HR4411 - tomorrow is the big day...

[GTDawg]

I think it is funny too. I mean, once again, the government is trying to regulate what people do on their own time with their own money for "the good of America".

Same with drugs, same with the FCC, same with this. It is insane how much the government is starting to creep in to even the miniscule things.

I'm surprised they haven't already figured out how to regulate and tax it somehow.

[Penguinfan]

On the top right of that page you can search easily and find your Senator, e-mail them telling them you OPPOSE HR4411.

On a brighter not you have to remember that the Senate has a TON to do this session and it will be abbreviated with re-election campaigns going on. The Senate Minority leader is from Nevada, the gaming industry there is against this bill since they would prefer to see some type of regulation instead of prohibition that way they can get a piece of the pie.

This means there is a good chance he can "run the clock out" on this before it gets to a vote, wouldn't hurt to send him an e-mail as well.

[Talking Poker]

This makes it even easier:

[Talking Poker]

Dear PPA Member:

Thank you for all you do to promote and defend the great game of poker.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2006, American poker players were dealt a bad hand by the U.S. House of Representatives. In a 317 to 93 vote the U.S. House passed H.R. 4411, sponsored by Jim Leach, R-Iowa, which would prohibit banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online gambling bets. It also includes the major provisions of another bill HR 4777 by Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., that would force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access or disable hyperlinks to Web sites that offer online gambling.

Inexplicably, this legislation provides exemptions for online horse betting, Internet lotteries and certain fantasy sports, yet poker and other online games are swept into this prohibition bill.

The Poker Players Alliance has worked tirelessly on your behalf to keep this bill from passing the U.S. House. While our efforts have fallen short today, we have had tremendous success in delivering our message to lawmakers and the media. This fight is far from over and we hope that you will continue to stand with the Poker Players Alliance as we continue to fight to ensure that this misguided legislation does not become law.

Each day our organization is growing in both numbers and influence. I ask that you help us in that effort by encouraging all your friends and family to join the Poker Players Alliance. Whether someone plays poker or not, all Americans who value individual liberty and personal responsibility should be part of our campaign.

Now is not the time to waver, our voices must be heard loud and clear. Members of the U.S. House who voted for this bill should know that you oppose their position and similarly, those who voted against it should be applauded for their courageous stand. A list of the recorded vote is available by going to . Please see how your Representative voted then call or write to let he or she know how you feel.

Again, we are grateful for your dedication to our cause and we share your love for this game.

Sincerely,
Michael Bolcerek


Poker Players Alliance Responds to House Vote Banning Online Poker

Washington, D.C.(July 11, 2006) — Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit Americans from playing poker on the Internet.

"We are disappointed that the House of Representatives would assail the rights of Americans to enjoy the great game of poker on the Internet. It is unconscionable that a skill game like poker gets swept into the net of prohibition, while online horse betting and Internet lotteries get free passes," said Mr. Bolcerek.

"The United States should follow the lead of the United Kingdom by regulating and taxing online poker, not banning it. An economic analysis just released by our organization shows that U.S. regulation of online poker has the potential to raise more than $3.3 billion in annual revenue for the federal government, in addition to another $1 billion for state coffers. We hope that this analysis will give a fresh perspective for U.S. Senators about the benefits of regulation.

"The Poker Players Alliance is undeterred in its mission to promote and protect the game of poker and we will continue to advance the cause on behalf of poker players in the United States."

A copy of the Poker Players Alliance economic analysis can be found at .

[Tony Cheval]

The funny thing is, that's actually the exact same article as on cnn.com.

And here I thought they were like the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[TajaUk]

Pathetic needling attempt?

The initial comment was made becasue I find the thing amusing for a few reasons; It wont ever happen and land of the free trying to stop people having harmless fun.

Could you please link all the other posts I made that slated the USA please I am interested to see if they actually was any? Just becasue someone says the USA chances of winning the world cup are zero, not sure how that constitues a jab. Maybe your a little too sensitive for your own good. We all love our country and all but there are others in the world you know


If your offended by people passing harmless comments regarding somthing not going to happen then you should live in a box. I am fully aware of what would happen if it was to actually become law but what another country does or doesnt decide to do in regards to its gaming laws will have "very little" effect on me using ladbrokes or other Euro based gaming sites that I do currently.

