Is what the PPA wants good for us?

[Beanie]

Annie Duke mentioned the Barney Frank bill over and over. The Barney Frank bill allows for opt outs based on state law. Only 11 states or so allow casino's and something like 27 states allow it based on Indian reservations. Some states might opt out because they don't want the additional competition.

Forget about the WTO for a second. Is what the PPA is pushing for good for internet gamblers.

Here are a few links:

Article against the law


http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-0283.html

Summary of the bill

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss042607.shtml

[TheDonk]

I just wanted to tell PPP that I'll stay away from this one - no matter what! I promise.

Interesting thread, I won't be commenting, but hoping PPP and some others will.

TheDonk

[Beanie]

I have to be honest I am shocked no one has responded. I did a similar thread on 2+2 where people have infinitely less at stake and got more response.

They are bringing up the point that the Wexler Bill is a better solution but I have to be honest I think both of these bills won't get past the states and I am not as optimistic about the WTO as some are.

[stillshadow]

Beanie, I'm often surprised as well at the lack of response on such relevant issues to our bank accounts.

Without getting into a long-winded political post, I tend to agree with OGPaper on this one. It's a strange feeling to have after fighting so hard for so long on this issue, but I have this nagging desire for the politicians to just leave well enough alone.

If that article is entirely accurate and so few states would actually embrace this, how could it be good for our US traffic if most of them end up getting passed over?

I was so enraged last September when the UIGEA went through and, as most of us did, took a significant financial hit for several months. Now, I've sort of reached a comfort zone and am still really earning well off the US market and internationally. Being at this level, I would be perfectly happy if the status quo continued for a few more years.

Besides the obvious initial losses from Party, Pacific, etc. MGR is it really that bad for US-facing affiliates right now? We still have great brands open and at least a couple of payment methods. On the other side, how can players really complain too much after the sky-is-falling mentality last year at this time?

I don't trust politicians on this issue, even if it seems to be in our best interest. Sometimes I'm divided on what I feel would be best for players and what I feel is best as an affiliate, but I don't see the need for yet another shake-up in this industry from either side. Just leave my business alone and let me continue to make an honest buck. I'll be happy if things stay the same and the politicians leave well enough alone.

[PPP]

The article offers quite the illogical argument, but for the most part it just misses the point(s)... no bill will become law with Bush as President; current bills will be amended when they do have a chance of passing, which would be the case with Clinton, Obama or Giuliani as President.

The bottom line though is if anyone is thinking that any law is going to pass in the next decade that says it is legal to offer gambling games to Utah residents, they are nuts.

The battle is to get online poker to be possibly legal states where gambling is offered, which is almost every state now except Utah and Hawaii. If some states have laws to prohibit it, fine. All states currently require a license to offer gambling games to citizens of that state, so there is obviously no downside.

[Beanie]

Well from what I am being told the Wexler bill does what you say PPP, which probably is why it doesn't have a lot of steam. The Frank bill I think is a bad bill which easily allows states to opt out. I can't imagine a scenario that if the Frank Bill passes is good for any of us. The Wexler Bill apparently keeps things status quo if you promote just skill games.

Allowing states to opt out is akin to giving them a stick to beat the hell out of us with.

[PPP]

Any bill will allow states to opt out. The status quo now is offering poker games online is illegal in all 50 states, so the Frank bill letting it be so it could be illegal in less than 50 states is a slam dunk improvement.

The Wexler bill is better. No matter what though there will never be a federal law that forces all states to allow some type of gambling, at least not for decades.

The best that we can hope for is any state that offers gambling, especially poker, will end up following the WTO ruling and not be allowed to prevent international companies from offering what local companies (or the state) do.

[Beanie]

the DOJ lady actually said differently, but I see your point.