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 08-31-2010, 04:35 PM   #1351
Fermion5
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Fermion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michael Huemer & Larken Rose
Posts: 8,381
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadMoneyDad View Post
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.
From what I understood, the senate doesn't matter with respect to Frank as Chair. Only the house.

From the article:

Quote:
If Republicans were to gain control of the House, then Congressman Barney Frank’s (D-MA) tenure as Financial Services Committee Chairman may come to an end.
Quote:
Polls show control of the House of Representatives is too close to call while the Democrats are expected to retain control of the Senate, albeit with a reduced majority.
And 'too close to call' is a generous statement. Most sources say the GOP is favored.

Last edited by Fermion5; 08-31-2010 at 04:42 PM.
Fermion5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 05:16 PM   #1352
Jonaspublius
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The America becoming
Posts: 2,182
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadMoneyDad View Post
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.
Republicans taking the Senate is still about the same as perf perf, but no matter if they do or don't, this may be one of the strangest lame duck Congresses ever.
I think barring a bounce back to Dems or major proportions, Pelosi is gone. Hell, voting her out of the Speaker's chair now might be the best electoral strategy Dems could do. The Senate will be odd because of all the retiring Senators of both parties, sitting appointed Senators for 7 or 8 states, and incumbents already defeated in primaries. You have a good 15-20 people who won't be there next Congress regardless of the election results. Then, the very real chance of Reid not even winning his seat back. It could be paralysis or major horse trading. We still need that one Congressperson willing to take up our cause in a conference committee, and we still have no progress there.

As for 2011, if its Republicans running one branch of government, forget it. Too many of the leaders are willing to listen to the hard, social right on a very minor(which we are) issue.
Jonaspublius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 10:58 AM   #1353
DeadMoneyDad
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,276
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion5 View Post
From what I understood, the senate doesn't matter with respect to Frank as Chair. Only the house.





And 'too close to call' is a generous statement. Most sources say the GOP is favored.
Sorry. Frank is done as chairman, IMO, Dems loose the House. I was addressing the posters Senate question.

For poker I hope I'm wrong. For the country I'm not sure. Divided government at least gives us less government, which IMO is a good thing.
DeadMoneyDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 10:43 PM   #1354
DreadAgent
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Out there
Posts: 71
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Does Frank's bill support all forms of gaming (except sport betting)?

I was under the impression that this bill only dealt with online poker.

"Manion added, “Another criteria would be poker only. The Frank bill as it’s currently written authorizes all types of gaming. That violates Federal law and breaks agreements of states and tribal nations."

From commerce casino response http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/commer...slation-15152/
DreadAgent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:59 AM   #1355
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadAgent View Post
Does Frank's bill support all forms of gaming (except sport betting)?

I was under the impression that this bill only dealt with online poker.
Frank's bill as it currently exists is all gambling, and in fact currently does not distinguish poker from other gambling (other than sports betting) in any way. There is some speculation as to an eventual possible political compromise being to modify the Frank bill and its eventual companion in the Senate to be poker-only, but this has not happened yet.
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 10:35 AM   #1356
tangled
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,795
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

What I don't get is how 2267 will get us around the Justice Department's insistence that the Wire Act applies to all internet wagering, anymore than the 2000 amendment of the Horseracing Act doesn't get HR around the Wire Act, in the view of the Justice Department. And if the Justice Department asserts that IPoker is illegal, banks will still not want to handle our transactions, 2267 not withstanding.

But I am willing to accept that it does. But that brings to my mind another question: If 2267 does get us around the Wire Act even in the view of the Justice Department, then why are we talking about this becoming a poker only bill? Why don't we make it a, poker and HR, only bill? We know HR wants an obvious statutory exemption to the Wire Act, and we know that if we get HR on board, passage of 2267 would become much, much easier.

