Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is reportedly taking a gamble that would change up the online poker industry.
The popular game may soon be run on the web by casinos in Nevada and across the United States, thanks to legislation being floated by the Nevada senators' staffers, the Wall Street Journal reported.
American financial institutions were banned from processing online gambling transactions in 2006, costing the industry billions in what has been a rapidly-growing American addiction worth $25 billion a year, according to ABC News.
Supporters of the bill — which hasn't officially been introduced — have already drawn fire from some lawmakers who slammed the effort as a bill that would pray on gambling addicts to pay for the nation's growing deficit.
"Congress should not take advantage of the young, the weak and the vulnerable in the name of new revenues to cover more government spending," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) wrote in a letter obtained by the Wall Street Journal.
While opponents of the bill maintain that legalizing online gambling for American-based companies would increase the spread of gambling addiction in the country, advocates for the bill maintain that legalizing it would give state regulators the ability to watch the industry and intervene.
"We're very strictly regulated, but then in the online space there are all these unregulated, untaxed groups running internet gaming," Alan Feldman, a spokesman for MGM Resorts International, which stands to rake in millions if the legislation passed, told ABC.
According to a draft of the bill obtained by the Journal, the legislation would allow existing casinos, horse tracks and slot-machine makers to get into the industry over the first two years of the bill. After that, it would be a free-for-all for any company to jump in.
Reid, who has previously opposed legalizing online poker for big American casinos, received millions from big gambling interests during his tough re-election campaign against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle.
Casino owners are hopeful that the bill can be pushed through during the lame duck session, but aren't getting their hopes up too high.
"A lot of things happen in this kind of time frame," Feldman told the Journal.
Bill could change industry
Rarely is the final World Poker Tour event of the year overshadowed by anything, but that seems to be the case in 2010 with the eyes and ears of poker players and fans waiting to see what will come out of the efforts to pass the online poker bill in Washington, D.C. While Antonio Esfandiari brought in the chip lead on Day 4 at the Doyle Brunson North American Five Diamond Poker Classic, the latest draft of Sen. Harry Reid's bill to legalize the online poker industry shed some additional light on some of the issues that may affect all those who enjoy the game.
From a very basic standpoint, here are a couple of bullet points to focus on, but keep in mind this bill is constantly changing and is only a draft. The bill will also need to be passed before any of this would officially apply to the current online poker providers.
The bill appears to be an attempt to kill the revenue streams of existing online poker Web sites, perhaps to quell any competition with Nevada casinos.
- For 15 months, there will be no legal online poker in the United States. Once this bill is enacted, the first license will be issued 15 months from that date.
"No qualified body may issue a license under this title before the date that is 15 months after the date of the enactment of this Act," said the draft of the bill. "Qualified bodies shall, to the extent practicable while meeting the requirements and standards of this title, issue multiple licenses on the date that is 15 months after the date of the enactment of this Act in order to ensure a robust and competitive market for consumers and to prevent the first licensees from gaining an unfair competitive advantage."
- Once the bill is enacted, current sites that offer play to players from the United States will have 30 days to cease those operations if they wish to receive a license.
"Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, cease offering, accepting and providing services with respect to bets or wagers from persons located in the United States"
- Sites will then inform players about how to withdraw their money. If they do not withdraw within two years, the money will then be sent into an escrow account "for safekeeping and orderly disposition as the Secretary may direct."
- The rumored blackout, in which current online sites could not get a license for an additional two years, seems to have been removed from this draft.
- The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act has changed in accordance with the new regulations and this should open up the ability for players to deposit with ease.
"A financial transaction provider shall not be held liable for engaging in a financial activity or transaction, including a payments processing activity, in connection with a bet or wager permitted by the Prohibition of Internet Gambling, Internet Poker Regulation, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2010 or the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) unless the financial transaction provider has knowledge or reason to know that the financial activity or transaction was conducted in violation of either such Act or any other applicable provision of Federal or State law."
- Sites will have to pay 20 percent of the revenue generated as a licensing fee.
"Each person who is a licensee shall be required to pay not later than 15 days after the end of each calendar month an Internet poker license fee equal to 20 percent of a licensee's Internet poker receipts for that calendar month."
- The sites will report every player's winnings and losses, as required.
- Hardware for the sites that obtain a license will be located in the United States.
- Each license carries a five-year term.
