Draft of Reid/Kyl Online Poker Bill Obtained by PPA, by Chris Grove

http://onlinepokerreport.com/5066/reid-kyl-bill-draft/

Edit: QJs posted the bill: http://quadjacks.com/wp-content/uplo...oker-Bill1.pdf

For more on Chris Grove, please check out my interview with him from earlier this week (listen here).

Wow removing the player penalties language is a fantastic surprised! It sounds like we have a reasonable bill! If anyone has politico pro, I believe you can access a link of the bill.

I hope Texas PPA talks some since into our state if this comes out...

Google’s earnings flub – Draft Internet poker bill favors Reid’s home state – Robocall rage – Eshoo on STEM: The need is there [politico.com]

There are (free) links to SEC and other government filings, and from a quick reading it appears the link to the Reid/poker story (and a copy of the bill) are the only thing on the page that are behind their paywall.


I'll be checking the cushions in my living room for a spare $8500.


We'll have a copy soon:

Victor Rocha
‏
@VictorRocha1

I just got a draft of the Reid bill. Formatting it for my website. Should be up soon.

His website: http://pechanga.net/

Pechanga.net link to bill [HTML]:

http://www.pechanga.net/content/draf...ine-poker-bill

And Quadjacks has a copy up:

http://quadjacks.com/wp-content/uplo...oker-Bill1.pdf

Someone was thinking about New Jersey:

SEC. 404. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall remain in effect and will continue to apply to other persons and circumstances.

I just got the IM on that. Congrats to Marco! I updated the OP with the link.

this is standard language that is in nearly every single bill passed by congress, regardless of the subject matter

Eagerly awaiting PokerX's analysis of this.

Also is anyone against Nevada being the sole arbitrator of Ipoker regulation, outside of the tribes obv?

Thanks for everyone's hard work getting it up.

Don't sweat the severability clause. Karak's right on this one.

Will look at it tonight, and maybe comment on it later on.

I personally am more curious in figuring out whose money is behind the legislation. Kyl is not as slick, as say Reid, in hiding his coin-operatediveness.

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...bill-revealed/

'The bill also includes a “bad actor” provision that restricts entities that were involved in internet gambling in the US after the enactment of UIGEA in 2006. There will be a five-year block on such operators, unless they can convince a court that no federal or state law was breached during this time.'

Are Stars/FTP expected to get around this?

For anyone who has read the bill, is this accurate? This could mean no blackout.

I wouldn't mind some kind of block, that way anyone can enter the market without getting slaughtered by Pokerstars. Dream situation would be 1 year block where at least one more brand can put up the competition, i.e lots of traffic on Party Poker when Stars/FTP re-entry the US market.

I'm wondering if FTP 2.0 can be called a new clean company able to enter USA market.

For example, as part of DOJ agreement was Isai S. not allowed to be part of FTP 2.0?

Quick thoughts having skimmed the bill (I'll read it in full over the weekend):

1. There are a minimum of three states/Indian tribes to license.
2. The bill is an "opt-in" bill.
3. If I'm reading this correctly, there's a 450 day period for the date of first issuance of licenses (15 month blackout period); Section 114.
4. Licensees pay a 16% fee of "online poker receipts".
That looks like a 16% tax on deposits.
5. The tax on deposits appears to be allocated 14% states/2% feds.
6. Of the state portion, 70% is based on the customer's location and 30% on the regulators' location.
7. Backup withholding required for those who don't submit social security numbers.
8. Information sent to the IRS on anyone who participates; the IRS to receive the annual net online winnings of all participants (and names, addresses, and ssn's).
9. A 1099 will be sent to all participants.

This is, of course, just a proposal and it almost certainly will be amended before it passes (if it passes). Please note that I spent all of about 30 minutes reading this, so I could easily have erred in reading a passage.

-- Russ Fox

I'm pretty sure it was said that PS agreed with DOJ to be able to offer games to USA once leg passes. Assuming no grace period. Could be wrong though..

What do you mean by "deposits?"

No. My interpretation of it is this is not true at all. It does put Nevada in a good position to be a leader based on their experience.

That looks like a tax on rake to me. I think Skall or Rich said the same in the other locked thread.

Skall has confirmed that the tax is on rake and not deposits.

From the other thread;

Did we win?

The DOJ agreed not to stand in Stars way to attempt to get licensed. The DOJ can't control what Congress passes into law. If the bill passes as it is, Stars or FTP won't be receiving a license for 5 years unless they can prove they didn't violate state/federal law.

I appreciate your analysis... good stuff. Just one question:

I'm fairly certain that wasn't intended as a tax on deposits. Just from the plain language of the bill it seems pretty clearly to apply to rake and tournament fees, not deposits themselves.

Don't assume too much. It's way too early to tell, because with all of these sites, there will be new competition, and new ways to market online poker. If anything, Stars may become a dinosaur. You never can tell, and from the 20 years or so we've had the WWW, tough to really predict the future with any certainty.