Posts Tagged ‘John Campbell’

Joe Barton headed to Vegas with new online poker bill in tow

by , Jun 21, 2011 | 2:17 pm

photo by James Berglie

Joe Barton’s online poker: “And then he three-bet me on the turn with — get this — jack-high! How sick is that?”

US Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) will be in Las Vegas for Friday’s shuffle-up-and-deal … and possibly to unveil his new online poker (only) bill.

The Texas Republican has taken the baton from Barney Frank (D-MA), by way of John Campbell (R-CA), to lead the charge for licensed and regulated online poker in the House, with a new bill his office says he plans to “drop” either Friday or closer to the July 4th weekend.

It’s still probably too early to make decent predictions, prognostication, and prop bets — haven’t even seen a draft yet — but the forces lining up this go-round are indeed different than before.

This time we’re talking about an online poker-only bill, with a different committee path, and a conservative Republican — perhaps looking to put a bipartisan feather in his cap before the ’12 elections — charged with rallying support on his side of the aisle.


Nevada PStars-Backed “Interstate” iPoker Bill Heads for Hearing

Watch live webcast 11AM PST

by , Mar 24, 2011 | 7:37 am

The Nevada Legislature’s Assembly Judiciary will be hearing the PokerStars-backed iPoker bill, aka AB258 (complete bill text here) this morning at 11am PT. The hearing is the next step in the process for this bill to become a law, though not the final one.

This internet-poker specific bill is both uniquely controversial among all of the proposed intrastate iGambling bills.  Not only does it explicitly state that the NGC may not discriminate against the likes of Poker Stars and Full Tilt, which have operated gambling sites unlicensed with US players, but the legislation defines a model by which internet poker websites *outside* of Nevada could pay to connect player pools with new Nevada player pools through B2B state-regulated “compacts.”

That’s right.  If passed as is, players on new Nevada iGambling sites could play with people that live in places outside the state of Nevada “where interactive gaming is not prohibited” – so long as a regulated deal exists between the state and external websites.

One has to wonder – if this NV bill is made into law before the newly re-introduced federal internet gambling #campbill, what will the landscape of the future internet gambling market in the United States look like?

Watch it -> Live feed for AB258 in Carson City 11AM PST here ->  Assembly Judiciary @ NV Legislature webcast

Campbell Introduces ‘New’ Federal iGambling Bill

HR2267 text repurposed as #campbellbill

by , Mar 17, 2011 | 7:41 pm

The House Committee on Financial Services released an official statement this evening which announced the awaited introduction of a new federal internet gambling bill by Rep. John Campbell (R-CA).  The new <shall-we-say> #campbellbill is, at the moment, identical to the last amended HR2267, whose most recent version can be found-> here.

From the press release:

WASHINGTON – The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act was introduced in the House today by Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) with Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) as a leading sponsor. Congressmen Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Peter King (R-NY) are also leading co-sponsors.   The bill is identical to H.R. 2267 that was passed out of the House Financial Services Committee on July 28, 2010 with bi-partisan support.  The bill would establish a federal regulatory and enforcement framework under which Internet gambling operators could obtain licenses authorizing them to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the United States. The legislation comes in response to the enactment of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which restricted the use of the payments system for Americans who gamble online.

As a recap, HR2267 passed through the Financial Service Committee last July.  It never took further steps in Congress last year, despite a significant sweat.  Harry Reid floated a draft of an internet gambling bill in December, known lovingly as #reidbill in Twitter, which also never made further official progress on Capitol Hill.  HR2267 contained no mention of the now dreaded “blackout” period that was the most infamous part of the #reidbill draft.

You can read the full statement by PPA, giving Campbell/Frank a virtual pat on the back-> here.

California Republican Partners with Barney Frank to Re-introduce Federal Regulation Bill

Campbell to represent at online gambling summit in San Francisco

by , Feb 10, 2011 | 2:52 pm

Photo © James Berglie / BePhotography
Rep. John Campbell isn’t ready to just throw his hands in the air over the uncertain future of online gambling in the US.

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) intends to take the lead in a Republican-controlled US House of Representatives on the internet gambling debate by bringing forth legislation similar to what Barney Frank (D-MA) has been pushing for years, according to Gambling Compliance.

Frank has reportedly signed on as the lead Democratic co-sponsor.

