM
i dont even care about it a federal bill anymore
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
TAMiller, I don't have an opinion about whether a law authorizing online poker, but prohibiting other online gambling would be tested under a strict scrutiny or rationale means test. However, I will opine that it does not matter because SCOTUS will uphold the law regardless of the test. When was the last timme that SCOTUS ruled that a federal law violated its power under the Commerce Clause? It should have done so in the Obamacare case, but Justice Roberts folded at the last minute.

If SCOTUS upholds Obamacare, it will uphold any federal law dealing with online gambling. I'm not saying that it should be that way, just saying that it is that way.
You answered your own question, JP, the most recent case of SCOTUS ruling that sections of a Congressional Act were unconstitutional exercises of their Commerce Clause authority was the ACA, both the individual mandate and the coercion of States to withdraw existing medicare benefits.

The court was able to find a different interpretation of the individual mandate, ruling it a proper exercise of their Tax and Spend authority, but there won't be such a bailout opportunity for an online poker bill.

What the court (Roberts) did for the ACA was unique but not a precedent for States rights, as the mandate is for private individuals not the States, when it comes to States rights the court has been consistent since National League of Cities , through New York and Printz, if Congress wants to preempt States using the Commerce Clause on a mere rational basis level of scrutiny it needs only to pass three hurdles;

1) The Act must be generally applicable, they can't place States on a lower footing than private citizens, corporations or the Federal government.

2) The Act must actually relate directly to commerce, not a gun that could be used in commerce or a crime which could inhibit commerce.

3) Most importantly, the courts have held over and over that Congress actually has to vote for what authority it is they are trying yo usurp from the States, otherwise there would be no repercussion for their voting decisions.

They can't disguise preemption through coercion, commandeering or in the case of PASPA establishing a national prohibition on sports betting which exempts one State without anyone having ever had to face his/her constituents for having cast such a ballot (private sports betting and pools are prohibited by State laws).

If congress wants to ban all online gambling it needs to vote to ban all online gambling, if it wants to ban only casino games while allowing peer-to-peer contests played for money it needs to vote that way, if it wants to preempt States only in the area of poker regulation it needs to vote that way, but they can't vote to have their cake, share it with Nevada and eat it too.

So if Congress can write an online poker bill which passes those three examinations then we will have nothing to worry about, but none of the previous bills made it over hurdle number one.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 01:39 PM
one has to wonder if PStars is delaying their acquisition of Atlantic Club because of a looming Federal Bill that would retain a bad actor clause.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by idun215
one has to wonder if PStars is delaying their acquisition of Atlantic Club because of a looming Federal Bill that would retain a bad actor clause.
PokerStars is delaying purchase until they get a NJ license, if/when that is successful they will want to close the deal as quickly as possible because any federal bill is likely to include a grandfather clause for anyone previously approved by a qualified (experienced) State.

Caesars/AGA wants to do anything/everything they can to prevent/delay that from happening, and if it does happen, I'll expect PokerStars/PPA to turn on a dime and revert to supporting Federal legislation.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-10-2013 , 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrewOnTilt
which explains why the article was on the wire for almost 4 hours when I saw it, and nobody had posted about it yet.

Shifting political winds. Gotta love 'em.
Actually G911 ran a brief story about Barton over a week ago.

Really though, we gotta watch this close, we are getting lots of positive movement from states, any federal bill should only compliment states efforts and clarify states ability to compact with each other and not prevent ROW skins from playing against American skins.

OBG
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-11-2013 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Caesars/AGA wants to do anything/everything they can to prevent/delay that from happening, and if it does happen, I'll expect PokerStars/PPA to turn on a dime and revert to supporting Federal legislation.
It wouldn't be a change. PPA supported federal and state bills in the past and may support a new federal bill in the future if it's good for players. That bar is clearly higher now than it was a year or two ago, or course.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-11-2013 , 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthief09
I wonder if Daily Action Plans should start urging politicians to oppose federal legislation. we don't need that federal hail mary pass like we have the past several years.
I think we still want to play offense on the Hill, if given the opportunity. It's our best defense.

The threat of federal legislation also helps give the states a nudge to move forward on their legislation. In some cases, it's just one or two stakeholders holding up movement in hopes of getting a bigger piece of the pie. If we threaten to take away the pie, they may come into line.

Of course, if it's a bad bill, we can lobby for revisions or oppose it outright.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-11-2013 , 06:47 PM
well, nothing will get the feds moving faster than states trying to exert their rights
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-11-2013 , 07:04 PM
If Reid and company have something actionable that looks like the Barton bill or is better than the Reid bill and they want to hold committee meetings on it tomorrow and bring to a floor vote very soon, great, lets make one fast lash push.

After that, this push doesnt deserve our time and effort. You guys have had more wins in the last month than we had in pushing Federal legislation for 6 years. No need to stunt the momentum at the state level with a Harry Reid gift to Caesars/Nevada and NJ certainly must be given the right to proceed on its own.

If Reid and company want our support, they can earn it back by supporting a real player friendly bill and backing it with real political capital.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-12-2013 , 01:48 AM
and bring back casual fridays!!
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-12-2013 , 05:38 AM
the best thing that can happen imo IS that more states outright legalize online gambling and/or ipoker

if they combine player pools or not is complete fodder


the main thing is that these senators see that the FEDERAL govt is being cut out of the gambling/ipoker revenue is the single most important incentive that can move them to make it federal
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
03-12-2013 , 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aggo
the best thing that can happen imo IS that more states outright legalize online gambling and/or ipoker

if they combine player pools or not is complete fodder


the main thing is that these senators see that the FEDERAL govt is being cut out of the gambling/ipoker revenue is the single most important incentive that can move them to make it federal
This argument is specious. The feds could simply impose a tax on Internet wagering without also "making it federal", that is without imposing universal federal regulation. There is already an example of this - the federal excise tax on all sports wagering.

As more states come on board with licensed Internet gambling, it will become harder to pass a federal bill which imposes federal rules and oversight on the activity, not easier.
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring Quote
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Reuters: Reid, Heller, Barton to introduce federal poker bills this spring

      
m