Everybody has their own reasons for voting for a certain candidate (or voting against one), but if you are passionate about poker and are determined to make that the deciding issue in this election, here is a little cheat sheet on where the men stand on our beloved pastime:

Barack Obama

The Democrats are generally considered more sympathetic to the plight of poker players than Republicans. Our own President has even been known to play in some home games now and then. But while most would assume that a vote for Obama is a vote for poker, that’s not necessarily true. It’s not necessarily untrue, either, and that is part of the problem. The Obama camp has never really taken much of a stand on online poker.

President Obama himself has never addressed the issue publically, which is not particularly surprising, given the more important national and international issues on his plate. In May, however, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese, during the White House’s “We the People” campaign, did offer some opinions on internet gambling in response to an online poker petition. Unfortunately, they offering nothing that we haven’t heard before.

Deese said that while “The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes,” online sports betting is against the law and it is up to the states to determine if other forms of internet gambling are legal. He then proceeded to list the dangers of online gambling, citing problems with location and age restrictions, fraud, and money laundering.

On a slightly positive note, he added, “The Administration will continue to examine this issue and is open to solutions that would help guard against the use of online gambling sites as tools for conducting illegal activities or preying on unsuspecting individuals to the extent that online gambling is permitted.”

Mitt Romney

Mr. Romney is without question against online poker, letting it be known that he supports a block on the game during the Nevada primary. With that opinion, he is right in line with his party’s platform. In August, the official Republican Party Platform spelled it out in black and white on page 32:

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.

Not all Republican legislators are in lock-step formation when it comes to online poker; there are some that are actively fighting to make online poker legal and regulated and many others who support the game. When the platform was published, Poker Players Alliance VP of Player Relations Rich Muny said, “It is unfortunate that the authors of the plank are at odds with many House Republicans who are leading the charge for licensed and regulated online poker, but it is even worse that they are so out of touch with the actual voters.”

Interestingly, Mitt Romney’s running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, has been given an “A” rating by the Poker Players Alliance.

Gary Johnson

No, he has no chance to win, but there is one other candidate that poker players might want to consider: Gary Johnson. Johnson had originally attempted to earn the Republican nomination, but after being pushed out early in the primary season, he ended up becoming the Libertarian Party nominee. Johnson is a staunch supporter of online poker. There is no grey area with him on the matter.

On his website, a page dedicated to his stance on internet poker reads

YOU’RE GETTING A RAW DEAL
IT’S YOUR MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS TELLING ADULTS HOW THEY CAN SPEND IT.

That is followed by Johnson’s own quote which reads, “The federal government should not be involved in restricting lawful commerce that doesn’t harm anyone.”

As an added bonus, Johnson takes a line out of poker players’ mouths right on his home page with his tag line, “Be Libertarian One Time.”

Poker player Jeff Hwang, who has also written three successful books on Omaha Hold’em, used The Motley Fool to examine the current state of the online poker industry in the United States. Ominously titled “Sorry, Mr. Online Poker. Nobody Cares About You,” Hwang seems to believe that there is little chance that online poker regulation will be coming to the U. S. any time soon. Hwang states early on in the article that “it might seem like time to PartyPoker like its 2006…Only it’s not.”

Hwang accurately points out some of the problems with current legislation that is sitting on the tables in Washington. Those efforts – Texas Representative Joe Barton’s bill in the House and the yet-unintroduced bill from Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Jon Kyl of Arizona in the Senate – would actually look to further restrict gaming, according to Hwang, instead of an expansion. Hwang also looks at the likelihood that there would be states that wouldn’t “opt in” to the federal regulatory framework, leaving “20 to 30” states (instead of all 50 in an unregulated market) that would participate in the federal compact.

With this in mind, Hwang says that the actual revenues would fall far short of what some have estimated. The American Gaming Association (an advocate of federal regulation) estimates that there is $4 billion per year wagered on off-shore sites; another Wall Street study estimates the amount in the $6 to $10 billion range. If Hwang’s assessment is correct, that number could be cut at least in half and probably much further using his “20 to 30” state likelihood.

