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 07-30-2010, 07:50 AM   #926
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bull62 View Post
I would bet large sums of money that Harrah's already has their poker client software ready to deploy.
and you would win since they have already started to form a partnership with 888.com
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 08:01 AM   #927
mpethybridge
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
mpethybridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 86.4% dead, most likely
Posts: 16,997
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
for the love of god, can you please stop putting words in my mouth? Please? Just because I oppose bills with state opt-outs doesn't mean I don't want to push good legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Pick up a high school civics textbook. Congress simply does not force things like this on the states, especially ones with no commercial gaming. Sorry. I wish they would.

With that, can you share with us the type of bill you'd like to see before Congress and how you'd expect it to pass?
It is more than this. Congress trying to force internet gaming on a state that has no commercial gaming would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The state opt outs are a constitutional requirement; they're not in there because Congress is full of nice folks who respect state sovereignty.

Short blurb on police powers; this stuff will get really complicated if states with some commercial gaming try to opt-out. But the principle that a federal bill without an opt-out would be blatantly unconstitutional is pretty simple, imo:

Quote:
The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, Welfare, and morals of the community.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.

Police power does not specifically refer to the right of state and local government to create police forces, although the police power does include that right. Police power is also used as the basis for enacting a variety of substantive laws in such areas as Zoning, land use, fire and Building Codes, gambling, discrimination, parking, crime, licensing of professionals, liquor, motor vehicles, bicycles, nuisances, schooling, and sanitation.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 10:58 AM   #928
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

good legislation could be a repeal of UIGEA or whatever. It doesn't have to force gaming on the states. If you want to say it would never pass, that is fine.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 11:46 AM   #929
zerosum79
old hand
 
zerosum79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,978
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bull62 View Post
I would bet large sums of money that Harrah's already has their poker client software ready to deploy.
It is already public knowledge that they do.
zerosum79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:00 PM   #930
parisron
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
parisron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,963
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

from Annie Dukes twitter a couple min. ago:

AnnieDuke I'll be on MSNBC today at 12:40 eastern talking about HR 2267. Should be a fun debate.
parisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:07 PM   #931
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by parisron View Post
from Annie Dukes twitter a couple min. ago:

AnnieDuke I'll be on MSNBC today at 12:40 eastern talking about HR 2267. Should be a fun debate.
this^^^ is why Annie Duke was such a good candidate to pick to talk in front of the commitee for HR 2267.....she will kill it on MSNBC, she already has TV experience, and is very knowledgable about the topics of HR 2267 that people care about.....can you imagine Raymer in her spot loooool. On top of everything she is a mother, which holds more weight IMO especially with all the fear-mongering going on with poker and children.

looking forward to checking this out, thx for the update
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:12 PM   #932
t_roy
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: My PGC
Posts: 2,123
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What's the earliest this bill could go into effect? I'm concerned about the age restriction. I won't be 21 for another 2 years and the majority of my income comes from online poker. Would old users possibly be "grandfathered" in and be allowed to continue playing? Maybe an age check would only be run on new accounts?
t_roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:16 PM   #933
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by t_roy View Post
What's the earliest this bill could go into effect? I'm concerned about the age restriction. I won't be 21 for another 2 years and the majority of my income comes from online poker. Would old users possibly be "grandfathered" in and be allowed to continue playing? Maybe an age check would only be run on new accounts?
highly unlikely.....it will stay at 21, security measures and no access for minors are huge concerns for this bill, if it does goes through at some point 21 will be the age. good thing for you is I would assume even if it went through it could take 1-3 years to be fully implemented
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:20 PM   #934
sluggger5x
John Connor of poker
 
sluggger5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fight for Poker Rights Action Thred
Posts: 5,592
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

found an msnbc stream here:

http://www.epctv.com/channels/MSNBC-...Watch-4744.htm


it's safe. hope that's okay.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:23 PM   #935
t_roy
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: My PGC
Posts: 2,123
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Hopefully it takes that long. Guess I shouldn't have told stars my real age . Would I still be able to play on unlicensed sites? If so would it be legal or will this bill make all unlicensed sites illegal to play on?
t_roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:26 PM   #936
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
but for how long??? Their status quo can't last, right? Again, you can't have it two ways, even though you would clearly like to.
Why not? The status quo fails for us because of actions the federal government will take against it across America, either in bringing in U.S. based sites or in banning it all.

I don't see the feds taking similar actions against sites serving opt out states.

