HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) - Page 6 - Poker Legislation

It does not sound like anything they are going to fix changes anything for Stars / FT. I agree with the above, I don't particularly care if Stars / FT are eligible for a license, except as far as that without them the PPA gets a lot weaker, and we are less likely to succeed.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:55 AM

#127

cardboardvox

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 69

Baca's second amendment proposes states and indian tribes need to opt-in instead of needing to opt-out.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:55 AM

#128

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

The problem with the licensing language regarding foreign sites is not what happens if/when a bill passes. If we design the bill right, there are plenty of places to play.

The problems are, given this bill is still a long shot for this Congress

A) We are going to lose a funding source. If Stars and Tilt can't get licensed, they will support the status quo. This is going to hurt the PPA and our chances in future Congress.
B) Hurts players as it makes it more likely that the big two leave the US and/or run their business short-term.

Smart amendment by Bachus, really bad that Frank supports it IMO.

The goal here is to show bipartisan support for our overall position. I believe we'll get that.

I don't see the Senate moving a bill for ALL gaming. I believe it will poker-only there, so that's where the details will matter.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:55 AM

#129

numberline

enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 80

Bachus is so far essentially supporting all amendments so as to make the final bill as restrictive as possible. I think he realizes it will pass through committee.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:56 AM

#130

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkandarAkbar

It really sounds like they want to punish those who kept allowing Americans after UIGEA and reward those who gave us the boot. Party Poker must be grinning ear to ear right now if they consider them an unintentional offender.

Yup, I mentioned this last week as a possible bad amendment to the bill. Party has done some lobbying of their own.

Hope this doesnt pass, but Frank being in agreement is bad.

Forgot to add a third problem, many of the uninformed players will hear no Tilt and no Stars and stop supporting regulation.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:57 AM

#131

niss

Wood

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 17,055

LOL Barney Frank is a genius. What a contrast with Mr. Bachus.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:58 AM

#132

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

TE,

They should at least penalize those that took bets for a period of time: 6 months...Deny them first market entrant access...How can they just dismiss a company forever and give them a life sentence for a law that they potentially turn around and pass years later which further proves that the law in the first place was a bad one.

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:58 AM

#133

SkandarAkbar

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 406

bachus "If were going legalize gambling on every Ipod in America"

lol in the Southern draw that was hysterical.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 10:59 AM

#134

GMan42

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboardvox

Baca's second amendment proposes states and indian tribes need to opt-in instead of needing to opt-out.

This would be a killer. If states have to explicitly opt in we're gonna get like <5 states.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:00 AM

#135

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Bachus notes that, under the proposed 90-day opt out, there's an issue because some states would not even be able to have a referendum on it (or whatever the process is) in that time period. Seems like he may be right*. Sherman says he plans to introduce an amendment to extend the 90 days to the length of "a full legislative session".

*well, maybe not right, but that there would be some states that didn't care about the issue enough to spend resources opting out in time

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:00 AM

#136

nsdjoe

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,772

Lol Bachus: "Why let the people decide for themselves what they want???"

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:00 AM

#137

novahunterpa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Yea PS/FT wont support a bill if they can' receive a license but that shouldn't mean we the players should stop supporting the bill. If PS/ft don't support the bill and cut off funding to lobby then there will plenty of others that do, all those other overseas sites that haven't offered games to US players, as well as any US gaming companys that support the bill.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:00 AM

#138

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

This is moving the goalposts a bit IMO.

We have all talked about how the bill isnt perfect, but would be potentially made better in markup (especially in regards to the problems with players in unlicensed states).

Now, if the bill is made worse in markup we should still support it unconditionally? A final bill does still have to pass the House and our chances for a Senate bill are pretty slim right now.

Lets see what this looks like out of markup, but at some point we have to draw the line and make sure we get a bill that actually helps poker.

Do we have anyone offering amendments on the player penalties for players in unlicensed states?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:01 AM

#139

Punker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,352

The convenience stores have come out with a position!

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:02 AM

#140

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Frank opposes this opt-in amendment.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:02 AM

#141

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

The problem is this isnt going to pass this Congress, so its damaging to the current games.

Also increases the chance of a France like monopoly bill.

I dont think its a complete dealbreaker, but its a huge, huge negative.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:02 AM

#142

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

Quote:

Originally Posted by numberline

Bachus is so far essentially supporting all amendments so as to make the final bill as restrictive as possible. I think he realizes it will pass through committee.

Excellent point...+1...I couldn't agree w/ u more...This is why Bachus introduced an amendment that is even more restrictive than UIGEA...Now he is doing double-talking...

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:03 AM

#143

novahunterpa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Forgot to add a third problem, many of the uninformed players will hear no Tilt and no Stars and stop supporting regulation.

I agree many may stop supporting the effort, which IMO is unfortunate.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:03 AM

#144

guids

banned

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 16,996

I really think this has all been pretty much decided, and it is going through etc, w/ party having taken care of things along time ago to ensure they dont get nicked up

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:04 AM

#145

guids

banned

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 16,996

man, that is a great point, slippery slope irt personal internet use

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:04 AM

#146

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Details matter on the withdrawn amendment. If the licensing is based on "taking unlawful bets or wagers" both Stars and FTP will have the ability to argue that they never did that by making the case that online poker is not against current law.

The opt-in amendment is both more and less dangerous. Opt-in is bad momentum wise. But requiring a legislative action is good procedure-wise.

Skallagrim

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:04 AM

#147

KGBatemyoreos

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 468

Frank: "Nobody is forced to bet"

Frank is spot on here. I wasn't in agreement with Bachus when he was tlaking about this bill allowing gmabling on every computer in every home of America. That is completely wrong.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:05 AM

#148

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

This is moving the goalposts a bit IMO.

Not really. I'm just sharing where we are.

Our goal is to pass affirmative poker legislation, not legislation for all gaming. I believe the controls we see on all gaming will be, by definition, more onerous that what we'd see for poker only.

Quote:

Now, if the bill is made worse in markup we should still support it unconditionally? A final bill does still have to pass the House and our chances for a Senate bill are pretty slim right now.

Our goal is to show support in this committee, not in the entire House. We won't support a bad bill in the House.