For smaller players PTP transfers are staking.

I’d presume the state opt-outs are in there to keep it alive in the early stages … so should anyone start strongly objecting, Frank & Co, can say, “hey, fine, your state can opt out!”

But these seem impractical in the world of internet commerce and finance transfer. (And may or may not violate the Commerce Clause?)

The enemy here is process. The Banks are gonna want certain things, and they’ll have to sort those measures out with the Treasury. Mix in some WTO issues (not sure if that’s the Dept. of State or Commerce handling these matters) and of course the Department of Justice.

To many people will need to have their say in these regulations before they get close to becoming law. But it’s a good start … we’re at the table with something resembling a framework for online gambling/banking regulation.

Those we have elected would be hard pressed not to take a serious look at this for their own States.

There will be a lot of work once interest is shown because States may want to add a different taxation on our money. Some States do not even have a State income tax. Federal regulations will have to supersede States attempts to raise more money.

How many people travel to Vegas and Atlantic City a year and gamble?

How many College campuses and kids bedrooms have computers in them right now and are playing On Line Poker?

I think most of them do not want to make a big deal out of this right now and are hoping it can pass without to much fanfare.

I wonder how many of these politicians go to Vegas and play?

Meaning: Online staking becomes problematic at best.. Staking, Who knows what percentages they use to figure out withholding, and net gaming winnings is only Gross winnings from wagers less the amount wagered. It appears after thought that this would include the rake as it’s an amount wagered, but who knows. Would rakeback be included, or a business expense from licencee to person, and if it’s included in the accounts..

If this gets no media coverage one way or the other, most people won’t have an opinion other than a gut reaction that will probably be affected more by the phrasing of the question than anything else. Compare these two questions:

“Do you think adult Americans should be free to play poker in legally licensed and taxed online poker rooms?”

“Do you think gambling companies should be allowed to let anyone with a credit card gamble online at any time of day or night?” (This is a very generous phrasing by the way, without direct mention of kids or addiction.”

If this bill *does* get a lot of media coverage, then that’s what most people will base their opinions on — that’s why it’s called mass media. The news reports and the talking heads/talk radio. They’ll hear about the bill, hear someone’s analysis, and make their own opinion. Whoever they hear first/most will have a *lot* of influence over that opinion.

And don’t assume that friends & relatives of poker players will automatically support this. A lot of people (moms of college students are a prime example) would love to see online poker disappear entirely.

But the State opt-outs stink too.. To Me, IT seems in one way worse than the status-quo (If you’re not in an opt-out state.

One other troubling characteristic, for small-timers.. Withholding on every cash out.

If you are a loser from Site A, and A Winner From Site B, they withhold from both ends. If it’s a 1099 from cashouts only it would be better, but there is a problem even with that..

Isn’t a transfer from player to player a cashout from your account? Staking players online would drop way down. Also, if one had dual citizenship (or could get it), would it be based on where you are, or where yo register your info from?

BJ, you’re right that many people will formulate their opinions on this issue based on a simple argument, but I don’t think it’s going to be Bacchus – or Frank, for that matter – who contributes to those opinions. Most people in this country know someone who plays poker, enjoys poker, has fun at the blackjack tables, or plays the ponies now and then. The millions upon millions of people who know us will likely support Frank’s legislation. On the other side, some people will likely take an anti-gaming stance because their cousin’s kid lost $500 on the internet or their friend’s husband gambled away a slice of the family savings in Las Vegas. I think this is how the opinions are formed, for the most part, not by a Bacchus press release.

Just my opinion. Fire away.

Link added to the press release that Bachus issued.

Framing the issue is one of the most important things in passing legislation — that’s why nobody is anti-choice or anti-life when it comes to abortion. In some cases, whoever successfully frames the argument at the beginning ultimately wins on that fact alone.

Example: Obama set himself from the beginning of his campaign as the candidate of change, and Hillary Clinton — who could have justifiably claimed the same thing — willingly conceded it to him, preferring to pitch herself more as the inevitable incumbent. It was a horrible decision going against the obvious direction of the voters, and that simple decision in 2007 may have cost her the Presidency.

We don’t want out opponents to frame the arguments around online gaming before we do. It’s the difference between playing offense and defense. It’s very hard to win on defense.

I like his word “unfettered” too … because we’re basically saying the same thing. Let’s fetter this industry … just a little bit!

WASHINGTON – Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL), the top Financial Services Committee Republican, issued the following statement on legislation introduced today that would allow illegal on-line gambling criminals to prey upon America’s youth:
“Illegal off-shore Internet gambling sites are a criminal enterprise and allowing them to operate unfettered in the United States would present a clear danger to our youth, who are subject to becoming addicted to gambling at an early age. If you put a computer in a teenager’s bedroom, or in a student’s dorm room at college, it’s a temptation that many fall prey to. In fact, studies have shown that the earlier one begins gambling, the more likely it is he or she will become a compulsive problem gambler.

“In the 109th Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass commonsense, bipartisan legislation aimed at combating criminals from preying upon American’s youth. That legislation was supported by a broad coalition that included college presidents, the American Bankers Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and major sports organizations.”

I’m just waiting to see what legislators say about the whole thing.