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.

Baca's second amendment proposes states and indian tribes need to opt-in instead of needing to opt-out.

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.

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.

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.

LOL Barney Frank is a genius. What a contrast with Mr. Bachus.

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

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

lol in the Southern draw that was hysterical.

This would be a killer. If states have to explicitly opt in we're gonna get like <5 states.

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

Lol Bachus: "Why let the people decide for themselves what they want???"

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.

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?

The convenience stores have come out with a position!

Frank opposes this opt-in amendment.

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.

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

I agree many may stop supporting the effort, which IMO is unfortunate.

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

man, that is a great point, slippery slope irt personal internet use

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

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.

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.

Our goal is to show support in this committee, not in the entire House. We won't support a bad bill in the House.

Barney is fighting hard on this one and it's good to see.

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