You may remember Campbell from his efforts to remove sports betting from last year’s Frank bill.

Campbell will be on hand in San Francisco in May as a keynote speaker for GIGSE 2011. The Global iGaming Summit and Expo was once one of the pre-eminent “annual” gaming conferences in the world, but went on a two-year hiatus after a move from Montreal to Malta. Returning to North America, and specifically US soil (California, no less!) seems to be a big deal for the conference and the gambling industry overall.

GIGSE says it has no political agenda — though its 2011 lineup of speakers suggests licensed and regulated online gaming in the US really is a matter of when not if. In addition to Campbell and likely supporters of his bills such as the PPA, conference speakers will include representatives from the Department of Justice, California Indians, other Native American gaming interests, Caesars Interactive, iMEGA, the Kentucky horse racing industry, various lottery interests, Jeffery Pollack’s Federated Sports+Gaming … and several others who have long found themselves at opposing ends of mutual interests.

Sounds to me like this could be the biggest think-tank confab of people shaping our lives ever. Or, at a minimum, if they can’t all put their heads together to reach the same overall endgame, it could turn into a massively awesome battle royale that could include the throwing of chairs.

Hedging Bets on Capitol Hill

How we got rid of the NFL

by , Aug 12, 2010 | 8:00 am

We just learned the NFL is backing off its long-held opposition to online gambling — removing a major obstacle from HR 2267’s path to becoming law.

It was the King-Meeks amendment that assured the league the bill would exclude sports betting. One key supporters of this measure was John Campbell, a decidedly right-wing Republican from California who, incidentally, wrote the amendment that calls for a “blacklist” of “unlawful internet gambling enterprises”.

Photo special for Pokerati © James Berglie / BePhotography
Rep. John Campbell supports the rights of Americans to gamble online, so long as they can’t bet on football.

The effort to remove sports betting gives insight into the process of converting undecideds into supporters, as seen in the video below. Just a week earlier, Campbell had told the House Financial Services Committee, “You know I don’t gamble, and I don’t particularly like it; but freedom is not about legislating what I like to do and making illegal what I don’t.”

But as it became clear during markup that the NFL would be getting what they wanted and sports bettors would not, Barney Frank, who believes all forms of online gambling deserve the consumer protections HR 2267 advocates, couldn’t resist posing a somewhat humorous, if not uncomfortable question to his colleague from across the aisle:

With both the Campbell and King-Meeks amendments passing by voice vote, later that day Campbell signed on as the 70th cosponsor (and fourth Republican) willing to align themselves with online gambling.

Big Online Gambling Opponent Out

NFL no longer opposes internet gambling efforts in DC

by , Aug 10, 2010 | 6:57 pm

The NFL has officially retracted their opposition to HR 2267, removing a strong opponent to online gambling from the current political game.

According to PokerNews, an NFL representative cites the King-Meeks amendment to HR 2267 as reason for the reversal: “We don’t oppose it since it now includes the language we had hoped for. The amended language adequately addressed our specific concern. We are pleased with the outcome.”

The amendment of note, introduced by HR 2267 co-sponsor Peter King (R-NY) excludes sports-betting from potentially regulated internet gambling. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), the bill’s newest co-sponsor, also gave support to this amendment.

Gambling Compliance’s Breakdown of 2267 Amendments

+ more on the looming online gambling “black list”

by , Aug 9, 2010 | 7:13 pm

For those not familiar, Gambling Compliance is one of a small handful of uberwonk journals for executive-types in the online gambling world. With offices in London and Washington DC, GC puts out high-level industry analysis that at least a handful of insiders find worth a £3,000-£5,000 in Europe subscription fee.

But they do make some content occasionally available for public consumption by non-subscribers. One I’ve been meaning to share for a while is the perfect companion piece to KevMath’s markup of HR 2267. (Supposedly Congressional staffers charged with the official cut-and-paste need a few more days to do what KevMath got done more than a week ago.)

Check it out … I like the cool, color-coded map; but the most important stuff is probably the breakdown by industry sector, explaining who has likely been affected how by the different amendments attached to the bill being sent to the floor. The report comes with an easy to browse table of amendments, too:

HR 2267 Frank Bill Amendments

Most interesting and plausibly relevant to our little world, imho, are provisions laid out in Rep. John Campbell’s (R-CA) amendment, which creates a “black list” of non-compliant operators. More…