hr 2267 good news for WA state players?

Reply to Thread
  1. tmac2424 tmac2424 is offline

    Woodinville, WA
    United States

    Posts: 1,325
    Joined: May 07

    Aug 1st, 2010 (8/1/2010 3:42am)

    the fact that the 6th amendment to this bill was voted on and defeated is VERY GOOD NEWS for all wa state players - right?

    the 6th amendment to my knowledge was he whole "opt-in or opt out" that was going to be left up to each individual states' governor (which was the only part of hr2267 i was concerned about due to gov. gregoire's firm anti-online poker stance and the fact that its a crime in our state) - but since this was voted down this is good news im guessing - could be wrong tho

    is there anyone else more knowledgeable about this that can tell me if im right about this?

    thx
    Edited By: tmac2424 Aug 1st, 2010 at 03:43 AM
  2. Dan Dan is offline Administrator

    Posts: 4,784
    Joined: May 06

    Aug 5th, 2010 (8/5/2010 5:27pm) in reply to tmac2424

    I asked Poker Players Alliance Washington State Director Lee Rousso, who is a practicing lawyer, what he thought of your question. Here's his response. Hope it helps:

    Washington could opt out of HR 2267. It is a flaw in the bill that the opt-out can be communicated by the governor. It would have been a better bill if legislative action were required to opt-out. It is not even clear that a legislative act could force the governor to opt-in.

    In spite of these concerns, I think it is more likely that Washington would not opt-out. Although Governor Gregoire claims to be opposed to gambling, it is also true that she has never met a tax that she did not like. Once internet poker has the federal seal of approval, it is far more likely that Washington would tax it rather than ban it.
     
  3. TheEngineer TheEngineer is offline Rich Muny - PPA Board VP

    KY
    United States

    Posts: 2,666
    Joined: Nov 07

    Aug 19th, 2010 (8/19/2010 8:49am) in reply to Dan

    There was one hidden benefit in the amendments. While Congress cannot tell states how to opt out, an amendment changed the opt-out period to be completion of each state's legislative session. This helped signal to the states that the intention is for legislative opt-outs, as opposed to letters from governors.
     
Reply to Thread