Quote:
That is what initially turned me off to the PPA, btw. The fearmongering, glossing over the negatives, trying to lead everyone around by the nose.
I guess now you're turned off because you feel we can pass a bill that forces poker on Utah but are somehow refusing? Do you think this is a conspiracy?

Anyway, I don't recall the PPA doing any of what you say here. It sounds more like you're talking about me. If I turn you off to PPA, so be it.

Yes, I do express my opinions on why we're doing what we're doing. I doubt too many here are shocked to learn of this.

Quote:
Your organization would probably be at least as successful, if not more, if you simply provided people all the facts and let them come to their own conclusions.
That's all PPA does.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:28 PM   #937
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkle View Post
Is there any word about changes to IRS regs about reporting gambling income?
Any chance we will be able to net?
The Menendez bill contains language that appears to allow amatuers to net.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:28 PM   #938
banonlinepoker
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,338
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
this^^^ is why Annie Duke was such a good candidate to pick to talk in front of the commitee for HR 2267.....she will kill it on MSNBC, she already has TV experience, and is very knowledgable about the topics of HR 2267 that people care about.....can you imagine Raymer in her spot loooool. On top of everything she is a mother, which holds more weight IMO especially with all the fear-mongering going on with poker and children.

looking forward to checking this out, thx for the update
She is also the poster child for a site that cheated players out of millions of dollars while they hid offshore to circumvent US laws and the players had no recourse once they were exposed. She needs to shut her mouth and stop with the propaganda. If she had half a brain she would abandon UB and get in bed with a US company ready to launch because this law will pass and she will be on the beach if she doesn't.
banonlinepoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:42 PM   #939
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Why not? The status quo fails for us because of actions the federal government will take against it across America, either in bringing in U.S. based sites or in banning it all.

I don't see the feds taking similar actions against sites serving opt out states.
really? They are just going to ignore the processors once they stop serving stars and tilt and now just serve UB and whomever? I find that very hard to believe. Can you provide some sort of legal explanation for your prediction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I guess now you're turned off because you feel we can pass a bill that forces poker on Utah but are somehow refusing?
I've already explained my dissatisfaction in regard to the lack of a legal push and not every form of positive legislation will push poker on Utah. I have also explained quite clearly other reasons why I am 'turned off to the PPA'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Do you think this is a conspiracy?
stop trying to marginalize my arguments by lumping me in with the freak posters please.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:44 PM   #940
sluggger5x
John Connor of poker
 
sluggger5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fight for Poker Rights Action Thred
Posts: 5,592
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

leapfrog is on a downswing imo.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:47 PM   #941
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
Not all of my "conspiracy theory" is necessarily wrong. Party Gaming (Party Poker) may have a good chance of getting back into the U.S. market if HR 2267 becomes law. Unlike PS and FT, Party Gaming withdrew from the U.S. market after the UIGEA became law. Rich Garber was an executive with Party at the time this decision was taken. Now Mr. Garber is the President of Harrah's new Interactive Gaming Division - which will almost surely apply for a "legal" gaming license. If Harrah's IGD buys Party Gaming in order to get access to the Party Poker software, then Harrah's doesn't have to expend enormous time and resources developing their own software from scratch. During the application process for licensing, Rich Garber (and Harrah's) can make an argument - with some validity - that Party Gaming is a "responsible operator" since they [voluntarily] withdrew from the American market upon passage of the UIGEA. That argument will carry more weight than the argument being put forth by Stars and Tilt.

Former DJ
Party Poker has a problem relative to the specific verbiage of the bill as it stands today in that they admitted wrongdoing as part of their settlement with the U.S. Party Poker may seek changes in the bill not to prohibit sites that "showed good faith" (so they say) by leaving the U.S. market after UIGEA passed. They've tried that before.

Also, as many have mentioned already, Harrah's is in no position to buy Party Poker.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:57 PM   #942
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
Really good reading in this thread. Lots of good debate and speculation. Will be really interesting to see how all this plays out.

But I would like to again thank the PPA for all the effort they have put into this. I may not always agree 100% with some of their decisions but I definitely believe they are doing the best that they can. After posting this, I am going to go to the PPA site and make a donation.

Also, you have to give The Engineer credit for all he has done/is doing. The fact that he will spend so much of his own time discussing all of this and replying to almost every single post/question is highly commendable. Your efforts are appreciated TE.
Thanks! I'm glad we're all fighting together. We're starting to see the fruits of our efforts.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:59 PM   #943
Merkle
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 112
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Party Poker has a problem relative to the specific verbiage of the bill as it stands today in that they admitted wrongdoing as part of their settlement with the U.S.
I believe the wording stated illegal activities after the passage of the UIGEA. Since Party withdrew at that time I would think they would be fine.
Merkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:27 PM   #944
bull62
newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 41
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerosum79 View Post
It is already public knowledge that they do.
I guess it would be a pretty good bet then.
bull62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:36 PM   #945
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
good legislation could be a repeal of UIGEA or whatever. It doesn't have to force gaming on the states. If you want to say it would never pass, that is fine.
Thanks for finally posting a starting point for the discussion.

I do have a comment. No one in Congress will introduce a bill repealing UIGEA. That would not allow U.S. based sites in, so who'd vote for it? There's a reason UIGEA passed the House 317-93.

You're observing the democratic process in action. We want some things, but other groups want things as well. I realize the fact that we have the status quo now leads some to conclude that the status quo is the logical starting point. IMO, that's a fallacy. Congress and the other stakeholders to not take this to be the starting point.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:49 PM   #946
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
really? They are just going to ignore the processors once they stop serving stars and tilt and now just serve UB and whomever? I find that very hard to believe. Can you provide some sort of legal explanation for your prediction?
No. The DoJ will continue its actions.

There are two problems with the status quo. You addressed only one. On that one point, Congress is less likely to push a bill implementing a federal ban on online poker in opt out states, and they would certainly be less likely to make playing poker in opt out states a federal crime than they would were they addressing this nationwide.

The other point -- the one about U.S. based sites wanting to participate -- would now work on our favor, as states could achieve that by opting in.

Quote:
I've already explained my dissatisfaction in regard to the lack of a legal push and not every form of positive legislation will push poker on Utah. I have also explained quite clearly other reasons why I am 'turned off to the PPA'.
Explain why no site has sought a declaratory judgement ruling that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act.

PPA is on record as being prepared to join such a suit. Prospective player plaintiffs have even posted here stating that they were prepped for the suit and were ready to go.

Perhaps it's not the slam dunk you seem to think it would be. Then again, you continually underestimate our opponents.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. I will keep your thoughts in mind as we proceed forward in this fight.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:50 PM   #947
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I do have a comment. No one in Congress will introduce a bill repealing UIGEA. That would not allow U.S. based sites in, so who'd vote for it? There's a reason UIGEA passed the House 317-93.
congressional members that believe it places an unnecessary and onerous burden on banks? I doubt it would have much support.

Look, this is very simple. I believe that all Americans should have the right to play poker online, at a decent room. I will not support legislation which further endangers that right or organization that advocates for it.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:58 PM   #948
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
congressional members that believe it places an unnecessary and onerous burden on banks? I doubt it would have much support.
If it weren't for PPA, you wouldn't even know banks didn't want the burden of UIGEA.

Quote:
Look, this is very simple. I believe that all Americans should have the right to play poker online, at a decent room. I will not support legislation which further endangers that right or organization that advocates for it.
I understand that. There are all-or-nothing zealots in every movement. Just don't expect PPA to adopt losing strategies based on your strong feelings in this matter.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:58 PM   #949
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

TE, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say the status quo is doomed but for opt out states it will last just fine.

The DOJ will take the exact same actions against processors, and may even have a blacklist to help them do so.

Poker only processors in opt out states now clearly would violate UIGEA.

As you have said, powerful interests will look to increase the penalties against players in opt out states (50% tax, comments of the casino exec at the hearing, etc).

Do you think that instituting a state lottery made it more or less likely that authorities would go after a private numbers operation? I think the answer is pretty clearly more.

Its OK to admit that if this bill passes, some people are going to have much less and worse access to online poker. Not everything has to be a positive spin for legislation. If you live in an opt-out state, this bill is bad in the short-run. Good for the industry in the long-run and such, probably, lots of pros, unquestionably. The bill has potentially significant downsides. If the PPA ignores this, they are going to lose credibility long-term, IMO.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 01:59 PM   #950
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Explain why no site has sought a declaratory judgement ruling that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act.
This is also very, very simple. I feel that this would be the best course of action for poker players. The sites have for whatever reason decided on a different tack. The minors perhaps because they are waiting for someone else to carry the water, who knows. There a many reasons why they may have decided this and the probability of the success of such an action is just one factor.

PPA, fighting for the sites!
LeapFrog 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 05:12 AM.


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