In analyzing the online poker industry itself, Hwang sees ominous clouds on the horizon. PokerStars, already the dominant leader in the industry, has only made themselves stronger with the acquisition of Full Tilt Poker. Hwang estimates that, once Full Tilt returns to life next month, the PokerStars/Full Tilt Poker monstrosity will garner somewhere between 50%-70% of the online poker audience; other players in the game, including PartyPoker, 888 and the Microgaming Network, struggle to even obtain 10% of the market share.

With this monopoly, Hwang says, “Online players will gravitate to one large site with the greatest volume and greatest variety of games…much in the same way that eBay benefits from network effects where buyers and sellers ultimately gravitate to one site.” Pointing out the costs associated with online poker – sign up bonuses, affiliate and rake back programs and other promotions – it would not be cost effective for sites to sign up in the United States for a limited part of the market.

Hwang also looks at the federal versus state regulation of the industry and sees problems. Despite the possibility of 20 to 30 states participating in a federal system, the idea of 47 different sets of rules (Utah has already opted out on any gaming and Delaware and Nevada have passed some sort of intra-state gaming) would not draw enough competition and revenue to be feasible to online poker companies. “The longer we go without federal legislation, the more states will come online and (it is) more likely the industry will wind up with fractured poker markets that look like France, Spain, Italy and Denmark,” Hwang notes.

As to the possibility of federal legislation, Hwang’s outlook is less than rosy. While many are in favor of federal legislation, which will have to wait for Congress’ “lame duck” session following the November 6 general election, Hwang took the pulse at this year’s Global Gaming Expo and was not excited. “The sense I got during G2E is that the chance of (federal regulation) actually happening this year is close to nil.”

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Anna Tinsley, the anti-gambling group Stop Predatory Gambling’s representative in the state of Texas, Jack Ballou, is pushing for the Republican to give up on HR 2366 (The Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011) that he has advocated for much of the current Congressional session. Ballou and the organization believe that, if online poker regulation is passed on the federal level, it will increase gambling nationwide and particularly in Texas.

“We see this bill as the ‘camel’s nose’ under the tent – a beginning point for gambling online,” Ballou said to Tinsley in her story. “As a constituent (Ballou lives in Arlington, a part of Representative Barton’s Sixth District representation), I’m calling on Congressman Barton to withdraw support of that bill and discontinue pushing it in Congress.”

Another organization has picked up Ballou’s call, especially as it pertains to the state of Texas. “We oppose expansion of gambling in (the state),” Steven Reeves, a lobbyist for the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, states to Tinsley. Reeves’ organization is vehemently opposed to the expansion of gaming to the internet, with Reeves saying to Tinsley, “We don’t want gambling through the internet going into every home, office and smart phone through the country.”

For his part, Representative Barton is refusing to back down to his opponents. “People are playing poker on the internet for money in the United States now,” Tinsley quotes Representative Barton as saying. “They are playing on overseas sites that are outside the reach of U. S. law, leaving the consumer unprotected and denying the government the ability to tax winnings.”

Representative Barton’s HR 2366 has been able to draw bipartisan support for his legislation. Republican representatives Peter King of New York and John Campbell of California have joined Democratic representatives Shelley Berkley of Nevada, John Conyers of Michigan and a retiring Barney Frank of Massachusetts as just of the few powerful figures in the House of Representatives that have signed on as co-sponsors. Even with this bipartisan support, however, HR 2366 has been languishing in the halls of Congress.

The bill has received two hearings in a House sub-committee but has yet to come to a vote in that sub-committee for passage onto the full House for consideration. That group, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade, is led by fellow Republican Representative Mary Bono Mack and Representative Barton holds a seat on that board. While the hearings have been generally positive for online poker regulation, the inaction regarding a vote has put pause on moving forward with such regulatory action.

At the minimum, Representative Barton at least has a bill for online poker regulation. The Senate has yet to produce any proposals that would allow online poker regulation to move forward. Although there is a draft bill floating around, a compromise between Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Jon Kyl of Arizona, this draft has yet to be introduced to any committee in the Senate. As both chambers of Congress are on recess to return home to campaign (the entirety of the House and 33 seats in the Senate are up for re-election), the drive to get anything done regarding federal regulation of online poker and/or gaming in general will have to be considered during a crowded schedule on the “lame duck” sessions following the November 6 elections.