I know I'm missing something.
tangled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 11:50 AM   #1357
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 tangled View Post
What I don't get is how 2267 will get us around the Justice Department's insistence that the Wire Act applies to all internet wagering, anymore than the 2000 amendment of the Horseracing Act doesn't get HR around the Wire Act, in the view of the Justice Department. And if the Justice Department asserts that IPoker is illegal, banks will still not want to handle our transactions, 2267 not withstanding.
HR2267 states that licensees may accept bets or wagers from persons located in the US. In other words, it expressly legalizes licensed iPoker. In addition, the bill contains two provisions that protect licensed sites from enforcement of the Wire Act and the UIGEA:

Quote:
`Sec. 5388. Safe harbors

`It shall be a complete defense against any prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law against any person possessing a valid license under this subchapter that the activity is authorized under and has been carried out lawfully under the terms of this subchapter.

`Sec. 5389. Relation to section 1084 of title 18 and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

`Section 1084 of title 18 [the Wire Act] and subchapter IV of this chapter [the UIGEA] shall not apply to any Internet bet or wager occurring pursuant to a license issued by the Secretary under this subchapter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tangled
But I am willing to accept that it does. But that brings to my mind another question: If 2267 does get us around the Wire Act even in the view of the Justice Department, then why are we talking about this becoming a poker only bill? Why don't we make it a, poker and HR, only bill? We know HR wants an obvious statutory exemption to the Wire Act, and we know that if we get HR on board, passage of 2267 would become much, much easier.
It's not really up to us to make it anything. We can only lobby for what we want. The bill is likely to evolve to poker only because that is what is palatable to the majority of politicians, will bring enough votes for passage and matches what has already been proposed in the Senate (the Menendez bill). Including HR in the bill would help bring on board the HR lobby, but could also create additional opposition.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see the HR lobby attempt to attach their legislation in the Senate mark up process. Passage of such an amendment in committee would be a good indication that the Senate leadership expects that adding HR to the bill will overall help it pass - most amendments that pass do so because they are needed to get more votes on board.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 03:34 PM   #1358
wildb
centurion
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 142
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Have we gotten so late in this session that the chances of passing this into law have reached next to impossible?

Would just a vote on the house floor be a victory at this point?

I don't know. Would like feedback from people more informed.
wildb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2010, 04:34 PM   #1359
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 wildb View Post
Have we gotten so late in this session that the chances of passing this into law have reached next to impossible?

Would just a vote on the house floor be a victory at this point?

I don't know. Would like feedback from people more informed.
PPA sent out an alert yesterday evening asking that everyone who resides in a House Ways and Means member's Congressional district send this letter to their congressmen:

http://www.capwiz.com/pokerplayersal...677501&type=TA

Quote:
I am a voter, a poker player and one of your constituents. I am writing to urge you to vote on H.R. 4976, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010, before Congress breaks for the Fall elections. As you may know, this legislation's companion bill, H.R. 2267 was voted out of the House Financial Services Committee in July with broad bi-partisan support (41 to 22). Please tell House Ways & Means Committee leadership that they should immediately bring H.R. 4976 up for Committee consideration in the coming weeks.

While it is true that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $42 billion over 10 years can be raised through the regulation and taxation of Internet gaming, for me the primary issues are ones of personal freedom and consumer protection. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) signed into law in 2006 attempts to tell me (and my bank) how I should spend my money. This ridiculous law has been roundly criticized and has been no more effective than alcohol prohibition was 90 years ago. Notwithstanding the UIGEA, today more than 10 million Americans have online poker accounts and we welcome the additional consumer protections a U.S. regulated industry would provide.

H.R. 2267 which passed out of the House Financial Services Committee on July 28th provides sensible regulation of Internet poker and puts the U.S. in charge of safeguarding its citizens. The bills mandate rigorous safeguards against underage participation and implement protections for those with excessive gaming habits while providing consumer protections for the millions of Americans who play Internet poker every day. The bills also permit American companies to participate in the world's Internet gaming market, bringing needed jobs to our shores.

