I think they can, but its far from consequence free.

So hypothetically how would they get that done? What would the consequences be? Back to step1 basically and facing heat from the gov?

Well when you are a new organization that supports the Federal regulation of online poker then, when the sausage grinder that is democracy produces a bill that regulates online poker, you say thanks but no thanks and oppose the bill you are going to lose most of your allies. Why would they stick their neck out for poker again? Pretty easy for enemies to say "see, this group supports the current illegal sites" as well.

This is especially true if our allies don't see what we see as dealbreakers as big issues.

You vastly underestimate the difficulties of regulating the internet. You literally have no idea what you are talking about. More of the same though I suppose.

Also I hope you can provide the name of the bill (or future bill) that will make online gaming illegal in the US, as of now there is only a cloudy set of rules that banks are incapable of following that seems quite easy to surpass.

It's obvious where you are coming from. You can hear it in your tone. You think *know you are right and nothing in the world could convince you otherwise. You aren't willing to risk the idea of uncertainy, so you preach the gospel of apocalypse. Well I don't buy it. You have no information at all that makes your view unique or otherwise "in the know", your just another person with a keyboard.

IMO, PS would be willing to ignore US law to continue serving the US market. PS is obeying Italian law because its market is small and it must obey its laws if it is ever going to be publicly traded. However, if it became apparent that no online poker site serving the US market can be publicly traded, then IMO PS would likely continue to serve the US market regardless of US law and remain privately held. PS will not give up the profits of the US market.

In fact, I wonder what PP would do if it became apparent that it will never be able to serve the US market and remain a publicly traded company. It seems to me that their strategy is based on obtaining a license to serve the US market in the future. But what if the US does ban online poker sites from serving US citizens? Is it worth being traded on the LSE if an online poker site cannot serve the US market?

I agree that I do not envy the PPA leadership. It will have some tough decisions this year. The PPA could stop support for an online gambling bill, but doing so would likely end its lobbying efforts and force it to adopt iMEGA strategy of litigation to oppose restrictions on online poker. I hope that the final bill does not come close to forcing such a momentous decision.

They could still lobby, and they could still be active at the state level even if this bill fails. They could also kill it behind the scenes in a manner that was less damaging for the future.

Its possible that Stars could still serve the US should a law prohibiting online poker pass. I just see no evidence from any of Stars deeds or actions that this would occur

Party has sort of made their bed given their settlement. Theoretically they could go private and return to the US, but Im not sure they could do it without problems and without violating their agreement with the DOJ

hmmm i disagree...

Here we are, folks, in the middle of history in the making. This is the evolution of the very first licensing, regulation and taxation of internet commerce. Step back a moment and look at the whole forest. These are the issues involved in this historic event:

Individual freedom and choice.
Fair and free trade - international and inter-state.
States rights.
Personal resposibility vs. government intervention.

Everyone in this discussion should take a moment to give themselves a pat on the back for participating in this process.

That can't be right.

Do you know of any other business that requires a license to operate on the internet?

Ha.. only every stock/options/futures brokerage house in North America.

Try selling child porn or drugs or guns online and see where that gets you as well.

The bottom line is online poker needs to be regulated for several good reasons and if it happens it will be a huge advantage to us 2+2 ers and we should all be doing our damnedest to help that happen.

Is that a license to operate on the internet specifically, or just the same license they have to operate such a business in general?

I'm talking about licensing and regulation, not prohibited activities.

I agree.

The US will be protectionist even if it regulates, and its withdrawal from its GATS commitments means it doesn’t have to conform to any WTO regulation on internet gambling. - Gigi Levy, 888 CEO.

Protectionism is the great risk, since then we'd be left with less volume, less competition among sites, and no access to foreign players... and it could be worse than that: we might end up living in a state with no access to online poker at all.

Protectionism is a greater risk with regulation than without. Currently, no one in the US really loses when we play poker on overseas sites. With regulation, however, overseas sites could be competing against state monopolis, a federal monopoly, or public/private codependencies (e.g. B&M casinos with Nevada's government). Having something to protect is what will make them step up their game. They'll make it much more difficult than it is now to play on overseas sites. The remaining US-friendly overseas sites may stop taking US players. US competitors, whether government, private, or partnerships, would certainly make payment processing even more difficult.

