^^^ about noon Eastern time.

To be clear: Opt-in was voted out? Thus, any bill would require states to opt-out within 90 days?

Thanks! I can only follow on this thread.

Just woke up and sad I missed all the excitement so far.

Big win on the opt-out, and ruh-roh on seeing the failed amendment brought back up and passing

Yes, although there is still talk of extending 90 days to a full legislative session

Wasn't there an earlier amendment that passed today (i think it was the first one) ensuring Gaming sites that have been violating US law would not be able to receive a license? They haven't been reading the amendment's but does anyone know what it said?

Let's retweet the 2+2 Twitter message I just sent out on this:

Sorry if this is a silly question. I know these amendments aren't quite final, but can we expect a lot of changes after today?? If it gets to senate, could an issue like the opt-in one still be reversed??

Of course, nothing is ever final until the President signs it.

Opt-in was NOT voted down, there's a roll call vote when the Committee returns around 12pm.

http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...iop_070131.asx to watch the hearing.

There's chances that other bills in the House or Senate could change the legislation being marked up today.

The first amendment offered, by Sherman of California was to prevent people who have intentionally circumvented laws from getting a license.

The Bachus/Bachmann amendment (withdrawn for now, but could reappear) went further to also ban employees of B&M casinos, online sites, etc. that have broken state or federal laws from getting a license.

CLIFFS (x-posted from NVG)

These are amendments that have been added to the bill as part of the mark-up process. This does not mean that these amendments are now law -- they've just been changes proposed to the bill before it goes for full vote...

I understand. I just wish I could get a feel for the likelihood. I'm used to knowing how many outs my opponent is drawing to.

I really can't believe that PStars and FTP haven't thought of this, expected some kind of flack for taking "illegal" bets, and that they don't have a plan. I expected some kind of "no FTP/PStars" language, and I can't imagine that PStars and Tilt didn't. They aren't going to support potential legislation if they think it will possibly do them a great deal of harm. I can't even guess what they might have planned, but I'm sure the wheels are in motion. I don't think we're going to have to worry about losing FTP and PStars support.

Wait,

It was voted down, but requested a formal roll call vote, correct? The Nays took it, but they want a recorded vote. So right now Bacchus is pulling all his strings to get people to change their vote pretty much.

I'm sure the opponents of the Bill will keep trying every opportunity they get, if/when it comes up for vote on the House floor. Then if/when again in the Senate <--likely 100% thanks to our friend Senator Kyl.

It's gr8 to have Kevmath keeping track of all that went on so far. Things move so fast I can't keep track of all these amendments and which ones were approved or who proposed them

Good job Kevmath

Some new pokerroom name that is played on the pokerstars.net network?

Well, they probably plan to argue that what they did was legal.

Bachus specifically mentioned that his withdrawn amendment would ban those who served the US poker market.

If the language mentions poker specifically, then whether it was legal or not doesnt matter as the law would ban them from a license.

Have to see the actual language, but it could effectively ban Stars/FT.

You keep asking this. This bill, this year, pretty unlikely. That's the best anyone is going to be able to tell you.

This is the amendment I was thinking of above (quote taken from NVG thread)

Nova,

You can expect more expounding of the amendments and other issues here in Legislation. All I'm doing is getting to the gist of what the amendments are for the NVG crowd. It would be nice to see the actual text of the amendments, which may not be publicly available until after markup is done?

If anyone can find it, you can.

+1

Even though Sherman's amendment was approved I bet Backus wanted one that specifically mentions POKER. Even with Shermans amendment it might be hard for ps/ft to get a license but hey would at least have some legal arguments they could make. Backus amendment that has the words POKER in it probably makes it near impossible for PS/FT to get a license

164 (74 members & 90 guests) Legislation forum is busy today, I wonder why

I just read this thread and have not watched the mark-up hearing. It seems that the poison pill opt-in amendment will, or has, failed. OTOH, ironically, an amendment to deny a license to foreign firms who have violated any US law by serving US citizens seems to have broad support.

This amendment is just desserts for PS and FTP. They should have sued in federal court that their service of US citizens was legal. Now, under this amendment, they will have to file this suit to get a license. IMO, eventually, they will win which is good for us. But in the meantime, they will lose market share to US companies.

The bad news is that this amendment will cause PS and FTP to cease support for the PPA. So I am against it.

TE, are there any amendments that the PPA supports such as opt-out requiring a legislative law?

This Backus guy, and people like him are exactly what is wrong with this country today. Listening to him utter his BS absolutely tilts the hell out of me. I also don't think PS and FT should have a problem since what they are doing is legal and even if the govt. tries to say otherwise, those sites are not under the jurisdiction of US law anyway. How could they violate a law that they were not subject to??