Even with organizations looking to stop Representative Barton’s efforts to regulate the online gaming industry, it is thought by many pundits that he will not have an issue getting re-elected to his seat in the House (an office he has held since 1985). Representative Barton will be running against Democrat Kenneth Sanders, Libertarian Hugh Chauvin and Green Party candidate Brandon Palmer come November 6. In 2010, Representative Barton was challenged by Democrat David Cozad and Libertarian Byron Severns, with Barton pulling almost 66% of the vote to vastly outpace Cozad (31%) and Severns (3%).

Motions filed by both Todd and the Arkansas Racing Alliance were heard by the High Court on Thursday, with the Court siding with the ARA in their assertion that the proposed amendment from Todd was worded improperly. That proposed amendment, in the views of the ARA, would have potentially repealed already standing laws that allow the tracks associated with the ARA the right to offer video poker, blackjack and electronic “skill games” such as electronic poker tables. The ARA contended as well that the wording of the petitions filed by Todd didn’t indicate this potential and, if the Court sided with them, that the referendum that will appear on the November 6 ballot shouldn’t be counted.

In their decision yesterday, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the ARA and blocked the proposal. “While we sympathize with (Todd’s) view that the revision was ostensibly made as part of a collaboration with respondent (the ARA) and the (state) Attorney General, the fact remains that (Todd) altered the text of their ballot measure even though all of the signatures were gathered under a different ballot title,” the Court said in its decision. Todd’s motion against the state, which was filed in August to get the proposal on the ballot, was dismissed due to the Court’s decision on the ARA/Todd fight.

When Arkansans head to the polls on November 6, they will still see the Todd referendum on their ballots. The Court decision, however, instructs the state’s Board of Elections to not even tally the votes on neither Todd’s measure nor count those regarding a second casino proposal by a Texas businessman, which was previously rejected last month and will also be on the ballot.

The attorney representing the ARA, Elizabeth Robben Murray, calmly expressed her satisfaction with the ruling to writer Andrew DeMillo in an article that appeared on Bloomberg Businessweek. “I think it was the most logical holding that could be reached,” Murray stated to DeMillo. “You can’t change ballot titles after you’ve circulated a petition with a materially different ballot title to collect signatures.”

Todd was understandably disappointed in the decision of the Supreme Court. “I really don’t know what I could have done differently,” Todd said to DeMillo. “That’s my challenge in the next few months to figure out how it could have worked.”

The fight over casinos in Arkansas showed the impact of money on the political process. DeMello says that Arkansas Development, a group that was formed to support Todd’s legislative action, spent more than $913,000 over the span of this year, primarily to garner the needed signatures for the petition to put the referendum on the ballot. On the other side, Stop Casinos Now was founded by Southland Park Gaming and Racing (located in West Memphis, AR) to fight Todd’s measure. Southland spent more than $894,000 to fight Todd’s efforts and was joined by the other Arkansas racetrack, Oaklawn Gaming and Racing in Hot Springs, which contributed $80,000 to Stop Casinos Now.

The proposed referendum also faced opposition from government officials. Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe came out against Todd’s efforts, saying to DeMello yesterday, “I never like (the proposed amendment) because it kind of gave some exclusivity to out-of-state folks (Todd relocated from Las Vegas to Arkansas to drive the petition process). It wasn’t being sold that way to a lot of people.”

The Todd proposal would have given the right to the people of Arkansas to decide on whether to expand casino gaming in the state. Under the referendum, four counties – Pulaski, Miller, Franklin and Crittenden – would have been the locations of the full-fledged casinos, with Todd’s group earning the sole right to operate in the state. With the Arkansas Supreme Court decision, however, there will be no vote on casinos in the state this year and Todd hasn’t yet decided whether to try again in 2014.

According to Kevin Bogardus on TheHill.com, the push by Nevada Senator Harry Reid to pass his compromise bill (co-authored with retiring Arizona Senator Jon Kyl) is facing stiff challenges from the individual state legislatures and their governors. Following the move in December 2011 by the U. S. Department of Justice that stated the Wire Act of 1961 applied only to sports betting, several states read this as indicating that they were free to be able to open up their own online gaming outlets, mostly focused on lottery ticket sales. The Reid/Kyl proposal, according to Bogardus, is upsetting state governments because of its pre-emptive strike on the individual states’ movement towards legalization of that and other forms of online gaming.

