Well, the status quo itself gradually changes. I'd say thanks to you and your ilk it's actually been changing for a stronger position on our side

My point was that if the bill isn't a clear and pleasing victory, no bill is better

http://financialservices.house.gov/M...Bad_Actors.pdf

Since Washington State specifically makes online poker illegal and these sites take WA players (don't all US facing brands take WA?) it is safe to say none of the current US facing brands would be eligible for a license.

From the PPA PR:

It seems the PPA is misleading in that press release. Are there any U.S. facing rooms that could be considered lawful? It doesn't seem like it. If that clause stays there is next to zero chance that Poker Stars or Full Tilt could get a license.

Remember that under the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine states likely cannot prohibit or regulate online poker if they permit any type of gambling. So, federal law is much more important than state law. IMO, PS and FTP will have to litigate their position in court to obtain a license. They should have by now anyway.

Hadn't seen the final amendment then. My post at the top of this page references it clear enough. And their are some other arguments too .

Skallagrim

I am about to send an email to Patrick McHenry-R-NC, who voted "Nay" today. He lives just outside my congressional district, but I will be moving to his district soon. I have a rough draft prepared and wanted to get the opinion of some people way smarter than me (specifically TE) before I sent it in. Let me know your thoughts and if I should change anything - thanks!



Mr. McHenry,

I am writing to you to express my disappointment regarding your "nay" vote in the markup of an amended HR2267 (Internet Gambling Regulation) in the Committee on Financial Services today. As an unaffiliated NC voter who will be living in your district very soon, this vote is both narrow-minded and scary.

Although the bill (as amended) has passed through the committee with a fair amount of bipartisan support, I feel that in voting "Nay", you have overlooked an important element of the bill: PERSONAL FREEDOM. It's not surprising that "Freedom" was not even listed as an option in the topics provided for sending an email to you.

I do not decide how you spend your hard-earned money and I do not agree that you should be able to cast votes that decide how I spend mine. Whether you would like to believe it or not, myself and many other American citizens are adults and we do not need the government to "hold our hand". Whether I support internet gambling reform is irrelevant (although I do), but you are dealing our country and its' citizens a great blow by assisting in stripping us of our personal freedoms.

Although I currently live just outside the 10th District, I do own 12+ acres of property on Sharon School Road in Western Iredell County in the 10th District and plan to build there soon. I attended West Iredell High School and have numerous friends and relatives (including my parents) currently in your district. I will be sure to inform them of your stance on PERSONAL FREEDOM prior to the next election.

Best Regards,



David Sharpe
Statesville, NC

That provision is the one that follows the "accepted bets or wagers" provision. Between the two provisions is an "AND." And of course that has to be. No one wants to exclude every company from every where that ever paid out anything that could be called "winnings" to a US citizen.

Which is also spoken like a lawyer.

Stars and FTP's lawyers are not afraid of this particular provision. You should not be either.

Skallagrim

I've been following the old thread wondering why it's been so quiet today.

Me too. All my friends are Reds fans.

Just sent this to Mary Jo Kilroy:

Thank you very much for your support today on HR 2267.

http://theppa.org/press-releases/201...n-bill-072810/

In here I read that you made some great contributions to the bill. I am very proud to have you as my representative.

Also, is there a post with the amendments/final language?

Cliffs on what exactly this bill's passage would (does?) mean in terms of your average poker user?

So, I have a question about the opt outs. I didn't realize initially that there was a time limit. I thought it would just sort of be a fluid thing that could be chosen at any time.

So, if a stat opts out is that forever? If a state does not opt out within the time limit are they forever opted in? I kind of hope this it's a one chance and then the ship has sailed sort of thing.

Study your old H.S. civics textbook for the answer

Representatives are up for election in November of every even-numbered year, so it's just a few months from now. He may still even have the democratic primary to go - I don't know when GA does theirs.

Cheers, Carl.

What do the words "due diligence" mean to you Pokeraddict?

"Due diligence" is actually a LESSER standard. It allows for a company that truly tried to comply with the law but got the interpretation of the law wrong to still apply for a license .... Perhaps you have seen reference before to the claim by PokerStars that they have 5 or 6 legal opinions from some of America's top law firms that their operation is legal?

That sure sounds like "due diligence" to me.

Skallagrim

I wonder if they can scoot around by transforming the current .net play money site into a real money? It may be possible if different LLC's were formed by FT or PS for different aspects of the client, which I'm pretty sure there were seeing as Tiltware LLC is technically independent of Pocket Kings, Ltd., etc.

‘(D) Require licensees to maintain facilities within the United States for processing of bets or wagers made or placed from the United States.’’

I'm not really sure what this actually means as a practical matter. Maybe just have some servers located in the U.S.?

No, they can change their stance on it.
Edit: Not really sure what it means at the end of (2). What is the 60 day period referring to?

Thanks. I hope that turns out to be a good thing. Though I fear that my state could flip flop in a bad way I still think it's good that it's not set in stone by whoever is in office if and when this passes.

Just did the same. I actually went to high school with one of Kilroy's daughters (graduated in 03).

Do you live in Kilroy's district Udbrky?

House Ways and Means Committee Membership list

Let's get some letters out.

Yeah, you still live around here?

Feel free to PM so we don't clutter/put personal info out there

regulation and licensing of online poker. Also deals with consumer/child protection and some tax stuff.

Good step towards complete legalization and all poker sites being back in the US again

A little late to the party but congrats everyone. Good work PPA, and I look forward to the next step.

My question for the next step (sorry for starting this so soon, I know you guys want to celebrate) is: the taxation bill should pass out of the committee fairly smoothly right? I mean, the focus of that bill is purely taxation, and not whether poker should be regulated, and what congressman doesn't want to tax something they aren't taxing yet ?

The Bill states that sites that were illegally operating during UIGEA will not get licensing. Wouldn't this have a major effect on Stars and FTP?

you did forget to mention the state-opt out thing, tiny detail.

Yeah if they were illegally operating which they haven't been.
UB, Bodog, Sportsinteraction, etc will have a tough time with this though.

well written, David.

My rep voted yes, and one of the ones nearby did as well. holla

Kosmas(D-FL), was unsure in her past responses to the many letters I have sent her, so it goes to show that getting letters out there and phone calls is HUGE. I know a couple of other 2p2ers in our district did as well.

+ ∞