And talking of being pathetic, bringing up things that happened 3 years ago you know nothing about springs to mind,trying to somehow make me look silly. Sorry bud I left becasue of the way one or two people acted after I won the forum challenge. I am sure one day you will realise principles and the way you conduct yourself means alot to some people. Again your post only gives credence to my initial impressions of some quick to prejudge people that frequented the forums.

[TajaUk]

You will get slated for saying its funny. Your somehow saying Americans suck and you hate the country.

[Talking Poker]

This is extremely naive thinking. The bill passed by an overwhelming majority in the House. We should have no reason to believe it won't pass in the Senate as well, and the White House has already said it supports it.

As for the "very little" effect on you, hopefully we'll never have to find out, but I'm confident that you are very, very wrong about that.

[PShabi]

I'm not easiliy offended, but very easily annoyed. If you want to look at your past posts, go right ahead. Click on your user name and "find all posts."

To the average poster, they probably won't find much to be "annoyed" at. But for someone who's been around from day two, it appears different.

You throw a hissy fit because of forum behavior that you do not want to be "associated with" and take off. Fair enough. That was about the most bitch-like thing ever posted on here, but hey, more power to you. I guess you live in Dramaland and like to make yourself feel important.

But, then, you show up again and make a few commments like this, and well, I guess it rubbed me the wrong way.

In your last paragraph, you get back to your crusade about principles and the reflection of the forum on blah blah blah. So, why the fuck did you come back?

And what the fuck does this mean?: "Again your post only gives credence to my initial impressions of some quick to prejudge people that frequented the forums."????

I don't know what you're talking about "prejudging" but whatever man. I don't prejudge. If somebody decides to act a certain way that I don't agree with or appreciate, I'll call the out, but no prejudging.

In fact, I'm not sure you're even referring to me anymore. Surprise surprise! I still "frequent" the forum, so are you even talking about me? Oh wait, you're lumping everyone in the forum together based on something SOMEONE did 3 YEARS AGO!!!!! Just like you did 3 years ago. Get over yourself.

[TajaUk]

I still find it very amusing, the whole thing baffles me. I clearly needle "the USA" everytime the opportunity so much NOT once can you quote me on this, please try produce such posts I am interested in these false claims. Mind you this from a person that twists "I find this funny" to being a anti American person who comes here to stir shit. You need help.

There have another go at me you clearly have lots of anger to share.

[Talking Poker]

I'm not taking sides here, nor do I see what any of this nonsense has to do with HR4411... but.... I don't see what is so amusing or baffling, nor do I see pshabi's "anger"...

You made an odd comment on the last page, saying this was "funny" (with no further explanation), when clearly there is nothing "funny" about it - no matter which side of the issue you are on. pshabi responded (as did I). You responded to that, asking for him to explain his accusations of you taking jabs at the U.S. every chance you get. He did exactly that.... and now you are baffled? All he did was do what you asked him to do, and tell you how he sees things.

I guess I'm baffled at you being baffled, and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here, but it seems to me you are stirring up shit for no reason.

Edit: I see that you have now edited your post to clarify a bit... but I still don't see why you need people to dig through your old posts and quote them back to you. Can't you just look through them yourself? Also, if you really must have a discussion about your posts and if they are anti-American or not, please start a new thread in the Off Topic section for that, since this has NOTHING to do with this thread. Thanks.

[TajaUk]

But TP it wont have any effect on most European poker players online. The so called Big US poker companies will get around laws or seek to exploit the markets outside their country. Pokerstars for example will have a seperate Euro client and no one will care tbh.

