The number of Republicans backing us is growing. We will still have strong Democratic support, at least in the house.

It's gonna pass.









In 2024.




:{

Exactly!

I'll bet a few years ago you'd never thought you might be doing a lot of what you've done.

But given some training and support they would be able to work with and magnify the efforts of paid lobbyists. The effort to get possible answers to states opt out situation is and example where it would have been easier and much cheaper had this process been followed up from the discussion stage at the first DC Fly-in.

Just think if we had a few more like you.

But I'm sure we do, if given the support and a little training.

If just 1/10 of 1% of the current membership was capable you'd have 1,500 potential part time lobbyists to call on..........

I guess I just dont think throwing up our hands and not trying is the answer. Skall's thread is a good first step, but I just cant believe we are going to end up supporting a final bill with state opt outs with no clue how many states will opt out.

As far as I can tell, even if you polled every state governor, attorney general and state lawmaker, you would still have no idea how many states will actually opt out. Here is why:

1. The provisions of the bills will be amended before passage. This will affect the answers in many cases.

2. Many of these state politicians won't make their stand public in advance. You won't get straight answers (just like the boiler-plate responses to the e-mails we send - "I'll keep your opinion in mind should this come up for a vote".

3. In many states, the process to opt out won't be apparent until they actually make the attempt. Whatever answers you get now may not apply.

4. Political climates change all the time. The polled answers aren't necessarily the same answers you will get when the time comes to actually make the decision.

5. Lobbyists, political groups, monied interests, grassroots efforts, etc. will influence the opt outs when the time comes. Politicians' answers now won't ncessarily stay the same.

6. Who holds office will change in many instances before state votes, etc. are taken.

7. In some states, it will be left up to a public ballot decision. The views now of the politicians in those states won't apply.

I don't think there is any way to get an accurate read in advance as to how many states will opt out. I think the best evaluations are actually the knowledgable discussions we have here, based on current political sentiments, state historical stances, etc. (e.g., Skall's thread).

So, the question really becomes should we support a federal bill even though we can't know with any certainty how many states will not opt out? IMO, the answer to that is a resounding YES. Because the clear alternative is to let the states license and regulate iPoker instead, which translates to higher rakes, fractured player bases and criminalization of play at unlicensed sites.

Lots of players like the idea of the "status quo", or stretching it out. What they don't take into mind is that we are on the cusp of the collapse of the status quo. Previously, states were in a limbo about what to do about iPoker. But the UIGEA, and the subsequent court ruling in the iMEGA case, made a clear path for them: intrastate iPoker is now clearly legal. Once one state pops, other states will line up. And this will be backed up by enforcement against offshore sites by the DOJ, as there will be new state laws to point to that makes those sites subject to UIGEA enforcement.

We can fight the battles against state opt outs on a state by state basis, as needed. That's a lot easier than fighting against intrastate licensing regimes that spark dollar signs in the eyes of the state politicans, with no alternative to offer.

As players, we should be scrambling to pass the federal bills. I don't want iPoker in the US a few years down the road to look like iPoker in the EU: bans, monopolies, high rakes and severed player pools. Do you?

Thats all fine, even though the "on the cusp of the collapse of the status quo" stuff is way, way overblown and I have no idea where the ballot decision stuff comes from.

Even with that (mostly correct) analysis, given the uncertainty the PPA should be much, much less indignant at people who dont support the current bill given that we cant guarantee that even one state will opt in. Im not talking people raving about bonuses and conspiracies. Im talking about folks like MTTR and the like. Its not fearing victory or anything, this bill has a ton of uncertainty.

But supporting the bill is still a better bet than any other known alternative at this time.

That is an important point to make and I try and make clear that that is the point, not that the bill is perfect or without hardship.

That some seem to think the PPA's claims ALL will be rosy if the bill passes is not usually the PPA's fault. I have never seen PX or TE be dishonest on this point. It is usually recognized and attempted to be put in perspective. But sometimes it is left out of a particular response. But when any of us "PPA" posters fail to include that point in a response, you seem more than able to be there to remind us of it.

Skallagrim

In some states, it takes a constitutional amendment to modify existing laws on gambling.

Those are good points, and many of us have. The two Fly-Ins are obvious examples, but we've sent state directors like Skallagrim, PX, Steve Miller in California, me, and a few other to statehouses and conferences. Russ Fox and a small group went to meet with Rep. Campbell. We've actually had many members meet locally with their congressmen.

I do expect this to continue to expand, of course.