- If the sites that should have a license do not apply for one and continue to act against policy, there are severe consequences:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may assess upon a person that is required to obtain a license under this title, but fails to obtain a license under this title, a civil penalty of not more than the greater of (i) the amount of bets or wagers taken by the person from players in the United States during the period that a license was needed but not held by the person; or (ii) $1,000,000 per day that the person accepts bets or wagers from players in the United States during the period that a license was needed but not held by the person."
There will also be studies created regarding Internet gambling and all sites will have a feature to allow players to exclude themselves from the activity.
Dingy Reid attempting to put his hand in the pocket of our Citizens Again!
Are you against millions of U.S, citizens choosing to play poker, bingo, and other games of chance online from the privacy of their homes?
I like the idea of online gambling, because quite simply Americans should be able to spend their money however they choose.
I can't stand the whiners who come out saying "Wah, wah, wah, it will prey on the poor, etc., etc." That's just plain silly. If those people truly want to "help the poor", let them try to outlaw alcohol and tobacco first, because a lot more money is spent on those vices than gambling. They choose gambling as their "evil product" for some odd reason.
Anyway, the thing I DON'T like about what Harry Reid is doing is that he is attempting to pay back the big casinos ("big businesses") that funded his campaign, both through enormous donations as well as getting/forcing the union memberships to vote for him.
His legislation is designed to ensure that existing poker Web sites are placed at a distinct DISadvantage vs. the Nevada casino corporations. That's typical Harry Reid stuff. Corrupt.
Candidly, Barney Frank's legislation earlier this year was better.
yep,
I DON'T like Dingy Harry pandering for votes with this legislation.
He could give a crap about people ....... it is about HIS power.
If people want to play on-line poker ....... that is their business!
Gee louise, which Republicans have taken the bread out of the mouths of children? Seems to me the Democrats have controlled the Congress since 1996, and they have controlled both the Congress and the Presidency for the past two years. So if bread is being taken out of children's mouths, it would be the Democrats who have done it.
All of them are crooks. They all work for big business. Its the only job (government) in a America that one can get by blatantly lying to all of his/her constituents.
I agree, in that it's in the nature of the job to be dishonest. My only point with my last comment is that I am sick of people hammering Republicans, when the Democrats created the environment we now find ourselves in, with monumental multi-trillion-dollar debt (generational theft), and everything done in the past two years has HURT, rather than helped, the economy.
If the politicians are dishonest, WE can at least be honest. People who deny the wrongs of their party are just as guilty as the lying politicians they are defending.
By the way, I can read your message just fine without the huge red font.
Yes Todd , I am really upset right about now ,They( Republicans) have really been mean spirited lately,not that they have been warm and fuzzy in the past.They would let people go without bread on their table to have tax cuts for the very rich.The reasoning behind this are that the worthless blue dog Dems, which should really stop hiding their fear of being call what they really are( Republicans )behind Democrats.They help the Republicans hold up progress that a fact.That's the very reason the President feel as though he has to cave to their demands, but he has a heart.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you seem to be throwing out a bunch of statements without a single piece of evidence to back it up. Care to name a single Republican who has been mean-spirited? What exactly was their mean-spirited act? I don't deny it's not possible that a "mean-spirited act" has been committed by a Republican, but I am curious to understand exactly what you consider to be a mean-spirited act.
The president was caving to the demands of the American people, who overwhelmingly voted for candidates who want to repeal the awful health care legislation and keep taxes low. The Republican "demands" are simply acting on what the American people sent them there to do, because the president has made our economy so bad with his multi-trillion-dollar debt.
Ried ain't doing it for "Americans", he's doing it for the people that saved his azz in the past election. That was the casino unions of Nevada.
There has to be a pay back and some pockets lined!
I'm all for online betting, but it is solely to enhance the casinos of Nevada.
Dont forget we had a surplus before Bush got into office, Who then lied to America about WMD's, then proceeded to plunge us into two everlasting wars, now trying to sell us his book of lies and deceit. The american people did not vote to give rich people 700 billion in tax-cuts while further increasing our debt. Its a fact that the growing disparity of the wealthy and poor are destroying the middle class. BTW, Clinton was the one who signed in all that crap (deregulation) for banks which led to millions forced out of their homes. Like I said before, they are all crooks who work for the powerful corporations of America. War is no longer a honorable event, its a business which by the way Cheney greases his contracting palms. I will not let anyone disparage Obama who has been in office for 2 years. People just want to have a reason to hate him. But he is very smart and it will show in 2012.
OMG, not the "Bush lied" crap again. Why not just say "Clinton Lied", because Bush said exactly the same thing as Clinton.
In case you forget (which you seemed to), Bush entered office during a mild recession that started under Clinton (at the end of the dot-com bubble). Bush lowered tax rates, which started a big economic recovery, and then we all enjoyed several years of prosperity.