I really will suck for people in America true, but poker survived before it and will do after. Live games are good

[TajaUk]

The reason I am fuked off TP is the funny comment was not meant to be a slight on anyone or USA. I have lived in the states and worked there. I intend to move there eventually so for someone to say I come on here with the intention to be pathetic and have a go at all things USA without giving me ONE example of when I did this, is out of order. NOT once have i made a post having a jab at America, so how can you say he responded to that? If I was to say you TP are a complete twat and take every opportunity to slate Black people in every post you make, i think you would be more than offended. Then you would demand that person quoted your posts, seems reasonable. Then for that person to bring up shit from 3 years ago, that has nothing to do with anything again is stupid. But then I guess you can think what you want.

[Talking Poker]

Just to clarify, this forum will be two years old in October.

[PShabi]

Annoyed, yes, angry, no. Do I need to repeat this again?

Here's my point of view:

1) You stormed out like a little girl when your playmate wouldn't share dolly.
2) You come back, out of the blue, who knows why?
3) Right after your reemergence, you make some one-liners in the World Cup threads that rubbed me the wrong way. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU LEFT THE FORUM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
4) Then, you pop in to this thread and make that one-liner stating, "this is funny."

So, in summary: You're storming off like a child, coupled with your return, and your comments that I construed to be childish little jabs have annoyed me a tiny little bit.

I admire that you stuck to your guns and stayed away from the forum for so long. If you don't want that brought up anymore, how about an explanation as to what drove you back???

My guess is it got boring just reading and not posting during that time.

Edit: I'm not surprised I failed to see the humor in some of these comments. Taja makes Eejit look like Johnny fucking Carson.

[TajaUk]

So you got pissed off becasue I said your not the best at Soccer in the world at and you took exception to it, rofl.

I stormed off like a child? It was a private matter I told one person (TP). He decided to make it public, against my better judgment as i wanted it remaining private. I really do wish you got your facts right. I am sorry I came back to your forums and decided to somehow annoy you, you really must have a small life. Now I know your sensitive to all things American I know how to handle you with care.

[Talking Poker]

I'm tired of this thread being steered off topic, so I made a new one for the drama, including my response to the above post:


Have fun.

Let's try to keep this thread about HR4411, ok? Seriously.

[Boobie Lover]

Why would Pokerstars create a seperate client? I am fairly certain that Pokerstars was (and probably still is) the main sponsor for the European Poker Tour. What are they just going to create a new platform out of the blue if the US bans online gambling? I don't think so. Also, your argument that no one will care outside of US if it does become illegal is fairly dumb.

[lightfungus]

Heh, he was being sarcastic...

[PShabi]

This bill doth sucketh.

[Kurn]

You are correct, sir. Online gambling has been illegal in NV for years.

[Kurn]

She's doing this for a reason. If the carve-out for horse racing is eliminated, the reps from the racing states will jump off the bandwagon.

[Talking Poker]

This is VERY encouraging. I love when things are explained to me in small words.

From Card Player:


-----
published on: Wednesday Jul 12, 2006
CardPlayer.com Explains Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Amended Bill Doesn't Mention Online Poker Players

Confusion in the Press

There seems to be some confusion in the press regarding what bill just passed in Congress. It has been reported that the “Goodlatte” bill passed in the House. Actually what is referred to as the Goodlatte Bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va, is H.R. 4777, which was fraught with problems previously reported by CardPlayer. Click . The common name of that bill was the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.”

Another milder bill was introduced by Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican. That bill, commonly known as the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” is H.R. 4411, which basically prohibits credit card companies and financial institutions from sending payment to gaming sites.
The bill that passed was an amended version of H.R. 4411, which is the Leach bill that added some of Goodlatte’s proposals. Before this bill becomes law, it must pass both the House and the Senate. Currently, there is no commensurate bill pending in the Senate.

Poker Players Are Not at Risk
The first thing to note is that the bill does not prohibit a poker enthusiast from playing online poker. One Democrat introduced such an amendment to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the bill, but the amendment failed. There is no mention of the poker player in the bill nor any penalty associated with playing poker.

H.R. 4411
After almost four hours of debate, the bill passed by a vote of 317-93. In a nutshell, here’s the meat of the statute and the predictable problems associated with each section of the bill.
Online gaming sites are prohibited from accepting payment from a United States financial institution. Since all online sites are outside of the United States, our government has no jurisdiction to enforce this part of the law. Simply stated, the United States cannot make laws or enforce laws regarding business outside the United States.

