Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 10:55 AM   #126
h0trod
grinder
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 427
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Looks like they caught it and caused it to be withdrawn (to be fixed up).
It does not sound like anything they are going to fix changes anything for Stars / FT. I agree with the above, I don't particularly care if Stars / FT are eligible for a license, except as far as that without them the PPA gets a lot weaker, and we are less likely to succeed.
h0trod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:55 AM   #127
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Baca's second amendment proposes states and indian tribes need to opt-in instead of needing to opt-out.
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:55 AM   #128
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
The problem with the licensing language regarding foreign sites is not what happens if/when a bill passes. If we design the bill right, there are plenty of places to play.

The problems are, given this bill is still a long shot for this Congress

A) We are going to lose a funding source. If Stars and Tilt can't get licensed, they will support the status quo. This is going to hurt the PPA and our chances in future Congress.
B) Hurts players as it makes it more likely that the big two leave the US and/or run their business short-term.

Smart amendment by Bachus, really bad that Frank supports it IMO.
The goal here is to show bipartisan support for our overall position. I believe we'll get that.

I don't see the Senate moving a bill for ALL gaming. I believe it will poker-only there, so that's where the details will matter.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:55 AM   #129
numberline
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 80
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Bachus is so far essentially supporting all amendments so as to make the final bill as restrictive as possible. I think he realizes it will pass through committee.
numberline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:56 AM   #130
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkandarAkbar View Post
It really sounds like they want to punish those who kept allowing Americans after UIGEA and reward those who gave us the boot. Party Poker must be grinning ear to ear right now if they consider them an unintentional offender.
Yup, I mentioned this last week as a possible bad amendment to the bill. Party has done some lobbying of their own.

Hope this doesnt pass, but Frank being in agreement is bad.

Forgot to add a third problem, many of the uninformed players will hear no Tilt and no Stars and stop supporting regulation.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:57 AM   #131
niss
Wood
 
niss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Woodmere
Posts: 16,076
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

LOL Barney Frank is a genius. What a contrast with Mr. Bachus.
niss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:58 AM   #132
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

TE,

They should at least penalize those that took bets for a period of time: 6 months...Deny them first market entrant access...How can they just dismiss a company forever and give them a life sentence for a law that they potentially turn around and pass years later which further proves that the law in the first place was a bad one.

Michael of NJ
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:58 AM   #133
SkandarAkbar
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nixa, MO
Posts: 406
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

bachus "If were going legalize gambling on every Ipod in America"

lol in the Southern draw that was hysterical.
SkandarAkbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 10:59 AM   #134
GMan42
Pooh-Bah
 
GMan42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bringing you mediocrity since 1971
Posts: 5,081
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboardvox View Post
Baca's second amendment proposes states and indian tribes need to opt-in instead of needing to opt-out.
This would be a killer. If states have to explicitly opt in we're gonna get like <5 states.
GMan42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:00 AM   #135
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Bachus notes that, under the proposed 90-day opt out, there's an issue because some states would not even be able to have a referendum on it (or whatever the process is) in that time period. Seems like he may be right*. Sherman says he plans to introduce an amendment to extend the 90 days to the length of "a full legislative session".


*well, maybe not right, but that there would be some states that didn't care about the issue enough to spend resources opting out in time
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:00 AM   #136
nsdjoe
old hand
 
nsdjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: zombies b shoppin'
Posts: 1,772
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Lol Bachus: "Why let the people decide for themselves what they want???"
nsdjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:00 AM   #137
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
The problem with the licensing language regarding foreign sites is not what happens if/when a bill passes. If we design the bill right, there are plenty of places to play.

The problems are, given this bill is still a long shot for this Congress

A) We are going to lose a funding source. If Stars and Tilt can't get licensed, they will support the status quo. This is going to hurt the PPA and our chances in future Congress.
B) Hurts players as it makes it more likely that the big two leave the US and/or run their business short-term.

Smart amendment by Bachus, really bad that Frank supports it IMO.

