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 08-26-2010, 03:52 PM   #1326
JohnWilkes
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,013
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordias View Post
...

Then there is the issue of the Republicans possibly taking back the House in November. I don't want to be the voice of doom here, but I think the prognosis is pretty grim for internet poker becoming legal in the US any time soon.
The number of Republicans backing us is growing. We will still have strong Democratic support, at least in the house.
JohnWilkes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 04:02 PM   #1327
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)

It's gonna pass.









In 2024.




:{
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:14 PM   #1328
DeadMoneyDad
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,276
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
We have members picking up some of this. I've done a bit myself. That being said, we really don't have many situtations where we're paying lobbyists to do what volunteers could do on their own.
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..........

Last edited by DeadMoneyDad; 08-26-2010 at 05:22 PM.
DeadMoneyDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 06:14 PM   #1329
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
What would we get for that tremendous expense? For the sake of discussion, let's say PPA spent half our its budget on collecting data on opt-outs and learned that 20 states could potentially opt out (again, we'd never know precisely). Would we quit and decide to milk the status quo for a couple of years?
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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 08:28 PM   #1330
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
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?

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 08-26-2010 at 08:45 PM.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:32 PM   #1331
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 09:58 PM   #1332
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
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
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:04 PM   #1333
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
... and I have no idea where the ballot decision stuff comes from.
In some states, it takes a constitutional amendment to modify existing laws on gambling.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 10:49 PM   #1334
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 DeadMoneyDad View Post
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..........
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 04:57 AM   #1335
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
In some states, it takes a constitutional amendment to modify existing laws on gambling.
Those are likely opt-out states, but makes sense
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 04:59 AM   #1336
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
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
Thats probably right, but I think reasonable minds can still differ. Much more so than if we knew the opt-out outcome.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 06:51 AM   #1337
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
Those are likely opt-out states, but makes sense
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 11:49 AM   #1338
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 12:36 PM   #1339
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 02:09 PM   #1340
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 06:01 PM   #1341
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
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.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 07:21 PM   #1342
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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".
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 07:54 PM   #1343
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
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?
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:05 PM   #1344
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

No. Ive said my peace.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 08:40 PM   #1345
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
I guess calling him afraid of victory and welcoming him to reality arent personal attacks and certainly arent worth reporting.
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.

Quote:
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".
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 10:16 AM   #1346
jackdeuce
newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.

Quote:
Hello,

I'm a resident of district 13, and an undecided voter going into the 2010 Congressional election. One issue that is important to me was recently addressed in the House Financial Services Committee in the way of HR2267, the " Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act". The bill passed a committee vote 41-22, but David Scott voted against it. My question is, what is Mike Crane's stance on the issue of internet gambling (more specifically poker or other games that have a skill element), and how would he have voted on HR2267?

Thank you very much for your time,

jackdeuce
3 weeks later I received this reply:

Quote:
Mr. jackdeuce,

Thank you for contacting the campaign. I have discussed this issue with Mike, and he would have voted against the bill in question, but not because of his stance regarding internet gambling. Mike disliked the structure of the bill and the fact that it delegates too much authority to the Treasury Secretary.

Mike does not believe that the federal government should have effectively banned internet gambling in the way they have, by prohibiting financial institutions from processing transaction to internet gaming sites.

The issue here is that the federal government wants to extract taxes from the online gaming industry, and in the absence of being able to do so they prohibit the activity in question. It is a familiar technique.

I hope this answers your question. If not , please feel free to inquire again. Thank you.

Matthew Watson
--
Mike Crane for Congress
Crane for Congress, Inc.
(770) 319-4744 Office
(678) 401-7945 Fax
P.O. Box 1370
Fairburn GA, 30213
www.craneforcongress.com
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.
jackdeuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 12:28 PM   #1347
LuckyfishZ
veteran
 
LuckyfishZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,361
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LuckyfishZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 01:08 PM   #1348
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)

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???
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 02:36 PM   #1349
YoureToast
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,582
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
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.
YoureToast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 04:21 PM   #1350
DeadMoneyDad
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,276
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
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???
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.
DeadMoneyDad 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 05:01 AM.


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