Financial institutions are forbidden from delivering funds to online gaming sites. However, most banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. Therefore, offshore third-party companies have already been set in motion to handle United States financial transactions.

The amended 1961 Wire Act modernizes its language by including the Internet and prohibiting games “predominantly subject to chance.” This will be the start of expensive and time-consuming litigation regarding whether poker is predominantly a game of skill or chance.
A burden is placed upon Internet service providers and other technology providers to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. This will prove to be an unenforceable nightmare for all involved.

The bill directs the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to issue regulations outlining policies and procedures that could be used by financial institutions to identify and block gambling-related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. If the bill ever becomes law, these entities have 270 days to write such procedures. The implementation is mind boggling.

The bill contains carve-outs for such things as lotteries, horse racing, and the stock market. Every opponent of the bill criticizes the bill because, while it attempts to legislate morality, it prohibits only certain forms of gambling while allowing others.

As a matter of fact, although the proponents of the bill say that online gaming is destroying the moral fiber of society, the bill allows a state to house an online gaming site for its citizens.

Political Motivation

The bill was clearly politically motivated by Republicans who are worried about losing control in the House after the November election. Last month, House Republican leaders announced that this bill would be part of a 10-part “American Values Agenda,” which consists of 10 unrelated pieces of legislation, including a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, tax cuts, a flag burning law, and extensive restrictions on stem cell research.

Furthermore, this is a way our legislators can separate themselves from the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who lobbied against previous versions of this bill using bribes, fraud, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the bill’s defeat.

The Future Players

As I see it, there are a number of players and organizations to be watching in the near future. Although Senate leaders have not identified the bill as a top priority, Arizona Republican Jon Kyl has pledged to pursue a similar bill in the Senate.

Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the American Gaming Association president, recently announced that the AGA supports a study of the feasibility of regulating online gaming.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget said that although it supports the House’s vote, it has concerns about the bill.

Sam Vallandingham, vice president for the First State Bank in West Virginia has said, “Our concern is that the added burden of monitoring all payment transactions for the taint of Internet gambling will drain finite resources currently engaged in complying with anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering regulations, and daily operation of our bank.”

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, continue to vocally oppose the bill: “Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it won’t work for gambling,” Frank said. Paul agreed, adding, “the only thing (prohibition) does is increase the price.”

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nevada, offered an amendment that would have eliminated what she called the “hypocritical exemption” by completely banning all forms of Internet gambling. It failed by a vote of 114-297.

My favorite Representative, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, also offered such an amendment. He called all the exceptions and carve-outs “loopholes as big as a barn door.”

The Poker Players Alliance is another group to be watched. Reuters reported that regulating Internet poker instead of banning it could bring the U.S. government $3.3 billion in taxes annually, according to a study by the Poker Players Alliance. Income taxes on winnings from Internet poker alone — which is estimated to have attracted $60 billion in wagers worldwide in 2005 — could amount to $2.5 billion each year. The study also said that a 1 percent user fee on online poker transactions would generate another $800 million to $1 billion in revenue per year for the U.S. government.

Finally, Rep. Jim Kasper from North Dakota should be watched as well. I had the pleasure of speaking with him this morning. He informed me that he was in contact with AGA president Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., discussing possible ramifications of the bill.

Rep Kasper told me: “I intend to draft the Legislation to allow any Internet company located in North Dakota to be able to do business worldwide, not just in North Dakota. If the DOJ or the Congress try to stop us, it is my intention that the state of North Dakota initiate legal proceedings in federal court, to have the courts rule on the Constitutional issues. And, I am looking for input and help from the gaming industry in the drafting of the new bills.” Representative Jim Kasper can be reached at .

In conclusion, I will reiterate what I have predicted every year for about the last 10 years. My prediction is that no law will pass in 2006 banning online gaming. The attempts are more complicated but no more feasible than they have ever been. Online gaming is a $12 billion a year business that is here to stay. Show your support for the right to play online by going to and sending a letter to your Congressional representatives opposing this legislation.