Shift by Kyl on online poker? - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

Shift by Kyl on online poker?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

04-27-2011 , 04:15 PM

jrobb

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,204

I was looking at Jon Kyl's website today trying to find a statement about online poker I had read in the past. I was surprised when what I could find about online gambling was this:

Quote:

I have opposed efforts to legalize Internet gambling in the past because evidence suggests that it fosters problems unlike any other forms of gambling. Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of cash — leading to possible addiction and, in turn, bankruptcy, crime, and even suicide.

Efforts to carve out an exception for games like poker, which many believe is a game of skill, may be considered later this year. Until I have the chance to review them, I cannot make a judgment about their merits; but I will consider them carefully as long as they leave in place the broader proscriptions against online betting.

This is a pretty seismic shift of opinion about online poker when you consider what he has said in the past:

Quote:

Exempting online poker would undermine state gambling laws, making it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states to enforce their laws against gambling on online poker, and would override any policy decisions made by state legislatures.

Quote:

Online poker is currently the most addictive form of gambling activity among American youth. The National Annenberg Risk Survey of Youth (ages 14 to 22) over the last few years has identified rising trends in poker and Internet gambling as significant and worrisome. The research finds that online poker players are more likely to exhibit problem gambling symptoms than other types of gamblers and over half of young people who gamble on the Internet weekly display signs of problem gambling. Exempting online poker would, thus, exacerbate the two most pernicious aspects of Internet gambling: addictiveness and easy access for youth.

This is potentially a very good omen for ipoker in this legislative session. It also may indicate that the PPA message about poker (it's different than other forms of gambling) may be gaining steam in Congress.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:25 PM

blink20

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,164

Wow, thats a little beam of light.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:25 PM

blutarski

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,436

#notmeantasafactualstatement

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:26 PM

YoureToast

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,582

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice catch.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:29 PM

kwansolo

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutarski

#notmeantasafactualstatement

i laughed. i cried.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:48 PM

sluggger5x

John Connor of poker

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,592

Just got some hope with that statement. If that's his actual stance than he needs to be FLOODED with letters by poker players.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:54 PM

Zenzor

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by blink20

Wow, thats a little beam of light.

huge understatement

Kyl should be gloating about his role in passing the UIGEA, which the DOJ used to prosecute Pokerstars and FTP. Instead, this corrupt **** is admitting that perhaps his staunch position that online poker is not a game of skill is misfounded. Our biggest opponent suddenly changes sides overnight after the DOJ wipes foreign competition out of the market. ****s not right.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 04:54 PM

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutarski

#notmeantasafactualstatement

yeah comeon, just 4 months ago he was the MAJOR force opposing legislation that included all kinds of special provisions for problem gamblers and underage players. it benefits him to not seem inflexible, because it gives people a reason to work with him and give him a lot of what he wants. **** politics and **** this *******

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:05 PM

RazzSpazz

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 399

Would be interesting to know exactly when he made those changes. Within a couple of days ago? Right after Black Friday? A month ago?

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:10 PM

#10

PokerFreedom

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 364

Has PPA contacted Kyl's office for his willingness to work with us. If he indeed softens his stand against online poker, it could be a huge momentum swing to our side.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:11 PM

#11

kwansolo

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazzSpazz

Would be interesting to know exactly when he made those changes. Within a couple of days ago? Right after Black Friday? A month ago?

*as soon as he verified int'l competitors were out of the picture

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:15 PM

#12

Zenzor

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerFreedom

Has PPA contacted Kyl's office for his willingness to work with us. If he indeed softens his stand against online poker, it could be a huge momentum swing to our side.

Obv Kyl's office will say the UIGEA was #NotMeantToBeAfactualStatement

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:19 PM

#13

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Assuming he's not blowing smoke for some unknown reason, I wonder if Harry Reid and the Casino's would accept poker only legislation as a compromise?