I call your attention to a study commissioned by WiredSafety, the preeminent online safety advocacy organization, and conducted by Harvard University, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated? Managing the Risks." This in-depth study examines 10 major risk factors associated with Internet gambling from addition to underage access and from money laundering to fraud and abuse, and the authors very credibly conclude that the "establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer far better protection against online gambling's potential social harms than outright prohibition" and that "consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now" under a regulated system. The study can be found at www.theppa.org/harvardstudy I hope you and your staff take the time to read this important report.

As a benefit of this good public policy, Rep. McDermott's bill (H.R. 4976) would raise significant revenue for both state and federal governments. In these difficult economic times our government should be capturing every Internet gaming tax dollar that is currently going overseas to other countries that regulate the activity.

H.R. 4976 is a good bill, however, as a poker player I do oppose provisions in the bill that seek to impose a 50 percent tax penalty for playing on an unlicensed site - Subsection E, sections (c) and (d). This tax burden should be the full responsibility of the operator, NOT the player. I urge you to work with the Poker Players Alliance to correct this section of the bill.

Please urge the Committee leadership to take up this bill before you break for the elections. I hope that you can agree that regulation of Internet poker will enhance personal freedom, provide strong consumer protections and raise much needed revenue for our government.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2010, 06:52 AM   #1360
kikadell
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,012
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

hey guys,

this seems to be the lc/nc thread regarding legislation so,

i may have posted this before, but this TED talk has some very solid info regarding contacting politicians and getting them to actually listen

http://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_...and_paper.html
kikadell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 01:12 PM   #1361
Strengthftw
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

If this bill doesn't pass, what are the chances that it passes next year?

What will happen to poker if these bills don't pass?
Strengthftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 01:53 PM   #1362
Six Finger Nate
old hand
 
Six Finger Nate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,623
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Response from Congressman Devin Nunes (R) California:

Dear Nate,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

HR 2267 would amend HR 6667 of 2008. The goal of HR 2267 is to develop a system in which U.S. based companies are able to obtain licenses that legally allow them to operate federally regulated online gambling sites.

HR 2267 is currently being reviewed by the Financial Services, Judiciary and Energy Commerce Committees, all of which I am not a member of. While these committees continue to review the merits of HR 2267, there are several issues that still need to be addressed before I can support it. Rest assured, as they continue to review the legislation, I will keep your support in mind.
---------------------

I wish he would have listed the issues that need to be addressed, but it seems like there is a glimmer of hope here. He's a very conservative Republican with a rating of D by the PPA....if we can get him on our side it would be a big plus imo.
Six Finger Nate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 02:01 PM   #1363
Six Finger Nate
old hand
 
Six Finger Nate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,623
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kikadell View Post
hey guys,

this seems to be the lc/nc thread regarding legislation so,

i may have posted this before, but this TED talk has some very solid info regarding contacting politicians and getting them to actually listen

http://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_...and_paper.html
This is very true. I wrote to my congressman via e-mail, fax, and twitter, and I called as well. The only response I got was from the snail-mail letter that I sent.
Six Finger Nate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 03:15 PM   #1364
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)

Nice work Nate.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 07:46 PM   #1365
PokerJeremy
centurion
 
PokerJeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 149
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

From The Engineer's PPA website suggestion - I sent an email again from last month with exactly same script:

Response seems to be great so far!

Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for writing me about this important federal legislation. Should it become law, I will support Virginia's participation.

Sincerely,
Janet Howell
PokerJeremy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 10:37 PM   #1366
JohnWilkes
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,013
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion5 View Post
...
And 'too close to call' is a generous statement. Most sources say the GOP is favored.
From where I sit, at the present, many people think the Reps. are the best of two awful choices. The GOP is not favored by many, just disliked less than Dems. at present.
JohnWilkes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 01:12 PM   #1367
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)

Any chance left?

Quote:
In other words, poker players should keep their expectations realistic for now. You still have a better chance of rivering that one-outer than a poker bill has of passing through both houses in the small amount of legislative time remaining this year.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 08:01 PM   #1368
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Maybe closer to lower pair vs higher pair on the flop, but pretty close to accurate IMO
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 05:06 AM.


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