The proposed Reid/Kyl bill, which would open a regulated poker market in the United States, has provisions in it that would essentially shut down any other form of gaming in the country. If the Reid/Kyl bill is passed (as well as the bill from Texas Representative Joe Barton on the subject in the House), it is consolidated with the House bill and signed into law, it would place restrictions on what the states could do with online gaming. Under the Reid/Kyl proposed bill, online gaming – whether intra- or inter-state – would be prohibited except for horse racing and online poker, both of which would have federal regulations to cover their activities.

These two points are what seems to have raised the ire of the different state legislatures, governors and lobbyists for some forms of online gaming. Bogardus quotes Margaret DeFrancisco, the co-chairwoman of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries (NASPL), as saying, “It’s (lottery ticket sales) all the money that the states absolutely rely on. (Online) is another sales channel. We don’t want to be restricted by the federal government telling us what gaming policy should be in the States.”

The discussion of the impact on the states comes as the head of the American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf, spoke at the Global Gaming Expo going on at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas. Speaking to the gathering yesterday, Fahrenkopf stated that passage of any regulation of online poker during the post-election “lame duck” session will “take a bit of gambler’s luck.” Although the AGA is behind federal regulation of online poker, Fahrenkopf also expressed that he wasn’t happy with the current version.

“The legislation (when put before Congress after the elections) may be much different that the summary we saw recently,” Fahrenkopf stated as he expressed his thoughts that the “lame duck” session doesn’t ensure that an online poker measure will be passed. Fahrenkopf pointed out that there are many issues that the Congress will face before it is adjourned and that online poker would be “difficult” to make it into the discussion.

Fahrenkopf also pointed out that it may be “now or never” for passage of federal regulation of the online poker industry. He pointed out to the conference that, with the end of the current Congress in January 2013, there are several proponents of online poker that will be retiring from Congress or may be voted out. “We don’t know what the landscape will be like come January,” Fahrenkopf stated. “It could be much more difficult if we don’t get something done during the “lame duck” session of Congress.”

Amidst the infighting in Congress and the displeasure of the individual states and Indian tribes (among other issues), it is looking as if the battle for online poker regulation is an uphill one rather than the “slam dunk” that most have viewed it to be.

The two men, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and junior Senator Dean Heller, have gone back to the Silver State with the close of the most recent session of the Senate, but that hasn’t calmed issues between the two men down on the key question of the regulation of the online poker industry. Sen. Reid, who negotiated a still-unintroduced bill with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl on that subject, tasked Sen. Heller with garnering the necessary votes from fellow Republicans that would ensure passage of the bill. Earlier this month, Sen. Heller allegedly balked at the proposition prior to the fall recess, bringing the ire of Sen. Reid upon him last week.

In discussing the current stalemate, Sen. Reid’s office accused Sen. Heller of not stepping up for his constituency in Nevada as well as the multitude of gaming corporations who would benefit from federal regulation. Calling regulation of online gaming and poker “the most important issue facing Nevada since Yucca Mountain (a reference to the stoppage of a proposed nuclear waste repository in the state),” Sen. Reid chastised Sen. Heller for not supporting the issue wholeheartedly. Sen. Heller, for his part, countered by stating in a letter that the issue was best left to the House of Representatives to take first action rather than the Senate.

Yesterday, Sen. Heller issued another salvo in the ongoing battle by saying that Sen. Reid was attempting to make a political issue out of the online poker fight. According to the Nevada Appeal, Sen. Heller stated that the legislation should be removed from the “partisan fights” between the two men so that it doesn’t “poison the waters” for passage later this year.

“I believe, at the end of the day, we will have the 10-15 (Republican) votes that we’re going to need in order to get a bill like this passed,” Heller stated to the Appeal. “But we don’t need the politics playing in it today and we don’t need to poison the water on this also.”

Even though there’s quite a bit of acrimony between the two, Sen. Heller does state that, in his belief, they will come together on the subject. “The internet poker bill was never going to pass before the election,” Heller said. “It’s going to happen, and I’m still committed, as Senator Reid is, to get a bill passed. When this is all said and done, both sides are going to come together and say, ‘OK, let’s do what’s best for Nevada.’”