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:22 PM

#14

blink20

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,164

This new stance on online gaming from him is taken from his website as the op says. I attempted to check out earlier versions to see when this change was made, but the most recent archived copy of the website is from 10/26/2010 and this was his statement on online gambling then:

Quote:

The Federal Wire Act of 1961 made it a crime to place bets over electronic communications media, primarily communications by telephone. But, over time, the reach of the proscription extended to communications via emerging technologies, including the Internet. Internet gambling is, therefore, illegal under federal law, and runs afoul of state laws prohibiting gambling as well.

The reason that Internet gambling took hold, despite the bans, is that law enforcement capabilities were unable to keep up with the technological innovations. That's why, in 2006, Congress approved the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) to give the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Justice Department, new authority to enforce the ban by blocking the flow of money to and from illegal gambling websites which operate primarily offshore. Forty-nine state attorneys general were among those who had petitioned Congress for these new tools to enforce the Internet gambling ban.

I support UIGEA to give law enforcement the tools it needs to deal with technologies that could not have been foreseen when the ban was adopted long ago. No one is entitled to circumvent a law simply because it is hard to enforce.

edit: The page is the exact same, its in his crime section, and the layout is the same, its just sometime after 10/26/2010 he changed his statement about online gaming It would be very interesting to know if that happened pre or post 4/15

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:24 PM

#15

sluggger5x

John Connor of poker

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,592

When was this statement issued? If this statement was made shortly after April 15, I might start wearing my tinfoil hat for a bit as I wonder if Kyl and Reid have been communicating regarding federal regulation.

My ignorance leads me to believe that this knockout of the market is what Kyle wanted all along if he were to allow federal regulation to slip through the Senate.

meh I can be hopeful for something right?

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:24 PM

#16

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Assuming he's not blowing smoke for some unknown reason, I wonder if Harry Reid and the Casino's would accept poker only legislation as a compromise?

The failed Reid bill back in December was poker only.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:28 PM

#17

blink20

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,164

Quote:

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

My ignorance leads me to believe that this knockout of the market is what Kyle wanted all along if he were to allow federal regulation to slip through the Senate.

The only problem with this reasoning is that Kyl effectively got the KO of the market in the bill proposed in the lame duck last year because of the black out provision, yet the bill still was unable to get through.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:29 PM

#18

jrobb

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,204

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazzSpazz

Would be interesting to know exactly when he made those changes. Within a couple of days ago? Right after Black Friday? A month ago?

This is what I was curious about when I first ran across the "new" stance on ipoker regulation. It wasn't immediately clear to me.

I would be very careful about reading too much into this, however. "I will carefully consider it" is often political code for "I'll appear to be reasonable while wiping my ass with your idea."

It is the qualifier at the end that gives me the most hope he'll actually consider it.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:32 PM

#19

sluggger5x

John Connor of poker

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,592

Quote:

Originally Posted by blink20

FT/PS were dominating the market then. The door to getting all of these disgruntled players is wiiiiide open right now. This just might be what Kyl was wanting.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:36 PM

#20

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

The failed Reid bill back in December was poker only.

Oh, well then I'm stupid and am mixing up the Reid bill and the Frank bill. Perhaps he thinks some kind of Igambling legislation is going to pass this session, and this is his attempt to keep that legislation as narrow as possible.

Really it's all speculation. He's not running for office again, and he decided to switch his position just a few months after blocking the Reid bill.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:38 PM

#21

Malefiicus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 6,417

Pretty awesome news. Prospects for regulated online poker in the US look good.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:40 PM

#22

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

FT/PS were dominating the market then. The door to getting all of these disgruntled players is wiiiiide open right now. This just might be what Kyl was wanting.

the blackout period would have provided the exact same wide open door.

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:45 PM

#23

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

the blackout period would have provided the exact same wide open door.

could be revenge for the sites not paying him off enough during/before the dec push, so he sic'd his thugs to off em

Quote

04-27-2011 , 05:46 PM

#24

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

the blackout period would have provided the exact same wide open door.

Except for the possibility of mergers, which might have been permitted with the Reid Bill. US Gov may have wanted to really stick it to PS & FT for daring to operate post UIGEA.