It isn't even a treaty violation to discriminate against overseas operators any more since, since the US pulled out of its WTO obligations with regards to gambling.

We must be aware of the nature of the beast before we get into bed with him. I think it's at best a coinflip whether regulation would be better or worse for online poker players.

First, the US never completed its withdrawal from its WTO commitments because it has never reached any agreement with Antigua. In addition, the agreement with EU is in doubt.

Second, online poker sites can use foreign payment processors to accept credit cards and issue foreign bank checks in US dollars. They can use bank wire transfers from foreign banks. The US cannot stop these methods. Thus, any US site will have to compete with PS, FTP and other offshore poker sites.

I do agree that regulation may be worse for US players because it may turn them into tax evaders. Bodog is probably salivating at the prospect of US regulation maybe forcing some of the larger poker rooms out of the US market. IMO, PS and FTP are making too much money to leave no matter what happens.

Everything we've seen seems to indicate that the status quo is unstable. Many US interests seem to feel threatened by online poker. Aside from UIGEA, we've seen actions in various states and the recent SDNY action. FoF and the NFL are still focused on this, as our opponents in Congress. IMO we're stuck until US-based sites have access to the market. There is more than one way to achieve that, but it seems we're stuck until this occurs.

I agree that a regulated system COULD end up worse, but it would take a really bad bill for that to happen. It's up to us to get the best possible bill.

Unfortunately, that could happen without regulation just as easily.

This is the bottom line. They are probably going to pass a bill that taxes the hell out of poker, leaving no room for pros to make money. It will be like the lottery. Then they have the 50% thing that dares you to try to deposit overseas and make a living. You will be a tax evader like JP said.

All this wrapped in a beautiful package that makes the naive believe they are finally being freed from playing illegally.

It is not illegal now, the funds seized are going to be given back to the poker sites I would think. This will stop future seizures.

Then again we could all be going back and forth over nothing. What if the Menendez bill stops the UIGEA, gets rid of the 50%, and gives us what we want? We really should wait until it is unveiled, then we can choose sides.

TE, Im a little unclear as to what you mean here. Obviously some players evade taxes now, but you can be an honest player and pay your taxes under the current system. In a world with a 50% tax on deposits, that's not possible.

We dont have a bill that, as written, DOESNT fit this description

I meant that Congress could pass a standalone 50% tax on deposits if they so chose.

I think we're worrying too early. The Menendez bill isn't even out yet, and we've not yet seen what we can do with the Frank bill.

Also, we have a very important bill -- the UIGEA delay -- that's more important than any of these other bills. I hope we're all calling Congress to tell them to pass that bill.

Why do write "probably"? There's no evidence of that.

+1

Ah, gotcha. I don't think this is much of a worry during this Congress. Agreed that its a danger in the future, although Id imagine getting it through as a standalone would be tough. Glad the UIGEA writers didn't think of this one (which, incidentally, is a good argument for why we really need to fight this. Anything that would actually look good in a bill our opponents could write, is probably bad for us.

I disagree here, as is probably clear by now. Its far too early to abandon the bills, as there is real potential there, and we should be working with lawmakers.

It not too early to worry. Altering bills in committee is going to be challenging and we need to be expressing to Congress that while we absolutely support regulation, we can't support the bill without a couple of critical changes.

Unconditional support of the current bills is a tough sell because, well, they aren't positive bills for us as written IMO (and we havent seen the Menendez bill, but from what Skall wrote it didnt sound as if meaningful changes to the state opt-out clauses or 50% deposit tax were present in the bill. I may, of course, be wrong on that).

We also need to worry now about trying to figure out what various changes to the state opt-out clause that we may lobby for will mean in practice. I know its a hard problem, but I have no idea how the PPA is going to support or oppose a bill without a very good idea about how many states will opt-in or opt-out.

If the strategy is to just accept a bill that allows most states to opt-out and then try to fight back at the state level when states do opt-out, I will say that I believe that's a flawed strategy, or at least that the bill is being packaged in a flawed way.

100% true. The UIGEA bill is an obvious positive and would be a huge victory for us. We should probably push that more since most of the publicity I see revolves around the other Frank/McDermott/Menendez bills. I wasn't considering that as a regulation bill since it just buys more time to craft regulation, otherwise we're at the same place in 12/10 we will be now in 12/09.