Yea PS/FT wont support a bill if they can' receive a license but that shouldn't mean we the players should stop supporting the bill. If PS/ft don't support the bill and cut off funding to lobby then there will plenty of others that do, all those other overseas sites that haven't offered games to US players, as well as any US gaming companys that support the bill.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:00 AM   #138
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
The goal here is to show bipartisan support for our overall position. I believe we'll get that.

I don't see the Senate moving a bill for ALL gaming. I believe it will poker-only there, so that's where the details will matter.
This is moving the goalposts a bit IMO.

We have all talked about how the bill isnt perfect, but would be potentially made better in markup (especially in regards to the problems with players in unlicensed states).

Now, if the bill is made worse in markup we should still support it unconditionally? A final bill does still have to pass the House and our chances for a Senate bill are pretty slim right now.

Lets see what this looks like out of markup, but at some point we have to draw the line and make sure we get a bill that actually helps poker.

Do we have anyone offering amendments on the player penalties for players in unlicensed states?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:01 AM   #139
Punker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Punker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McJesus saves
Posts: 7,600
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

The convenience stores have come out with a position!
Punker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:02 AM   #140
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Frank opposes this opt-in amendment.
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:02 AM   #141
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
Yea PS/FT wont support a bill if they can' receive a license but that shouldn't mean we the players should stop supporting the bill. If PS/ft don't support the bill and cut off funding to lobby then there will plenty of others that do, all those other overseas sites that haven't offered games to US players, as well as any US gaming companys that support the bill.
The problem is this isnt going to pass this Congress, so its damaging to the current games.

Also increases the chance of a France like monopoly bill.

I dont think its a complete dealbreaker, but its a huge, huge negative.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:02 AM   #142
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberline View Post
Bachus is so far essentially supporting all amendments so as to make the final bill as restrictive as possible. I think he realizes it will pass through committee.
Excellent point...+1...I couldn't agree w/ u more...This is why Bachus introduced an amendment that is even more restrictive than UIGEA...Now he is doing double-talking...

Michael of NJ
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:03 AM   #143
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post

Forgot to add a third problem, many of the uninformed players will hear no Tilt and no Stars and stop supporting regulation.
I agree many may stop supporting the effort, which IMO is unfortunate.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:03 AM   #144
guids
banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,996
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I really think this has all been pretty much decided, and it is going through etc, w/ party having taken care of things along time ago to ensure they dont get nicked up
guids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:04 AM   #145
guids
banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,996
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

man, that is a great point, slippery slope irt personal internet use
guids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:04 AM   #146
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Details matter on the withdrawn amendment. If the licensing is based on "taking unlawful bets or wagers" both Stars and FTP will have the ability to argue that they never did that by making the case that online poker is not against current law.

The opt-in amendment is both more and less dangerous. Opt-in is bad momentum wise. But requiring a legislative action is good procedure-wise.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:04 AM   #147
KGBatemyoreos
grinder
 
KGBatemyoreos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cardboard box on the beach.
Posts: 468
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Frank: "Nobody is forced to bet"

Frank is spot on here. I wasn't in agreement with Bachus when he was tlaking about this bill allowing gmabling on every computer in every home of America. That is completely wrong.
KGBatemyoreos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:05 AM   #148
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
This is moving the goalposts a bit IMO.
Not really. I'm just sharing where we are.

Our goal is to pass affirmative poker legislation, not legislation for all gaming. I believe the controls we see on all gaming will be, by definition, more onerous that what we'd see for poker only.

Quote:
Now, if the bill is made worse in markup we should still support it unconditionally? A final bill does still have to pass the House and our chances for a Senate bill are pretty slim right now.
Our goal is to show support in this committee, not in the entire House. We won't support a bad bill in the House.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:06 AM   #149
SkandarAkbar
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nixa, MO
Posts: 406
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Barney is fighting hard on this one and it's good to see.
SkandarAkbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:06 AM   #150
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
The problem is this isnt going to pass this Congress, so its damaging to the current games.

Also increases the chance of a France like monopoly bill.

I dont think its a complete dealbreaker, but its a huge, huge negative.
Slow down...We haven't even gotten there yet...The amendment was withdrawn and the committee members should be on to it.

Michael of NJ
ivey10k 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 05:34 AM.


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