Hey gents. Its been a little while since, but I thought I would chime in a bit and share some additional thoughts on the Black Friday stuff. I don't want to temper the hope or surge for regulation because obviously I have huge desire to get my game back, but I think folks need to be careful.

First point, with the bill you were referencing in the House of Representatives, there is a big problem that isn't obvious with getting that bill through. The main issue is that any bill brought forth is going to have to go to the House Finance Committee before they will hit the floor for a vote. There is the big issue currently. Rep. Spencer Bachus is the chairmen of this committee that fundamentally controls the destiney of any bill related to the iPoker/iGaming legislation and he is vehimently opposed. He has a rather long history of taking a decidedly moral stance against gambling in all forms and it doesn't look like it will change much anytime soon.

The bigger issue politically right now which is going to bog everything down is the debt ceiling/Federal budget. Right now that is the largest driving issue for the country economically and is the prime driver behind a lot of the soft job market and recovery as no one wants to make any real moves with money until there is any clarity with respect to how the US will manage its debt going forward. A few weeks ago you got a little glimpse of the future when S&P downgraded the future potential of the US debt from stable to negative and things fell instantly. This is a serious issue and the prospect of the US Bond Rating being downgraded from AAA to AA will change our interest rates to the point where we instantly default. I don't have to explain how bad that is. So with the seriousness of the situation I would expect that you will see virtually no motion at the Finance Committee level as they are looking into sifting trillions of dollars and the potential revenue of a few billion isn't going to tilt the balance or generate a big ralling cry, especially since it isn't a slam dunk to pass it. Expect that the Speaker of the House isn't going to entertain the idea of getting an iPoker bill on the legislative agenda, given that this issue is the dominant issue going into the next election cycle.

From the state side things are very complicated and the news isn't great. I would highly recommend for those on Twitter to follow @CKrafcik, he is a writer and analyst on gaming legislation in the US and is an incredibly well informed and brilliant guy. He has been on QuadJacks a ton talking and I would highly recommend listening to what he has to say on the subject. As far as the states are concerned most of the bills are dieing or are just dedicated to exploration of frameworks on regulation based on a potential Federal legalization. The biggest potential at the moment is actually from NJ when in November the idea of intrastate iGaming will be a referendum on the ballot for amending the NJ State Constitution. I am not confident that it will pass because it is getting no momentum and the idea of bailing out Atlantic City isn't an issue that is playing very well in the state at the moment so I don't have a lot of hope. Iowa is exploring, Nevada is exploring as the backers of the promising bill was Pokerstars so that is essentially dead. California is trying to create a framework, but once again it is based on the Federal Government.

Long story short this is timed at the worst possible moment for the US player. The current political climate is just not conducive to a constructuve debate on the issue for the forseeable future. There are big problems in the US and politically they are much more attractive for politicians on the national level and are far easier to run on and less devisive than gambling is in most of this country. I remain optimistic, but I just don't see it happening. For me the most disappointing part of this is that the catalyst for this was a last minute amendment onto a Port Safety Act (in case you were unaware the UIGEA was basically a pork barrel amendment from ultra conservative Congressmen attached at the last minute on a must pass bill). This is the pinnacle of underhanded politics and disgraceful in every respect, but what is done is done. So for now, we have to sit, develop a logical case, present it to people and attempt to build a solid voice at the national level.

–LPG

I had a really interesting discussion with a good friend of mine over lunch and I thought that I would add the contents here. So the core of what we were discussing was that the iPoker/iGaming debate actually has brought back a relatively old and dividing debate in the US. The root of the battle going on right now with the multitude of states attempting legislation and the Federal Government attempting to exert control is the very old debate of State's Rights. At the center of this discussion an interesting subquestion has been lurking in the shadows, is gaming/gambling something that should be a central issue. Traditionally gaming legislation and legalization is not. The states decide, enact, enforce and collect the proceeds of this industry. Now you can argue that casinos don't transend borders, and they don't. The internet however is a really unique medium and it does transend borders, state and national. There is an interesting legal case brewing around the state vs federal powers with respect to the internet that could have a very interesting impact on iGaming which may not be immediately obvious. Amazon has been arguing with the states about their ability to levy sales tax against internet purchase and have argued that they will go all the way to the Supreme Court if challenged (which apparently there is talk about doing) to prove that only the Federal Government has teh right to charge tax on the internet. If this does get there it could be a very landmark case if the States win. Essentially providing case law that allows the states to regulate taxation on the internet for traffic effecting residents in their jurisdiction for activities that take place anywhere in cyberspace. I would be highly interested to see if the tone of the States changes if they win this case (providing they pursue it) as it would be a big boost to their ability to manage the internet as an outlet. More stuff to think about.