Then, under the Democrat Congress that took control in 2006, the housing mess started, with Congress instructing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to give hundreds of thousands of home loans to people who could not afford them. That, combined with the Community Reinvestment Act started under Carter, plus some extremely risky and poor behavior on the part of major Wall Street banks (most of which support Democrat candidates), blew up the economy in 2008.
Obama has nothing except make the situation worse, by putting the country into debt to the tune of an additional $3 trillion (at least) since he took office.
Instead of fixing the economy and finding ways to put the private sector back to work, he focused the majority of his time and effort on his horrid health care plan, which 70% of the country said they absolutely did not want.
People do not want to "hate him". They just don't want a president that is trying to instantiate Socialism here. They don't want a president that thrives on class envy and class warfare. They want a president who loves capitalism, since it is responsible for creating the best, most prosperous country ever on this planet.
I'm not sure what will happen in 2012, but if Obama refuses to listen to the American people, he will probably suffer the same fate as Democrat congressional candidates in 2010.
Wrong-Bush lowered tax rates, which started a big economic recovery
Wrong-health care plan, which 70% of the country said they absolutely did not want
Total BS- They just don't want a president that is trying to instantiate Socialism here. They don't want a president that thrives on class envy and class warfare. They want a president who loves capitalism, since it is responsible for creating the best, most prosperous country ever on this planet.
Socialism..... Wow! you really took the cake with that one Todd. Better watch out for China the communist country, they are coming on strong!!! lol
Obviously you are a stark Republican as described by your talking points that resembles the Tea party and Glenn Back.
Whats the opposite of Socialism. Fascism (in the form of so-called capitalism)!!!
Do you not know that 35 percent of the country's revenue goes to the top 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans. I guess not.
I guess you prefer Fascism rather than socialism. Thats the reason why independents control the future of America. Because they know if one party rules too long it will either be Socialism or Fascism.
Going back to what I said before. Both parties are full of crooks in my view.
Class warfare!!! lol
"Candidly, Barney Frank's legislation earlier this year was better."
In this months PBA news letter I read that Reid was getting involved with the online gaming bill and my first thoughts were it was about the Nevada casinos getting a "piece of the action". It would be much simpler if Congress just passed legislation allowing all American business interests to get involved.
This biggest problem I see with Reid's bill is that it might create a monopoly forcing U.S. players to only play in American run rooms. I play on the biggest poker site and they won't lose business when the bill is passed because right now there are very few U.S. players. The Senate should have discussed Frank's bill and voted up or down without adding anything.
Well, all I can say is that the majority of the voters in this country feel the same way I do. You can label me as "BS" or whatever, but your inability to throw out any facts (like I did) makes your nasty-worded comments hollow and weak.
I suggest being less of a cheerleader for your hero and more of a critical thinker.
Edit: By the way, a political party would have to be the one in power to be called a "Fascist". I guess you can say the Democrats have been the Fascists, since they have held all the levers of power for the past two years, but that's about it. Maybe you should read by blog post about Fascism that I posted a couple years ago. It may be instructive.
2nd Edit: The country does not have revenue, at least not in this country. Only individuals and corporations do. It's called the "private sector". The government has "taxes". That's all outlined in a thing we call "The Constitution". You should try reading it sometime. It's a fairly brief document and a quick read.
I agree.
Wrong on Both Counts: Dictatorship!
The ruler having absolute authority and supreme jurisdiction over everyone and everything!
Thanks Raven, If they ever have a reason to declare martial law that is exactly what we will have.
people are being stripped of their ability to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves, to think for themselves. sad really.
Obviously, anyone who has read your two recent posts on this subject can determine where your political views resides. You played the victim card as described here "You can label me as "BS" or whatever, but your inability to throw out any facts (like I did) makes your nasty-worded comments hollow and weak. " When in fact I never labeled you as "BS". That is a direct response to your opinion not YOU.
Secondly, I never referred to anyone as my hero so I guess thats "your inability to throw out any facts (like I did) makes your nasty-worded comments hollow and weak." lol
Finally, in your first "edit" post you directly linked Fascist to Democrats which further determines where your political views reside. I suggest you look in the mirror. I also can determine you likely have never seen Capitalism a Love Story. Not that you are a critical thinker. We all to a fault many times determine what we want to hear and see consciously.
Oy.
Have a nice day.
