HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) - Page 25 - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 25 of 55

First

5 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 45

Last

Page 25 of 55

First

5 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 45

Last

07-28-2010 , 05:08 PM

#601

Sub-Zer0118

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,223

Quote:

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

The top half is democrats, the bottom is republican.

Ashamed to be an elephant right now

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:08 PM

#602

sluggger5x

John Connor of poker

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,592

I do have a general question now. We want to keep the ball rolling on this. Who are lawmakers that have a hand in getting the full house hearing asap?? Is there certain members who have this clout that we should be contacting???

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:08 PM

#603

Kevmath

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 28,242

Scott won his primary election last week with over 75% of the Democratic primary vote.

At least he has an opponent, unlike many House races:

http://www.mycountypaper.com/henryne.../98899859.html

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:09 PM

#604

rocketragz

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,297

In regards to progress, congrats to PPA and every single one of us who have taken part in the fight.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:09 PM

#605

nuts busted

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 349

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMickHead

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.

Hard to argue with that logic.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:09 PM

#606

DrewOnTilt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 7,748

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoureToast

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

Try wikipedia or house.gov

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:14 PM

#607

Mordan

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 625

where can you find out how your rep voted?

nvrmnd figured it out.....Walter Jones voted nay.....he has no reasoning either as I have emailed him about it....pathetic, really pathetic

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:14 PM

#608

danxxx1

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 395

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevmath

He voted Yea to HR 2267

I assume the 22 who voted in the minority on the Baca and Bachus amendments, along with HR 2267 were the same.

Hey Kev,

Do you what the time line is on getting this to the house? does automatically come up for vote or do they need to set a date and yada yada yada

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:14 PM

#609

GloupnaktouK

adept

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 749

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMickHead

Exactly.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:16 PM

#610

Rusemandingo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14,067

So didnt the ammendment saying that sites had to have the majority of their employees in the US pass? Doesnt that basically exclude foreign sites and/or make them become US sites?

Also, lets say Stars and FT are kept out. Wouldnt they be able to keep on going like they are now, or would the DOJ and treasury passing their names around to banks make it so ehcecks and prepaid cards wouldnt work for deposits and cahsouts would become next to impossible?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:21 PM

#611

ktulu22

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

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

The amendment also says they are unable to get a license if they violated any state law. Some states have laws specifically banning online poker and PS & FTP still accepted those customers. Don't see how FTP & PS is going to get around this with such a defined amendment - you can bet anything that there is going to be a lot of opposition to them getting a license.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:23 PM

#612

Lottery Larry

Home Poker Pimp

Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 19,603

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougmanct

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,

Gerlach (PA) voted Aye, so that was good.... and, SubZero, he's a pachyderm, if that helps :P

I just got off the phone with his office, after the interesting PPA phone push connected me.

Funny thing was, I actually interrupted the PPA rep, checking to make sure it wasn't a recording (like the Fossilman one from last week).

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:24 PM

#613

renodoc

Casino Olympics Champion

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 8,357

No Nevadans on that committee.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:24 PM

#614

DrewOnTilt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 7,748

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

And they are going to fight that opposition. This mudfight is far from over.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:26 PM

#615

ktulu22

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sub-Zer0118

Ashamed to be an elephant right now

Funny how people say it's not a rep/dem issue when time and time again most of out supporters are dems and most of our opponents are reps. I'm neither, by the way. Just telling it like it is.

Dems: 34 ayes, 4 nays
Reps: 7 ayes, 18 nays

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:27 PM

#616

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by wufwugy

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

You're in luck. There is no opt-in clause.

Quote:

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

In my first year as a full-time online pro, I'm doing well under the status quo. I wish it could last. Unfortunately, it can't.

Did you see a lot of support for the status quo at today's hearing? I sure didn't.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:28 PM

#617

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

Just let the lawyers have fun with this OK?

An ironic fact is that Bachman's and Bachus' total inability to understand how poker actually works has done us a favor here. From my first read of the amendment the exclusion only applies to sites that have "accepted a bet or wager" in violation of state or federal law....

Whens the last time you made a bet with or played against Stars or FTP ? Now certainly those sites have accepted your deposits, but when you play poker the folks "accepting your bets and wagers" are the other players, not the sites.

Skallagrim

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:29 PM

#618

NoahSD

Is Right

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 18,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

This is at least partially because the republicans are in "no to everything" mode. It's also true that the republican ranking member Bacchus has taken this up as a bit of a pet project. This has pissed off a lot of republicans, but it's also of course lead a lot of them to vote no.

7 out of 25 republicans really ain't bad at all in the current climate.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:31 PM

#619

NoahSD

Is Right

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 18,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

+1,000,000

What's the next step for people waiting on the sidelines?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:33 PM

#620

GloupnaktouK

adept

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 749

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Skallagrim

Brilliant!

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:33 PM

#621

RiverAnAce

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,227

I am Glad that it passed. Thanks PPA and all the rest of you here on 2+2 that made it possible.

And to Spencer Bachus

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:37 PM

#622

LeapFrog

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,538

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

I find it strange that Skallagrim mentioned Federal law but not state when discussing the amendment.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:37 PM

#623

ktulu22

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

7 out of 25 republicans really ain't bad at all in the current climate.

Not arguing that at all. Surprising, actually

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:38 PM

#624

Skallagrim

PPA Board Member/LSN Dir

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,713

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahSD

+1,000,000

What's the next step for people waiting on the sidelines?

I think the folks directly involved maybe deserve a day or two for celebration, don't you? Anyone who sees John Pappas, Drew Losefski, Randy Lau or Bryan Spadaro in DC over the next few days be sure and buy them a drink. You can send the tab to me if you like.

The next step will be to move HR 2268 through the House Ways and Means Committee. If your Representative sits on that Committee, you can wait the few days for the PPA to provide you form letters and links or you can start making contact now on your own.

Work in the Senate is ongoing and all off-the-record. If you haven't written your Senators in a while, now is a good time to do that too.

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 07-28-2010 at 05:44 PM.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 05:41 PM

#625

ktulu22

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,561

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Skallagrim

Spoken like a lawyer

Another part of the amendment says sites will be excluded if they "paid out winnings to an individual in the US" after the UIGEA was passed, which PS and FTP did. PS and FTP will probably only get licensed after paying a billion dollars in fees and penalties.

Quote

Page 25 of 55

First

5 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 45

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 25 of 55

First

5 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 45

Last