Iowa State Senator Danielson has again introduced an online poker bill. The bill is Senate Study Bill 1068 and Danielson introduced the bill on January 23, 2013.

Link to bill

Link to track lobbyist declarations (Caesar's, Boyd, and Penn are prominent gaming companies with Iowa casino ties)

Highlights

--Bill makes the racing and gaming commission set rules, issue licenses, etc

--Poker only

--Wagers can be placed from any location in Iowa "...or from any location where authorized by law, subject to any requirements adopted by the commission."

--Taxes will be same as current casino taxes. 22% or 24% on amounts over $3m. The tax rate depends on if you're a gambling boat or race track. Taxes will be calculated on rake collected minus any player incentives e.g. rakeback or comps.

--21 years old to play (same IRL)

--Money must be handled separately from other casino operations

--Allows for service provides (outsource software)

--Service providers will undergo comprehensive investigation regarding past acceptance or assistance of internet wagering. "The commission shall not issue a license to an internet wagering service provider if the commission determines that the service provider has accepted or assisted in the acceptance of any wagers or other consideration related to internet wagering in violation of the laws of any jurisdiction where the service provider operated."

--Players can set a 24-hour max money limit

--Players can voluntarily exclude themselves for life. Any winnings made after voluntary lifetime exclusion would not be paid to the player, but forfeited to the state general fund.

Cliffs: Bill authorizes poker. Wagers from other jurisdictions where authorized by law. Online poker providers who previously operated might not get licensed. Bill doesn't do a whole lot as far as regulation. Regulation would be done by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.

Senator Danielson Twitter
Senator Danielson Facebook

Senator Horn Email Contact Form

Republican Senator Randy Feenstra is also listed on the bill. I'm not sure why given his comments on his blog: "Approval of Internet Gambling: This issue is similar to the legalizing marijuana. The argument is; “everyone is doing it so why not legalize it to make it safer and tax it”. This is a very flawed way on thinking, but it seems many legislators are buying into this idea. I believe there are a lot of bad social activities that are against the law, why would we want to further break down our families and society by approving these types of degenerative policies. The effects of legalizing Gambling and marijuana would create an extreme down side to society as a whole. (I will be voting “no”)" Source

One minor nit, where authorized by law is not technically the same as where legal, it might be legal for someone in another jurisdiction to play poker on sites regulated by that jurisdiction, but that doesn't equate to an Iowa regulated site being authorized by law to accept wagers from that jurisdiction.

What it allows for is some type of reciprocity arrangement with other jurisdictions, i.e. 'you authorize our sites and we'll authorize yours'.

fixed language to lawyer speak

A few notes on the bill:

Only the money which is gross receipts from the site operations (i.e., rake and fees collected) have to be handled separately. The bill does not have any provisions about the handling of player funds other than a requirement to include in reports to the regulators the amounts in each players account before and after wagers.

The penalty for playing if you are underage is $500.

Included in current law, which would also apply to Internet poker in IA, is the following Class D Felony:

Definite implications for the use of HUDs, etc.

For the most part, it's an excellent state bill for Internet poker as it:

1. Has no player penalties for unlicensed play.
2. Allows any poker site to be a service provider (unless operated in violation of laws).
3. Authorizes interstate and international pooling (where authorized by law).
4. Authorizes any game of poker (subject to approval by regulators).
5. Grants multiple licenses.
6. Taxes sites on net revenues (gross revenues less player incentives), rather than deposits or wagers.

Also important to note current Iowa licensees can apply to run joint internet poker operations, meaning casinos can pair together.

Not for PT/HEM or HUDs, no.

Nothing on this list is a feature in either HEM, PT or their respective HUDs

So you don't think that player statistics which reveal the likelihood of how an opponent is betting could be interpreted as: "analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the gambling game" or "analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game"?

This bill is drawing dead. People around here love farming, god and slot machines. Online poker is the devils work along with fantasy sports.

Probably true in the House. It passed the Senate last year b/c Danielson has some clout. The Republican House refused to act on it and gave the Senate a big fu.

Iowa isn't as conservative of a state as you think.

I've lived here almost my entire life. I hear and see the nonsense on a daily basis.

Happens everywhere in the entire nation. The thing holding this bill back is the republican house, but we really don't need to discuss their beliefs. Politics forum for that.

You aren't Illinois or Minnesota, but you're much more like Wisconsin than Indiana, Nebraska or Missouri.

Your gay marriage numbers and actions are one example of that.

Maybe states like Iowa could just pass a law where local counties could opt out, and IPs from those areas would be blocked from depositing/playing on the state site.

It's not like much else is needed except the major cities and towns. 75% of the state could opt out and it might not make a 10% difference in traffic.

Or another state could "authorize" residents to play there for a cut of the $$$$ generated by their residents while not actually having I-Poker in their state.

OBG

no because the software does no analyzing. it provides you raw data based on past hands that have been played at your table

This sounds like a solid piece of legislation. But knowing American politics, a thing like this just wont pass. The last thing most politicians are interested in is giving citizens anymore no strings attached freedom.

But you are leaving off the first part:
The software may not do analyzing, but it is a device the player uses to assist in doing such analyzing. The bill provision doesn't prohibit such devices; it prohibits the use of any devices for the listed purposes.

This is coming from an Evangelical state. No chance its passing

Please make more misinformed posts

This is the legislation needed to help get a multi-state I-poker network.

Iowa is where the Powerball is headquartered, if they want to add poker, it begins here.

I think the chances are at least even it passes.

OBG

When can we find out if this passes or not?

Does Iowa have a referendum process? If so, and it doesn't pass the legislature, then try that. The problem, it seems to me, is that the next election is an off-year election.

Think again. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa in 2009.

A referendum for online poker would get crushed. Local referendums for B&M gambling have good success in Iowa. However, combining the words internet, poker, and gambling isn't going to work out. Huge elderly population who don't understand the series of inter tubes. A strong Republican base in western IA and this isn't really an issue that rallies voters to the polls. People vote for their local casinos b/c they see the jobs and they understand what a casino does. It would be a huge stretch to pass a referendum in NJ, IA, or any state.