Those are likely opt-out states, but makes sense

Thats probably right, but I think reasonable minds can still differ. Much more so than if we knew the opt-out outcome.

That depends. If the provision survives from the Menendez bill which states that prior state law can't be construed to require the state to opt out, then a new ballot measure would be likely required to opt out in those states.

That would be a positive. If we have decided that legally we cant force states to opt-in or write the specific manner in which a state can opt out, doesnt that put us in constitutional jeopardy? I dont think requiring a ballot initiative within one legislative session is feasible.

LG, I don't like the opt out provision or idea. However, in a country mostly governed by politics and not the rule of law, we have to live with it. HR 2267 is about the best governance of online poker that we can expect.

Also, I don't think that anyone decided that the US Congress cannot force states opt in or what method that they can opt out. IMO, politics has decided that states must have the right to opt out. Apparently, politics has decided that the method is any legal one, but this is still somewhat ambiguous.

TE said he advocated and drafted a specific provision, but was informed it wasnt feasible.

If a ballot question is required by state law, I dont see how this isnt tied up in the courts for years.

My larger point is, the best legislation we can produce given political realities is very ambiguous and carries tons of risk. If some folks choose not to support it for these reasons, I can understand why.

EDIT: I guess I really didnt like the shots at MTTR in the internet poker forum thread (aside from his gratuitous PPA insults which were uncalled for). I dont agree with everything he says, but he does brings up some good points. We should have a mechanism that prevents Congress from ratcheting up the Govt. take as a form of a sin tax. Regulated poker could follow a mini-boom/slow erosion from the government pattern. Avid sports bettors should seriously consider opposing this bill.

I didn't see any personal shots at MTTR. If you did see some, I recommend you report those posts. Mike Haven will take care of it.

OTOH, this is a discussion forum. MTTR should not be surprised when posters respond to his posts.

I guess calling him afraid of victory and welcoming him to reality arent personal attacks and certainly arent worth reporting. But I dont think they address his points either. It just seems like we have sort of stopped addressing concerns or selling the legislation and have just moved on to telling people "this is great, support it".

Can you quote a point of his (I just got through reading all 15 of his posts in the thread) that hasn't been asked/stated & answered numerous, and I mean NUMEROUS times in various threads?

No. Ive said my peace.

True. Those comments were directed at MTTR's statements and not at MTTR.

MTTR opposes any legislation. Rather than reading the bills, he posts tales fabricated from whole cloth of 20% taxes, state surtaxes, etc. And, he doesn't post these as warnings of things for which to watch out during the legislative process. Rather, he posts them using language that implies that these are given facts. As MTTR fears any and all legislation, I suggested that he actually fears victory.

How so? I replied to all of his concerns. Many of us did.

That's not what MTTR's about. He believes any legislation -- no matter what the bills say -- will result in huge taxes. In this regard, he's similar to FoF with their data-free claims that online poker will lead to a "tsunmai of addiction."

I don't think MTTR wants his concerns addressed. In fact, I think he's upset that we're responding to his concerns.

I know earlier in this thread there was discussion about David Scott (D-GA) who was one of the few Democrats to oppose HR2267. I live in Scott's district and contacted Mike Crane, the Republican who will be running against Scott this fall.

3 weeks later I received this reply:

It really sounds like Georgia's district 13 has no winning play in 2010. He attempts to make it sound like he opposes the ban on gambling outright, but using language that allows him to claim either side of the debate.

"Mike does not believe that the federal government should have effectively banned internet gambling in the way they have..."

So does he oppose banning it? Or does he think they should have simply made participating in online poker criminal and gone after the players? I am following up to ask for an explicit answer. Of course, it's unlikely that I'll get one, or if I do that I'll get it before November.

I would really appreciate it if someone can give me an answer. Would U.S players be able to play on current European skins like Party and Ipoker after the bill passes? Im not sure if all the regs in the US can move to softer Euro sites after the Bill.

Barney Frank Out as Financial Services Committee Chair in 2011?

So if Bacchus takes control of the financial services committee this winter and republicans get senate majority and we don't get H.R. 2267 through before then, are we screwed for years to come???

I don't think it will be Bacchus but it will be a Republican and yes, IMHO, we will be screwed (on our issue). This is why I see it as critical this happens before November. I've heard arguments from The Engineers and others to the contrary but I don't buy those arguments.

IMO the odds, despite current polling, are fairly low of the GOP taking the Senate. If it were to happen we would be royally screwed, and no I don't see a lame duck DEM Senate passing our bill.