If you want to play Internet Poker, tell your Senator NOW

[HUSKER'66]

Good point......you and I seem to be on the same crusade my friend and I only hope that others join us. Surely the various online sites have lobbyists knocking on doors?!? As you mentioned in one of your earlier posts, I brought up the fact that poker is a social game of skill between players. Heck, if we are to believe the numbers, more than 50 MILLION AMERICANS play poker at least occasionally! [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] I'll try to control myself and write 1 or twice a month. [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img] I have enlisted the help of several co-workers who have agreed to write in....they might not play poker near as much as I do, but they see this as another infringement by our government being perpetuated under the premise that they are "protecting" us from the evils of the world.

[RockLobster]

I did the form-letter thing a couple of weeks ago, but today I sent an e-mail to both of my senators. I've met each of them in the past, and I really hope that I got the message through. I stressed:

- Poker is social and skillful.
- Enjoyed by millions of adults around the world.
- Played against other players, where the house provides a fair game and takes a small portion from each pot (it is in their interest to provide fairness).
- This reeks of "big government".
- etc, etc

I can't believe that there's even a chance of having online poker becoming illegal. Does anyone know what sort of details this includes?

[Ted Geisel]

The Details:

HR 2143, which passed the House last night, will block any US Bank, Western Union, or "International" transfer service from using US bank accounts, checks, wires, electronic transfers, anything to send YOUR money to a gaming site or third party payment system which handles gaming. Norcould your Bank accept your money on cashout from a gaming site. (Even if we could quibble about its reach to Neteller, it would certainly send ANY US Bank running from anything related to gaming transactions.) The approach is regulatory and requires action within 6 months of becoming law.

The Senate has S 627, which is basically the same prohibition. S 627 wasn't introduced until this March. It has criminal penalties and banking provisions, which would send it to two Committees.

The Forecast: In the House, the industry bottled up a different bill in Committee, so the Prohibitionists wrote a new version, took out criminal penalties and sailed HR 2143 past that Committee without a vote there. a pretty clever move that worked. I don't know the Senate Rules, but the Prohibitionists are very skillful at advancing their cause. Expect S 627 to be stripped of any excess baggage to ensure as swift a passage route as avaiable.

THAT is why the time to act is NOW.

[GrannyMae]

A lot of posters on this site spend a lot of time on seemingly pointless debates and commentary. Next time, instead of debating about what onlinechamp or Granny or Lori or Mike Haven or Booya said or did not say, take 10 minutes and directly write your Senators and get someone else to do so also

i absolutely agree ted. i have already submitted 5 names via the www.profreedom.com site, and i have sent a personalized one as well.

i think ted's point is that the effort required takes no longer than a post, so please take the moment to do it. a 3 vote swing in the senate would obviously have a huge impact.

the biggest issue here is not that joe homegame will no longer feel safe by playing, he will.

the issue is the sites themselves being pressured by this new law, and therefore no longer being able to handle the transactions.

many gaming sites may close if this bill passes. certain sites, in certain locales will not want to be the target of US scrutiny or associated with the perception of being lumped as a money launderer or terrorist. certain nations will actually make the sites close because their relationship with the US is more important than the revenues they derive from the rooms.

this bill would not kill online gaming, but it would push it VERY hard in the wrong evolutionary direction.

please write the email

[Daithi]

First off, I don't think writing your Senator will do much good.

A congressman that votes for gambling is taking a huge political risk, can't you already see his political opponents commercials, so the only way they will do that is if the online industry heavily contributes to their reelection campaigns. Congressmen don't give a flip about the desires of gamblers.

However, if the bill passes and I own an online Casino/Poker room there is a simple solution. This U.S. law will prevent U.S. financial institutions from funding Online gambling accounts. But U.S. laws don't apply to offshore financial institutions. So the online casinos can either setup an offshore version of PayPal (as a seperate company that is not a casino), or partner with an offshore bank. So instead of funding an account with a casino you fund an account with an offshore bank and the casino has authorization to debit and credit your offshore account -- this could be done with no more hassle than how you currently fund an account with an online casino.

[GrannyMae]

you make good points daithi

however, your argument is flawed in your notion that players will have no problems setting up overseas accounts. i'm here to tell you that most will NOT.

NETeller, as it currently operates, could no longer be linked to a US bank account under this new law. joe homegame will NOT make the effort to open an offshore account, and we will once again be a bunch of sharks in a shark tank because only the most diehard will do this.

you are correct that it is likely to pass, but saying that sending an email can't help, doesn't help.

jmho

[Ted Geisel]

I wish you were right, but you are not, there is no simple solution except to stop this legislation NOW:

You write: "if the bill passes and I own an online Casino/Poker room there is a simple solution. This U.S. law will prevent U.S. financial institutions from funding Online gambling accounts. But U.S. laws don't apply to offshore financial institutions. So the online casinos can either setup an offshore version of PayPal (as a seperate company that is not a casino), or partner with an offshore bank."

Please read this bill, it is guaranteed to inhibit any US financial institution from dealing with any offshore bank/provider which handles gaming. The focus is on disrupting the funds flow whenever it hits the US system, in or out ...no bank will accept a check, wire or electronic transfer to/from an "identified" gaming processor, online gaming co. or affiliated offshore bank. The reach WOULD go as far down as you cashing depositing check from "Foreign Paypal".

The Prohibitionist effort is to choke off US customers access to deposit methods or cashout methods.

Ask yourselves, how many fish will jump through how many hoops to lose at online poker, risking a blacklist from their bank in the process ? People play online poker becaue it is convenient, among other things.

The effect will be in inhibiting the players by making it impossibly incovenient to play at best ... Poker is WAY more vulnerable to player flight than sports books or online casinos because of the need for concurrent numbers of players.

Additionally, look at that check you in the US get from an "offshore" bank ... it is certainly drawn against a US financial institution.... that is why you can deposit it into YOUR bank.

If you doubt the inhibiting effect on your bank, remember how Paypal threw away a multi-million dollar, profitable business because of a threat of prosecution in New York.

VISA has made "gaming blocking" optional for US and Canadian Banks, its effects are already being felt.

Sorry, I wish you were right, but there is no easy solution ... only the direct, difficult one of stopping the enactment of this New Prohibition.

That the Titanic crew wasn't "worried" did not make that iceberg less real.

[Luke]

After reading the posts on this subject, I went ahead and wrote my state's Senators incorporating some of the ideas/arguments cited by other posters as well as some my own. I figured it couldn't hurt... Luke

[eMarkM]

What exactly are the prospects for this bill in the Senate? Anyone have a clue?

[Ted Geisel]

No one, except maybe Lyndon johnson, could ever tell you the exact prospects of a contested bill passing the Senate.

UNFORTUNATELY, the first task is to make this a contested bill, and to make the issue Poker, Entertainment and the Internet ... not Money Laundering.

The second task is to start a fire under your Senators NOW, before they are approached by professional lobbyists on a specific vote or Committee hearing.

If each of those tasks is done, then the prospects are lessened for passage ... there will be no exact answer until votes are counted ... a 3 vote swing in the House would have defeated the House Bill