<---- Politics

He probably found something he considered unconstitutional. He supports the concept of the bill and our right to play, though.

This bill has no tax provisions, so it wasn't that (he opposes the companion tax bill -- the McDermott bill -- for that reason). I imagine there was something in one of the amendments that he considered unconstitutional.

My understanding is that players set their own limits, but that they have to set them before they can play.

The sites contend that they have violated no U.S. laws, so they believe they do not fall into that exclusion.

I'm sorry I'm a huge noob and realized we won. So it'll take 6 months to get another update? What about after then? Another 6 months?

CONGRATS PPA!

can you list the committee vote asap.

Yea but what they believe and what is political reality are 2 different things. Sure I think ps/ft will be able to apply for a license and have legal arguments to support their position for having not violated any US law,but lets face it after today I think PS/FT are long shots for ever receiving a license.

Really i don't think it matters, our support of this legislation shouldn't be dependent on whether certain sites get a license or not, I personally couldn't care if they receive a license or not (I would like it if they did) If this bill passes we will have plenty of sites to play at.

The goal is to get this bill through the house before the new congress comes in January. Unfortunately, if that doesn't happen the bill would have to go through committee again actually. So you'll either get a "OMG the house is voting on this thing!" update or a "crap we have to start that stupid process over again!" update before January 20th.

Can the way state reps voted in this committee be an indicator for which states will opt in/out states??

Most of the amendments are now viewable at:

http://financialservices.house.gov/H...px?NewsID=1340

Anti-competition is inherently bad in this situation IMO. The US tends to pay employees quite well vs other countries. Having a 100% US based operation could easily raise rake.

It also seems to be against international trade agreements as far as I understand them (I'm a complete layman on that topic). Can you imagine us saying that all US sold cars must be designed, marketed and constructed by 100% US employees? At the same time trying to sell US cars in other countries. It would be a joke. It sounds good from a very narrow view of jobs, but overall I think it's a protectionist amendment that should not have been added into the bill.

Your example of customer service is one I would disagree with. It's not skilled labor and we should allow the sites to choose the level of customer service employees they want to use. Besides if we get the bottom of the barrel US employees I think they're actually worse than some competent international labor. I don't need a high school drop out to read from a list of issues. I can get that kind of customer service from an online FAQ.

That's why I think it's a bad amendment at least. It's an opinion and your opinion is valid too.

Holy ****!
My rep, David Scott (D-GA), voted against it. How do I find out when he's up for reelection?

If PPA supports a bill with opt-in clause, I don't support PPA.

We DO NOT want an okay bill. Status quo is substantially better than an okay bill, as well as being on the improving trend. If the bill isn't obviously a fist pump, and PPA doesn't abandon it, we have serious problems

This is a fantastic, amazing, great victory. No doubt.

However..IMHO...

The LAST thing we can afford to do at this point is kick back and celebrate.

I believe this is the time..right NOW, for the PPA and EVERY member of this forum who has ever and/or would ever participate in the process of calling/writing/emailing your representatives to do so IMMEDIATELY, and specifically, the members of the House Ways And Means Committee.

NOW is the time to DELUGE all the HWAM members with the message that it's time to MOVE on markup and vote on the McDermott bill. Barney Frank made it pretty clear today that his bill isn't going to the House floor for a vote until such time as the McDermott bill passes out of committee as well so that the two bills can be presented together.

We have, I feel, a VERY SMALL window of opportunity where we can legitimately claim a very real, tangible momentum with the legislative process and make a convincing argument to the HWAM members that this bill deserves an express ticket now to markup and vote.

This needs to be PRIORITY NUMBER ONE for the PPA and EVERYONE invested in the regulation of online poker, right now.

Here is how our reps voted:

http://financialservices.house.gov/M...oll%20call.pdf

House members are up for re-election every election cycle.

The casinogambling article is the misleading one. It fails to understand or address the details of the bill. Foreign sites are not excluded. Nor is any particular site excluded.

The amendment made it so that any operator that has violated Federal law (under certain circumstances which we will know for certain tomorrow) is barred from getting a license.

PokerStars and FTP have always maintained that they are not in violation of any Federal Law (and I agree FWIW). The amendment gives them, at the very least, the right to argue that claim and get a license if they win.

Skallagrim

Glad to hear. I really did not want to have to vote against him in November. He has earned back my vote.

Does anyone have the vote count by partyline?

He is up for re-election in November (and it is possible, though unlikely, that he has a challenger in a primary election).

I'd write him immediately if I were you and ask him why he does not want your vote in November because if he did he would have voted the other way.

Skallagrim

The top half is democrats, the bottom is republican.

Right. I have been loyal to pstars for a long time and I would love to see them get licensed, but its not like my world will be shattered if they don't get licensed and I have to move to a really juicy new partypoker etc

I've already done that though I was a little less subtle ....I did give him an opportunity to change his view as many other members have. I am a republican and likely wouldn't vote for him anyway, but now I actually might do more than just vote against him.

Same all members of the house, every 2 years, this fall, November.

obg