Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 05:42 PM   #626
wufwugy
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,162
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
You're in luck. There is no opt-in clause.



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.
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
wufwugy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:42 PM   #627
John Mehaffey
Formerly Pokeraddict
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,924
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
(ii) has used due diligence to prevent any U.S. person from placing a bet
6 on an internet site in violation of Federal or State gambling laws.
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:

Quote:
To be clear, despite the concerns of some of our members, nothing in the Committee-passed legislation precludes lawful Internet poker-only operators whom U.S. players know and trust today from the opportunity to operate under a regulated system.
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.
John Mehaffey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:43 PM   #628
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
I find it strange that Skallagrim mentioned Federal law but not state when discussing the amendment.
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.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:47 PM   #629
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
I find it strange that Skallagrim mentioned Federal law but not state when discussing the amendment.
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:51 PM   #630
Icebeast26
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 84
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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
Icebeast26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:52 PM   #631
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
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.
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:52 PM   #632
udbrky
Formerly known as udbrky
 
udbrky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: avoiding responsibility
Posts: 28,869
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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?
udbrky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:53 PM   #633
bigbb33
grinder
 
bigbb33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 99 problems but a bitch ain\'t one
Posts: 585
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Cliffs on what exactly this bill's passage would (does?) mean in terms of your average poker user?
bigbb33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:55 PM   #634
DrMickHead
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,947
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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.
DrMickHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:58 PM   #635
carlgraham
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Reality
Posts: 211
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
Holy ****!
My rep, David Scott (D-GA), voted against it. How do I find out when he's up for reelection?
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.
carlgraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:59 PM   #636
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokeraddict View Post
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.
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:00 PM   #637
Zophar
adept
 
Zophar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Smell the glove
Posts: 928
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokeraddict View Post
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.
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.
Zophar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:03 PM   #638
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

(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.?
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:07 PM   #639
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMickHead View Post
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.
No, they can change their stance on it.
Quote:
‘(2) CHANGES TO STATE LIMITATIONS- The establishment, repeal, or amendment by any State of any limitation referred to in paragraph (1) after the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1), shall apply, for purposes of this subchapter, beginning on the first January 1 that occurs after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the later of--
‘(A) the date a notice of such establishment, repeal, or amendment is provided by the Governor or other chief executive officer of such State in writing to the Secretary; or
‘(B) the effective date of such establishment, repeal, or amendment.
Edit: Not really sure what it means at the end of (2). What is the 60 day period referring to?
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:12 PM   #640
DrMickHead
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,947
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboardvox View Post
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.
DrMickHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:17 PM   #641
yurk
old hand
 
yurk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,766
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by udbrky View Post

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.
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?
yurk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:22 PM   #642
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
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.
House Ways and Means Committee Membership list

Let's get some letters out.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:24 PM   #643
udbrky
Formerly known as udbrky
 
udbrky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: avoiding responsibility
Posts: 28,869
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by yurk View Post
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?
Yeah, you still live around here?

Feel free to PM so we don't clutter/put personal info out there
udbrky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:31 PM   #644
Reefypoopoo
banned
 
Reefypoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ninny rubbin'
Posts: 8,630
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbb33 View Post
Cliffs on what exactly this bill's passage would (does?) mean in terms of your average poker user?
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
Reefypoopoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:35 PM   #645
dabomb75
veteran
 
dabomb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dreaming of being an FPP Pro
Posts: 2,343
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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 ?
dabomb75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:37 PM   #646
flip2win
Pooh-Bah
 
flip2win's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Limbo
Posts: 3,945
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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?
flip2win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:40 PM   #647
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefypoopoo View Post
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
you did forget to mention the state-opt out thing, tiny detail.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:44 PM   #648
luxv
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 293
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by flip2win View Post
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?
Yeah if they were illegally operating which they haven't been.
UB, Bodog, Sportsinteraction, etc will have a tough time with this though.
luxv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:45 PM   #649
TruFloridaGator
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: IRL
Posts: 22,791
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

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.
TruFloridaGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 06:46 PM   #650
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts busted View Post
...

Furthermore, I don't understand the undying allegiance to Tilt and Stars. It's not like they've handled the responsibility of self-policing in an impeccable manner (and UB and AP have essentially failed miserably). All one needs to do is read the Internet Poker forum to see daily threads about how they deny any semblance of due process to their players, have routine payout problems (albeit not through any fault of their own) as well as alleged collusion and bot infestation. The point here is not to vilify Tilt, Stars and Cereus (Cereus is perfectly capable of handling that without my assistance), but rather to make the point that maybe (likely?) a new system will be leaps and bounds better and we'll look back 5 years from now and scratch our heads at how Tilt and Stars ran their operations.
+ ∞
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive