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 08-02-2010, 08:43 PM   #1076
Schwallie
formerly TheProdigy
 
Schwallie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,234
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
I do not think the PPA has an obligation to be sympathetic to the opposition it is facing in this thread. The fact of the matter is that most of the opposition they have faced in the week since the mark up has been from players who either do not understand the limitations on congressional power, or do not understand the risk of doing nothing or think they live in opt out states.

Just my opinion, but: I have not seen a single opposing viewpoint on this bill that did not begin from one of those three premises.

The counter arguments have all been made time and again:

1. Opt outs are constitutionally required, and even if they weren't, they are a political necessity.

2. Doing nothing means giving a clear field for opponents to push for a ban. The push for this legislation took the initiative from our opponents, forcing them onto the defensive. Thus, even if this were a bad bill, trying to push it through Congress is an effective way of preserving the status quo for the time being.

3. Some players will take a hit when their state opts out. The number of players who take this hit can be kept to a minimum by existing and future lobbying in those states that might opt out. In any event, most states are expected to opt in, and, therefore, supporting this bill is what is best for the majority of PPA's membership.

A small minority of posters have completely ignored these arguments and continued to attack the PPA, TE and Skallagrim. In my view, any obligation they have to demonstrate sympathy for the ignorance and selfishness-based concerns of a tiny minority arguing from fear and ignorance and without a single fact behind them has long since been met.
Perfectly said
Schwallie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:45 PM   #1077
Schwallie
formerly TheProdigy
 
Schwallie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,234
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
Thanks for the insult TE. No, what I wish is that the PPA would not support a bill that will make me a criminal if I choose to remain in the state where I have lived for 55 years, that state (Alabama) chooses to opt-out, and I still want to play online poker. If my state opts out, then I'm relegated to playing on "illegal" unlicensed sites - in addition to being subjected to a 50 percent deposit tax if I do choose (or risk) playing on one of the unlicensed (overseas) sites. I don't know of any other major member-supported organization - such as the AARP or the NRA - that supports legislation that would, in effect, turn some of their members into criminals.

As for those of you who believe that opt-outs will only occur in a handful of states dominated by "Christian right-wing conservative fundamentalists," there's an excellent chance that California will opt out - along with Texas and Massachusetts. That's at least a quarter of the current online poker market here in the United States. All you folks ready to move?

Former DJ
So my choices are we get a bill, they might opt out and I may have to move out of state where I get to play legalized and better games with better selection and reputable sites with easy cashouts

or:

I may get to play for a bit longer with the status quo until I get banned completely then I get to move to a new country with horrible games and no regulations on the big sites.

This seems pretty easy? I think your argument is based on the status quo staying the same(it's not going to), and a bill with no state opt outs(which wouldn't happen in 300 years). What is so hard to understand about these last two points?

Edit: It isn't like the PPA has some underlying motive here. They don't get something by allowing state opt outs. They don't want state opt outs, of course. They just know the only way we can ever get legalized online poker is via allowing them.
Schwallie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:50 PM   #1078
KEW
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,139
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge View Post
I do not think the PPA has an obligation to be sympathetic to the opposition it is facing in this thread. The fact of the matter is that most of the opposition they have faced in the week since the mark up has been from players who either do not understand the limitations on congressional power, or do not understand the risk of doing nothing or think they live in opt out states.

Just my opinion, but: I have not seen a single opposing viewpoint on this bill that did not begin from one of those three premises.

The counter arguments have all been made time and again:

1. Opt outs are constitutionally required, and even if they weren't, they are a political necessity.

2. Doing nothing means giving a clear field for opponents to push for a ban. The push for this legislation took the initiative from our opponents, forcing them onto the defensive. Thus, even if this were a bad bill, trying to push it through Congress is an effective way of preserving the status quo for the time being.

3. Some players will take a hit when their state opts out. The number of players who take this hit can be kept to a minimum by existing and future lobbying in those states that might opt out. In any event, most states are expected to opt in, and, therefore, supporting this bill is what is best for the majority of PPA's membership.

A small minority of posters have completely ignored these arguments and continued to attack the PPA, TE and Skallagrim. In my view, any obligation they have to demonstrate sympathy for the ignorance and selfishness-based concerns of a tiny minority arguing from fear and ignorance and without a single fact behind them has long since been met.

My hero...
KEW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:54 PM   #1079
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
Here is where you put 'words' in my mouth, or are you going to take exception to the phrasing because this is an internet forum? I had said that I lost respect for you, not that you were unworthy of my respect.
That sounds the same to me. I don't know what distinction you're trying to make.

I am humored that you chose to repeat a personal attack on me as if I'm supposed to apologize.

Quote:
It also had nothing to do with a disagreement about the status quo, but about the effects of state opt outs on players. A complete mischaracterization of my post.
It sounds like you have work to do at the state level.

If your state doesn't want you to play, how is rejecting a federal bill licensing the game going to help you? It won't. It will only hurt you. Still, I won't post that I've lost respect for you. That would be rude and inconsiderate.

Quote:
And right here on this page can be seen your efforts to demonize the 'opposition' and squash discussion.
I've done nothing to quash (or even to squash) discussion here. I've merely posted replies.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:03 PM   #1080
fluffysheap
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 224
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sba9630 View Post
If he lives in central Ohio he's about four hours driving distance to FIVE different states.
No driving in Ohio, everyone's patrolmen
fluffysheap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:15 PM   #1081
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
Thanks for the insult TE.
It sounds accurate to me. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Also, I meant no insult. Based on your all other posts, I had assumed you'd be proud to be listed as an opponent.

Quote:
No, what I wish is that the PPA would not support a bill that will make me a criminal if I choose to remain in the state where I have lived for 55 years, that state (Alabama) chooses to opt-out, and I still want to play online poker. If my state opts out, then I'm relegated to playing on "illegal" unlicensed sites - in addition to being subjected to a 50 percent deposit tax if I do choose (or risk) playing on one of the unlicensed (overseas) sites. I don't know of any other major member-supported organization - such as the AARP or the NRA - that supports legislation that would, in effect, turn some of their members into criminals.
The repeal of Prohibition included a state opt out.

PPA is seeking removal of the 50% deposit tax. Once removed, there will be no player penalty in the bill at all. Even with the bad 50% provision, nothing in the bill turns players in opt-out states into criminals. There are no federal crimes for playing anywhere in any bill.

Your problem isn't with the bill. Your problem is with your state. PPA isn't doing anything to force Alabama to opt out. To the contrary, we're working to get every state in. Your state can opt out today by passing legislation criminalizing online poker play. Our efforts help stop that.

I don't know what you want PPA to do to force Alabama to participate. Do you think Congress will force this on them? Do you understand that states have some rights?

IMO, the best way to get Alabama in is for the nation to accept online poker in principle. Alabama may not opt in right away, but this is what it takes to change hearts and minds. Besides, what's the alternative? Hope the sites can withstand continued DoJ assaults on payment processors and worse legislation from Congress? You think our collective opponents will just give up?

If PPA weren't propping up the status quo, it would be gone by now. Then you'd be complaining that we weren't pushing passable legislation in Congress if for no other reason than to block bad bills from passing.

Quote:
As for those of you who believe that opt-outs will only occur in a handful of states dominated by "Christian right-wing conservative fundamentalists," there's an excellent chance that California will opt out - along with Texas and Massachusetts. That's at least a quarter of the current online poker market here in the United States. All you folks ready to move?
If the status quo fails, should we all be ready to move abroad?
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:29 PM   #1082
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
That sounds the same to me. I don't know what distinction you're trying to make.
Unworthy of respect is different then losing respect for someone. You can lose repect for someone and still have some respect left, yes?

Also my second point was that you mischaracterized that particular disagreement as being about the status quo when it was about your insensitivity to the negative aspects of poker players being in an opt-out state.

The 'attack' wasn't meant to be personal but professional. However much you want to you can't have the PPA hat on one minute and take it off the next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I hardly think having either to move to the next state or having to play a smaller site is "getting thrown under the bus."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
Wow, I have to say that I have really lost a lot respect for you. Not a troll, not a personal shot, but just speaking as to your public role as a 'defender' of player's rights.

Yeah, just a minor inconvenience having to move to another state. The wife and kids will understand. Having to pack up and move to play a game that was (probably) legal in your state before is pretty much the definition of being thrown under the bus.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:41 PM   #1083
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 (Passed 41-22-1)

There are really only 2 forces supporting a state opt-out: 1) moral opposition to any expansion of gambling, and 2) a desire to protect local gambling interests.

The moralists are generally beyond persuasion. You either outnumber them or you don't. If you live in a state where they outnumber you, and if they want to stop you from engaging in an activity not directly protected by the Constitution, they have the ability to do just that under a constitutional democratic republic. Under those circumstances, I have about the same feelings with respect to your being able to play online poker as I do to your ability to buy beer on Sunday. Or your ability marry your gay partner. Or ....

IOW, it's your choice to continue to live in a place where most of your neighbors feel quite comfortable with the government telling you how to live your life.

The PPA can help you try and convince your neighbors they are wrong. But barring a violation of your Federal Constitutional rights (of which online poker is not, unfortunately, included), there is no other way the PPA can help you. Sorry, that's life.

Now in the state's like CA or MA where opting out may be done to protect local interests, the problem is not, IMHO, severe at all. I think most will be persuaded not to opt out. But for those that opt out anyway, one of two things will eventually happen: 1) the in-state protected sites/casinos will LOSE customers and/or money compared to those sites/casinos in neighboring states that participate in the Federal system - and so they will lobby to opt-in, or 2) much to my surprise some large state may actually propose and create an in-state poker system that actually provides a good deal for the players and so succeeds - in which case who cares if they opt-in (other than you sharks who may miss the CA or MA "fish")?

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 08-02-2010 at 09:55 PM. Reason: Added "fish" part for you grinders ;)
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:53 PM   #1084
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What is the mechanism for opting in after a state opts out?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:57 PM   #1085
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
What is the mechanism for opting in after a state opts out?
The same as opting out - governor's notice. Takes effect on the first Jan 1 that comes at least 60 days after the notice. (That's the "mechanism", but not necessarily the state requirement to legally opt it/opt out.)

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 08-02-2010 at 10:06 PM.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:57 PM   #1086
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 (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
What is the mechanism for opting in after a state opts out?
The reverse of whatever mechanism opted out - in most states a vote of the legislature. Under the current bills NOTICE of the state's decisions is made by the governor to the feds within the specified time period. How the state actually opts-out/in is not specified in the current bills and so would be subject to state law.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:05 PM   #1087
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
There are really only 2 forces supporting a state opt-out: 1) moral opposition to any expansion of gambling, and 2) a desire to protect local gambling interests.
I think you missed one: 3) the state government wants to gain all the revenues for itself by exclusively running IG as part of its state lottery system.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:08 PM   #1088
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Thanks.

We should figure out/make public which states have different procedures before this comes to a final vote.

Legislature vote will help us when states opt out, but I think getting them to opt back in will be pretty hard. Has any state ever had an easy expanded gambling debate?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:11 PM   #1089
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 (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
I think you missed one: 3) the state government wants to gain all the revenues for itself by exclusively running IG as part of its state lottery system.
True, but assuming such a provision is in a final bill, my analysis about such an entity is the same as for private in-state gaming interests: it will either be a great site offering a great service with good liquidity (in which case fine) or it will be a crappy monopoly site with poor software, service, high rake, and few players (in which case it will fail and the state will then realize that more revenue is to be made from participating in the federal system).

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 08-02-2010 at 10:20 PM.
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:17 PM   #1090
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 (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Thanks.

We should figure out/make public which states have different procedures before this comes to a final vote.

Legislature vote will help us when states opt out, but I think getting them to opt back in will be pretty hard. Has any state ever had an easy expanded gambling debate?
I think this depends. As I have tried to explain above, in States where the gambling debate is mostly a contest of social values, I agree with you. Changing people's attitudes is a difficult and long-term effort.

But in states where the opposition is mostly economically motivated, the opposition is, I believe, wrong as a practical matter. And when events demonstrate convincingly, as I believe they will, that more money is to be made by opting in to the federal system, those states will change policy rather quickly.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:18 PM   #1091
Malefiicus
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Malefiicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ribonucleic acid freak out.
Posts: 6,418
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

I think everyone whose complaining about opt outs is currently not seeing the bigger picture. State rights are an important part of our country, and as such we can't try and force a bill that just further weakens them. In this situation this bill is the best thing we can hope for, and while it might not be the best for the individual, it is the best for the group. If anyone wants to argue that it's better for poker players as a whole to not have regulation... save your words because there's no way you'll win that argument.

It sucks that some states will opt out, but that's how things work in this country. Personally, I'm some 23 year old who travels all the time, so I can't imagine how it feels to have strong roots in a state that might opt out. I wish this wasn't the way it had to be, but in this country this is our very best option.

If I were in an opt out state, the first thing I would do is call and mail every one of my officials that I could get in contact with. Make a strong case for your position, spend more than an hour or two on it, poker is worth more than that, right? Do everything you can, work with the PPA, and try to create the change you desire instead of abhorring the change we need.
Malefiicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:21 PM   #1092
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Perhaps, but passing laws is hard.

I would think (for example) that MA would be able to figure out that there was money to be made allowing casinos into the state after seeing CT casinos working.

Like 15 years later, here we are, no casinos even though all our state leaders want expanded gambling.

Also, given our limited resources, we arent going to be able to battle across 15 or 20 states in a given year. We're going to have to pick our spots, and even there each state probably has a fairly small chance of success in a given year.

Just a neccesary evil of state opt outs.

More importantly, given that the PPA will be bringing the battle to the states where opt outs happen, I think its pretty critical that we know all the provisions we are agreeing to in each state before we support a final bill.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:23 PM   #1093
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefiicus View Post
I think everyone whose complaining about opt outs is currently not seeing the bigger picture. State rights are an important part of our country, and as such we can't try and force a bill that just further weakens them. In this situation this bill is the best thing we can hope for, and while it might not be the best for the individual, it is the best for the group. If anyone wants to argue that it's better for poker players as a whole to not have regulation... save your words because there's no way you'll win that argument.

It sucks that some states will opt out, but that's how things work in this country. Personally, I'm some 23 year old who travels all the time, so I can't imagine how it feels to have strong roots in a state that might opt out. I wish this wasn't the way it had to be, but in this country this is our very best option.

If I were in an opt out state, the first thing I would do is call and mail every one of my officials that I could get in contact with. Make a strong case for your position, spend more than an hour or two on it, poker is worth more than that, right? Do everything you can, work with the PPA, and try to create the change you desire instead of abhorring the change we need.
Agreed, but before we work to set up a system where states opt out, I think we need to know "the rules of the road" so to speak. That way we can figure out how to effectively fight back, create a more informed membership, figure out where to spend resources, etc.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:27 PM   #1094
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 Malefiicus View Post
I think everyone whose complaining about opt outs is currently not seeing the bigger picture. State rights are an important part of our country, and as such we can't try and force a bill that just further weakens them. In this situation this bill is the best thing we can hope for, and while it might not be the best for the individual, it is the best for the group. If anyone wants to argue that it's better for poker players as a whole to not have regulation... save your words because there's no way you'll win that argument.

It sucks that some states will opt out, but that's how things work in this country. Personally, I'm some 23 year old who travels all the time, so I can't imagine how it feels to have strong roots in a state that might opt out. I wish this wasn't the way it had to be, but in this country this is our very best option.

If I were in an opt out state, the first thing I would do is call and mail every one of my officials that I could get in contact with. Make a strong case for your position, spend more than an hour or two on it, poker is worth more than that, right? Do everything you can, work with the PPA, and try to create the change you desire instead of abhorring the change we need.
This is a fantastic post.

As for paragraph 2, it SUCKS. I live in Virginia, which I think is likely (but not certain) to opt out. I have lived here for almost 40 years. I love this state, its history, its geography, everything.

Two years ago, I would have said "I can't imagine living anywhere else." Now, of course, I am forced to not only imagine it, but plan for it. It feels something like what I would imagine it feels like to get a divorce. The discussion my wife and I are having these days is "which one of us is going to give up their job?"

But this is a tough spot that lots of people find themselves in when they are forced to move for their job (or find another job if they refuse to move). And, as I have said in this thread, the agency likely to force this decision on me is Virginia, not the PPA.
mpethybridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:44 PM   #1095
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
Unworthy of respect is different then losing respect for someone. You can lose repect for someone and still have some respect left, yes?
No. One can lose a little respect for someone, lose some respect for someone, lose a lot of respect for someone, or can lose respect for someone, in that order of severity. Most people would interpret the last one as a loss of all respect, as I did.

By the way, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't act so surprised that I commented on it.

Quote:
Also my second point was that you mischaracterized that particular disagreement as being about the status quo when it was about your insensitivity to the negative aspects of poker players being in an opt-out state.

The 'attack' wasn't meant to be personal but professional. However much you want to you can't have the PPA hat on one minute and take it off the next.
I do feel badly for any poker player who happens to reside in an opt-out state. Unfortunately, that's part of living in a democracy (or, more specifically, a representative federal republic). States have some rights to pass some laws.

While it's nice to dream about Washington D.C. ordering Utah to accept online poker, there's nothing in our tradition as a nation to support this. In fact, such a move could be ruled unconstitutional. Even this disregards the fact that Congress has shown zero desire to force this on unwilling states.

The federal legislation PPA supports is not empowering states to pass laws against poker. As I mentioned earlier, states can do that now, and their laws can have real criminal penalties. Even a repeal of the Wire Act cannot stop a state with no poker from criminalizing playing online poker. PPA can fight such laws, but these are long, drawn-out battles with no guarantee of success.

Additionally, it's not the pro-poker forces who are opting out. It's anti-poker politicians. For example, Mississippi was the last state to opt into the repeal of Prohibition. This didn't happen until 1966. History doesn't blame the "wets" for this, as if it's their fault Mississippi opted out. History blames local Mississippi politicians who chose this path, and rightly so. Should wet leaders have tried to force alcohol on Mississippi? Should they have opposed the repeal of Prohibition until 1966?

IMO, the best way to get all the states into a good, stable system is to encourage them to make the choice. We should set up a good system with licensing and regulation that will look far better to opt-out states than a bunch of unlicensed sites offering services within those states. Additionally, the licensed sites will lobby the opt-out states to participate, while poker players will continue to demand their rights.

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-02-2010 at 10:49 PM.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:45 PM   #1096
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

To all who think that HR 2267 is a bad bill. I agree. However, when was the last time that a good bill passed Congress and became law. I can't remember one. IMO, the US Congress could have ceased meeting in 1966 and we would all be better. What some of you are missing is that whether or not HR 2267 is a bad bill is not the real issue? The real issue is whether or not supporting it is the best of a few bad alternatives. So what are the alternatives for the PPA?

1. File an Action for Declaratory Judgment in federal court praying (asking) for the court to declare that online poker sites do not violate any valid federal or state law. This alternative has some problems. First, the PPA needs an online poker site to join the lawsuit or become a member of the PPA to start the lawsuit. Second, even if the case is ultimately won, which the odds favor, it is 50-50 that it will win in the trial court. A loss in the trial court would temporarily, 1-2 years, make matters worse. Also, losing the lawsuit would put online poker in the position where sports betting is now. Finally, the litigation might harm the efforts of legislation. Earlier in the year, I urged this alternative because I thought the odds of passing HR 2267 were so low and did not think that the litigation would harm those odds. However, IMO, the PPA made the right decision to not start this litigation this year. Next year, will be different unless HR 2267 becomes law. IMO, a victory in this litigation would be great and result in legal online poker in the US. Also, IMO it would be very difficult for Congress to reverse it by legislation especially it we all support the PPA in blocking efforts. The NRA has been successful in playing defense on DC for a long time. I know TE and Skall disagree with me about this last point.

2. Insist on a better bill or withdraw support for HR 2267. The problem is that the PPA is a young organization without huge influence in DC. Passing positive legislation is very difficult. Even the NRA, very influential in DC, has never passed any legislation enhancing gun rights. It has softened some legislation, prevented some and won its biggest victories before SCOTUS. This alternative is very unlikely to work and will greatly lessen the influence that the PPA has built.

3. Do nothing and wait until the US Congress bans online poker and then litigate the issue about whether we have a constitution right to play online poker in our own homes. The problem with this alternative is that this case will lose in the trial court and appellate court and must be accepted by SCOTUS to have a chance of success. So we would be outlaws for 3-4 years. Unlike Skall, I give it some chance of success with the present SCOTUS because 5 of the justices seem to understand what freedom is and seem to strictly interpret the US Constitution. These five judges seem to realize that due process includes your right to use your property as you desire if doing so will not harm other people. OTOH, the political pressure in DC and too many years of bad, wrong SCOTUS decisions by activist, socialist justices make this case a very uphill fight with the odds against us like we were KK v AA all in preflop; maybe on the flop.

4. Revolt. OK, online poker seems to be the least important issue to start a revolution. However, I just read an article on Real Clear Politics about the Obama administration and the government spending possibly starting a revolt against DC. It seems like some state are ready to revolt over the immigration issue. So why not over online poker? It's as big an issue as the stamp act in the 1770's. The central issue of all these disputes is freedom. The biggest problem with this alternative, besides starting it, is that it might destroy society and thus kill most of the population, including me and most online poker players. This is not 1776 or 1860. Most Americans cannot survive without electricity and water from utility companies and food from the grocery store. If the trucks stop running, then most of us, me first, are toast. I read a good book called "One Second After" on this matter.

In sum, I can't think of a better alternative than supporting HR 2267 and hoping that it, with HR 2268, or something similar becomes law by this year. Next year, with the GOP's likely takeover of at least the House, IMO the odds of passage will become so low that alternative 1. becomes the best alternative. For now, unless you doubters can propose a clearly better alternative, I recommend that you get on board with the PPA.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:51 PM   #1097
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
No. One can lose a little respect for someone, lose some respect for someone, lose a lot of respect for someone, or can lose respect for someone, in that order of severity. Most people would interpret the last one as a loss of all respect, as I did.

By the way, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Just don't act so surprised that I commented on it.



Assuming we pass anything, I do feel badly for any poker player who happens to reside in an opt-out state. Unfortunately, that's part of living in a democracy (or, more specifically, a representative federal republic). States have some rights to pass some laws.

While it's nice to dream about Washington D.C. ordering Utah to accept online poker, there's nothing in our tradition as a nation to support this. In fact, such a move could be ruled unconstitutional. Even this disregards the fact that Congress has shown zero desire to force this on any unwilling states.

The federal legislation PPA supports is not empowering states to pass laws against poker. As I mentioned earlier, states can do that now, and their laws can have real criminal penalties. Even a repeal of the Wire Act cannot stop a state with no poker from criminalizing playing online poker. PPA can fight such laws, but these are long, drawn-out battles with no guarantee of success.

Additionally, it's not the pro-poker forces who are opting out. It's anti-poker politicians. For example, Mississippi was the last state to opt into the repeal of Prohibition. This didn't happen until 1966. History doesn't blame the "wets" for this, as if it's their fault Mississippi opted out. History blames local Mississippi politicians who chose this path, and rightly so. Should wet leaders tried to force alcohol on Mississippi?

IMO, the best way to get all the states into a good, stable system is to encourage them to make the choice. We should set up a good system with licensing and regulation that will look far better to opt-out states than a bunch of unlicensed sites offering services within those states. These sites will also lobby the opt-out states to participate, while poker players will continue to demand their rights.
TE, some provisions in the US Constitution suggest that states cannot prohibit individuals from playing online poker. One is the clause prohibiting the states from impairment of contracts. Another is the due process clause of the 14th amendment. However, if a state with no legal gambling, or maybe only lottery, would prohibit its citizens from playing online poker, the legal challenge would be dicey given the SCOTUS precedents that basically deleted the impairment clause and removed due process rights over property ownership. The only hope would be that 5 justices of the present SCOTUS seem to be willing to undo some of this wrongly decided, liberal activist precedent.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:57 PM   #1098
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 LetsGambool View Post
Thanks.

We should figure out/make public which states have different procedures before this comes to a final vote.

Legislature vote will help us when states opt out, but I think getting them to opt back in will be pretty hard. Has any state ever had an easy expanded gambling debate?
I agree with Skall here. Getting states with no lawful commercial gaming may be tricky, but getting states that opt out because they think they can make more with an intrastate site will be easier. Some of these states may balk at offering a product inferior to the national one, especially if they have to eat the cost of regulating it. Others won't be able to agree on who would run it and under what terms. They could easily decide simply to take the check from the feds.

Also, a national licensed network will give us a strong base from which to lobby the handful of opt-out states. Poker players will see the possibilities with their own eyes. These sites will also sponsor poker television shows, WPT tournaments, and the WSOP. They may even sponsor tournaments in opt out states (or may even own B&M casinos in opt-out states).
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:58 PM   #1099
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Sort of random, but am I correct in saying that the one thing we can definitely say if this passes is that you can move to Washington DC and play licensed online poker? Or does the District have an opt out procedure as well?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 10:59 PM   #1100
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I agree with Skall here. Getting states with no lawful commercial gaming may be tricky, but getting states that opt out because they think they can make more with an intrastate site will be easier. Some of these states may balk at offering a product inferior to the national one, especially if they have to eat the cost of regulating it. Others won't be able to agree on who would run it and under what terms. They could easily decide simply to take the check from the feds.

Also, a national licensed network will give us a strong base from which to lobby the handful of opt-out states. Poker players will see the possibilities with their own eyes. These sites will also sponsor poker television shows, WPT tournaments, and the WSOP. They may even sponsor tournaments in opt out states (or may even own B&M casinos in opt-out states).
I agree we will get there in most states that arent moralistic. I just think the timeline is like 10-20 years.
LetsGambool 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 04:56 AM.


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