LIVE UPDATES - Possible markup session for the Barney Frank bill

[GPWA Aaron]

Why did Ron Paul vote present?

Pure speculation, but I can't imagine he would be able to vote No given his Libertarian platform, but didn't want to buck the Republican line here?

Here's my unofficial vote tally
Democrats: 34-4 in favor (four were not present and did not vote, including my Congressman, Stephen Lynch - boo to you Mr. Lynch!)

Republicans: 18-7 against (three were not present and did not vote, Paul voted present).

It's interesting that roughly a quarter of Republicans voted for this, considering they have been lock-step against anything the Democrats have proposed this year. It seems that this is one issue where (with the notable exception of Paul) the politicians actually voted their conscience?

[Anthony]

Thank you for the voting breakdown.

This is the first step.

[Simmo!]

Thanks once again Vin. Fascinating as ever.

One thing I didn't quite follow: operators that have been taking bets from the USA over the past few years...was the amendment to prevent them getting a licence passed or did it fail?

Be interesting to know the cutoff date on that. Would it be October 2006 or go back to the beginning of time. And would it relate to the ambiguously worded Wire Act or the UIGEA/Safe Ports Bill. Seems odd considering Poker and Casino have never BEEN illegal at Federal level.

[GPWA Aaron]

Thanks once again Vin. Fascinating as ever.

One thing I didn't quite follow: operators that have been taking bets from the USA over the past few years...was the amendment to prevent them getting a licence passed or did it fail?

Be interesting to know the cutoff date on that. Would it be October 2006 or go back to the beginning of time. And would it relate to the ambiguously worded Wire Act or the UIGEA/Safe Ports Bill. Seems odd considering Poker and Casino have never BEEN illegal at Federal level.

The amendment did pass, so as it reads right now, operators like PokerStars, Full Tilt, etc., would not be able to apply for licenses to operate in the U.S. Not sure how far back it goes, but my guess is that companies like PartyGaming, which left in the wake of the UIGEA, would still be eligible to apply.

That said, this bill has a long way to go, and my gut says that provision will likely change if/when it gets to conference committee.

[Simmo!]

The amendment did pass, so as it reads right now, operators like PokerStars, Full Tilt, etc., would not be able to apply for licenses to operate in the U.S.

Two things occur to me there. I am not a poker affiliate, but from speaking to some at the Prague conference I got the impression that Stars and Tilt are now so dominant that affiliates are finding it harder and harder (the irony being it was affiliates that put them in the position from which to start the process of domination, I suspect). If that is true, then this could change all that and breathe new air into the poker market.

The second thing though is this: I doubt Stars and Tilt would simply give up on the USA so where will that path lead us? The way the UIGEA passed in 2006 made me more than a little cynical about the true intentions of some politicians and it would appear that a little bit of campaign funding goes a long way in politics if you target the right people.

[universal4]

For those "new" players that would enter the market, such as those backed by current US Land based operators, wouldn't they want those kept out of the market such as Party etc?

Would they not want the time frame set to the beginning of time and not just the magical date in 2006?

Not knowing what date they had in mind means we are speculating and I would certainly like to have that clarified.

Rick
Universal4

[giggles7p]

I think the blocking out of cetrtain sites if this bill passes just gives way for Vegas to take over the American market for poker, casinos, bingo sites and sports betting. I am sure they are drooling over the chance to open up as many online sites as possible if it becomes legal in the US.

[vinism]

For those "new" players that would enter the market, such as those backed by current US Land based operators, wouldn't they want those kept out of the market such as Party etc?

Would they not want the time frame set to the beginning of time and not just the magical date in 2006?

Not knowing what date they had in mind means we are speculating and I would certainly like to have that clarified.

Rick
Universal4

There are other provisions in the amended bill that do this surreptitiously. The one specific clause I have in mind is requiring the majority of employees/operations of a company operating in the U.S. to be located in the U.S. How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?

[Magic79]

There are other provisions in the amended bill that do this surreptitiously. The one specific clause I have in mind is requiring the majority of employees/operations of a company operating in the U.S. to be located in the U.S. How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?

Keeping US jobs in the bill will make the Reps. more likely to vote for it.
Compliance could be done with admin jobs.

[Simmo!]

How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?

Set up a subsiduary like "Partygaming USA"?

[vinism]

Set up a subsiduary like "Partygaming USA"?

Maybe. But I don't think that's going to work. I think the intent was the parent company had to be located in the U.S. And because the U.S. is withdrawing gambling from its WTO obligations (a legacy of the Bush administration), this is perfectly legit. In fact, the language in the bill reflects the withdrawal of gambling from the WTO commitments, and it says if any other part of this language violates the WTO, the clause is null and void.

[vinism]

I just posted an analysis piece in a new thread on what's next for the Frank bill. Hope it answers some questions.

Link to analysis thread: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/showthread.php?p=605202

[AmCan]

My take on this amendment to keep current operators from getting a license leads me to this conclusion.

Specifically Party Gaming - they stopped US business in response to UIEGA and cut a plea deal with the US justice department, so they should be eligible to have a license. Others who stopped for UIEGA might need to cut a plea deal on stuff before to get "clean".

But since the Parties, 888s, etc., took US business in the old days, they're unlikely to get licensed in very many states. Basically i think they'll be snubbed for that. On the other hand, places like Ladbrokes and Betfair which never accepted US players would likely fare much better when seeking a license

I think legalizing online gambling in the US is great for gamblers, good for the states, but the end of the US affiliate business as we know it. Many disagree, but i don't see US, land based operators doing profit sharing or paying CPAs that exceed 5% or 10% of their profits. I think the US gaming affiliate business will probably look more like the CPA for leads that Credit Card and Mortgage companies tend to pay out.