Only a utopian who concocts fantastic plans for spreading medieval associations (such as the village community) to the whole of society can
ignore the fact that it is the “instability” of capitalism that is an enormously progressive factor, one which accelerates social development,
draws larger and larger masses of the population into the whirlpool of social life, compels them to ponder over its structure, and to “forge
their happiness” with their own hands.
The “instability” of capitalism and the contradictions it engenders, and in their sincere desire to
eliminate these contradictions is Their failure to understand that this “instability” is
a necessary feature of all capitalism and commodity economy in general brought them to utopia.
Their failure to understand the elements of progress inherent in this instability makes their
theories reactionary.
Lennan 1897
"Keep your government hands off my government healthcare". People are so naive and stupid these days. They work so hard from young to old without never realizing what is happenening right in front of them. Its called the Status-Quo. If you let someone tell you that its wrong for you to get something you have paid for like unemployment insurance, you are therefore a detriment to society. Republicans are now trying to put Social Security in their back pockets. Its rediculous. Democrats are trying to tell us we have to purchase something or jail time. They both are crooks as I've said before.
The untold message delivered is that there is no Government. There is the Supreme Justices. There is the CIA. There is the FBI. There is the War machine. There is the trilateral takeover of the world as described in the Assange case who uncover many of these crooks.
To me, it's not really ONLINE play if the CASINOS only have it. True ONLINE would be from home via the internet. The problem is you don't know who's on the other end and if the whole thing is computerized (a familiar word here) then you don't know if you have fair odds.
I was thrown by that too. After reading and re-reading, I think it is intended to be truly online (over the Internet), but the licensing is something that casinos and horse tracks can do. Does anyone have a different take on this?
My first impression was this for, Poker , horses and slots.....
I assumed it meant all the sports betting the casinos now offer, but online through their websites; horse racing, football, baseball,basketball, etc. Some will have poker rooms, bingo, keno, and slot machines. Reid's bill will have to set up a National gaming commission to monitor and regulate them.
Bush had signed a law making transfers from banks to online gambling sites illegal. I am supposing that Reid is mainly interested in getting these casinos online because its what they want and if he wants their support this is a good way to get it.
It would be good for anyone who wanted to play online because of not only the ease of it but because you can get better odds. Lets face it the pay lines that the states are using are obscene, they really should be paying out more given the odds.
Sometimes different political parties can "cross" the line if it helps them. Bush wasn't all that conservative when it came down to a big government. Reid would be a "typical" democrat in wanting a bigger government, however, this is something that most people aren't going to notice, so he'll be able to get by with it.
I personally think that less government is a good thing. It's not the governments business what a person does with their money as long as it is legal. If someone chooses to lose all of their money to gambling, so be it, but don't expect to live off the government. The fact is that no one should be living off the government. It wasn't set up for that. The governments main job is to keep us safe and not fed.
Because of the industry that I work in I get a birds eye view of where "free" money is going. Americans are really getting screwed over because of these so called "entitlement" programs. I work and yet these people who choose not to work are driving better cars, eating better, have all the best gadgets, free drugs, etc. Each person in America owes the government 40,000 each. and 40 million aren't working and getting benefits from the government. We are only digging a bigger hole.
Obama used it in the health care bill.
Now isn't this interesting? It was used in the health care law.
Every day there's another revelation of what Obama and his fellow Democrats are doing to our country.
Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word. Amish and others are excluded, including muslims. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than muslim.
Word of the Day: Dhimmitude
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.
ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: It enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y, and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"
I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it -- quickly!
I agree 100% hard working and i mean working people that actually get paid for a job that they were hired to do, those people are trying to support their families, their communities, their state and their country, and this new health care suxs. they are proposing to take the medical insurance that people paid for through their paychecks and make it part of you annual income, then you'll be taxed on your income, so you pay twice, once for your family, and once for the non-workers the ones with no insurance. america will be in worse shape than ever and america smells a stinky proposal. i would love a world where everbody has health care, but it is far from fair on both sides.
and as for gambling online it is a choice. should be up to each state. but would be hard to regulate. cyber world scares most people.
Personally I'm wondering if this does go through how the lottery will be handled. Naturally each state wouldn't want it if it causes them lost revenue which if you are betting on the lottery online that would do. However if it was Casinos to do this they could create their own lottery, (which I don't see happening) that could also cause lost revenue for each state that has a lottery. I think we will see taxes raised on any kind of internet sales and probably drastically if this economy doesn't pick up and I've no reason to believe that that the economy will pick up. If anything the more government programs we see the less jobs we'll see in our country. It just doesn't pay to open a business when quite a bit of your earnings will go to taxes.