A form that allows people to easily send in a letter supporting that specific bill alone might be a good idea.

How are they taxing the hell out of poker? Frankly, if anything they aren't taxing licensed poker ENOUGH in the current bill. There are no extra taxes on players, which is good, and the McDermott bill may actually help gamblers under the tax code (cant remember if the netting language is in this years bill).

Id like the current bill much better if they matched the Fed cut with a cut for states that opt-in. I think the Fed cut was like 2%, they can tax sites 4% of deposits and sites are still going to apply for licenses. Just the lower transaction costs from being able to freely transact with players will offset that cost.

We have a bill that delays the UIGEA, I doubt we're going to get one with an outright appeal. There's no evidence that is forthcoming.

The bill can't get rid of the 50% tax. I mean, it can not include the tax, but any bills would still have to be reconciled in committee so if one bill has the language we're are still in danger from the provision. Hence the argument now from some Democrats to take the strategy of just getting SOMETHING on healthcare passed the Senate Finance committee, then just move the bill to the left in committee to neuter the Blue Dogs on the Finance committee.

So in other words, the only thing that gets rid of the 50% tax is really the language being removed from the McDermott bill.

Plus, is my civics knowledge completely off, or don't all revenue bills have to start in the House of Representatives anyways? So, in other words, I wouldnt expect the tax in this bill regardless.

Any committee members can propose changes or amendments to any bill, and the committee votes yay or nay. If it passes in committee, the bill is changed before it goes to the floor. It doesn't matter whether or not wording such as the 50% is or isn't in the bill(s) submitted to the committee - it can get added in.

If we don't push through a bill of some sort now for federal licensing and regulation, we will be in deep trouble in very short order. It is naive to think that it won't get much more difficult to play online poker. Here are some of the things that are likely to happen:

1. The UIGEA will go into full force, and the DOJ will increase actions against online gambling sites as well as online poker sites.

2. Financial transactions will become more difficult and more expensive.

3. The media publicity surrounding the implementation of the UIGEA and the actions against the sites, plus the greater difficulties of financial transactions, will cut player participation.

4. State initiatives for state licensing and regulation of online poker will gain steam. These will legalize in-state operations, and outlaw any out-of-state internet offerings.

5. The US will complete its withdrawal of gambling commitments at the WTO.

In addition, it would be very easy for the federal government to take further action that will make it impossible to play the foreign sites without tax evasion. This would not take an act of congress - only changes in the IRS tax regulations. I can think of a way this could be done, but I don't want to spell it out publicly.

Our best bet is to continue to support the Frank bill now, and push hard for the changes we need when it is amended in committee. Any public expression right now that the bill is not what we want is counter-productive. Reserve the push for changes till the appropriate time - when it is needed to influence the actions of the committee members working on the bill.

A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the momentum these things can take upon themselves. I'd rather push for the right bill now than gamble that we can change it after it's picked up a head of steam.

I meant that I wouldn't expect the Menendez bill to have the 50% tax in it when its introduced, but excellent point about the committee process.

I agree with the gist, but not all the specifics. In the long run, we need to get a licensing bill passed. It doesn't do us much good if the licensing bill that we pass leads to a world that looks a lot like what you describe in point 4 (i.e. 40 states opt-out and foreign sites don't get licenses).

Just because we are under fire doesnt mean we turn the gun on ourselves and create self-inflicted wounds.

Sure, the PPA should absolutely not be questioning the bill in public now. I agree with this 110%.

The PPA shouldn't be bringing full resources to bear in support of voting for the current bill as written.

If they do, they need to communicate more with the casual rank and file members (not the people who read this legislation forum) that there is a decent chance the bill they are asking them to support will cut off their access to internet poker depending on which state they live in. The general impression from what's out there in the media and PPA communications is that if this bill passes, internet poker will be legal and regulated for all. That's clearly not the case.

.

I think this is exactly backwards. I do realize the momentum these things can take upon themselves, which is why I hate that gamble. If we push the bill now and pick up that momentum so the bill is basically going to pass regardless, then can't get the changes we want made, where does that leave us?