Sen. Heller is locked in a particularly difficult fight for a second term as a Senator from Nevada. Oddly enough, the person challenging Heller for his seat, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (currently representing the state in the House of Representatives), is supported by Sen. Reid in the 2012 elections on November 6. Rep. Berkley has been a supporter of federal regulation of the online poker industry and also fired off against Sen. Heller’s lackadaisical approach to the question in saying, “Senator Heller has failed to deliver for Nevada’s hardworking families who were counting on online poker legislation to boost the state’s struggling economy and to create thousands of good paying jobs.”

“Perhaps Senator Heller shouldn’t have spent so much time cozying up to Wall Street special interests by protecting tax breaks for corporations that ship American jobs overseas,” Rep. Berkley concluded.

The stakes are high for Sen. Reid on this subject also. If he is unable to deliver for the Nevada casino interests the federal bill they seek, then he would lose a great deal of support from those companies (according to the Las Vegas Sun, MGM Resorts International was Sen. Reid’s largest campaign donor in 2010 for his re-election campaign, followed by Caesars Entertainment). Sen. Reid may also be looking to shore up his place as Senate Majority Leader; if his efforts sway the voters to put Rep. Berkley in Sen. Heller’s seat, it would almost ensure that the Democratic Party would maintain its majority in the Senate and he would maintain his leadership position.

Currently, Congress is on recess for its members to head home to campaign (the entirety of the House of Representatives is up for re-election and one-third of the Senate is facing its constituents), meaning that nothing will get done on online poker regulation until after November 6. At that time, the “lame duck” session will kick in, but online poker is way down the list of issues the Congress must contend with, which include several major showdowns over taxation, budget issues and aiding the farming industry.

The rhetoric will probably continue, not only in Nevada but elsewhere, as the potential for federal legislation of online poker in 2012 becomes a problematic question.

QuadJacks.com received a copy of the proposed bill, given the same title as Representative Joe Barton’s bill in the House (“Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2012”), and the summary of what Senators Reid and Kyl have proposed offers several bright spots for the regulation of an online poker market. Where people may have trouble is that is where the bill stops and how it strengthens current laws on the books.

The bill would look to enhance the power of several current laws on the books regarding online gaming as a whole. The Reid/Kyl effort would look to rescind the December 2011 decision by the U. S. Department of Justice that the Wire Act of 1961 applied only to sports betting. In addition to changing this legal decision, the Reid/Kyl bill would amend the Wire Act, the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) of 1970 and the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 so that they cover internet activities (especially the older laws).

Under the Reid/Kyl proposal, the Commerce Department would create a new government program, the Office of Online Poker Oversight (OOPO). This body would monitor state and Indian gaming and their regulatory bodies and issue the licenses to potential operators. The OOPO would administer a list of standards for online poker operators and violations of those standards would incur civil penalties of up to $750,000 per violation and loss of an operator’s license.

It is arguable that, instead of opening up the United States to a federally regulated online gaming world, the Reid/Kyl bill would instead clamp down on it. In the proposed bill, internet gambling – whether intrastate or interstate – would be prohibited except for horse racing wagering and online poker. For those that would offer such activities outside of the two exceptions, a penalty of ten years in prison and fines would be assessed.

Another segment of the proposed Reid/Kyl bill would prevent any licensing of companies or people involved in post-2006 online gaming activities. In this provision, those companies that either offered gaming services post-enactment of the UIGEA (and the persons involved) would be prohibited from obtaining a license to participate in a regulated U. S. market. This would mean that PokerStars (even though they negotiated a deal with the Department of Justice that would allow them access) would not be allowed into the U. S. market until they “sat out” for five years following the law’s enactment.

One of the main bones of contention was in the “waiting period” that was proposed in previous legislation, and that provision makes an appearance in the Reid/Kyl bill as well. If enacted, there would be a minimum of 15 months before a potential U. S. online poker market would begin. This is done, according to the bill summary, to allow for a “level playing field” among potential operators.

The Reid/Kyl proposal would further look to lock down any further online gaming, including one that opened up as a result of the Department of Justice decision in December 2011. Online lottery sales would be severely limited to sales of tickets that aren’t determined in daily drawings, such as the Powerball or the MegaMillions games. The lottery games could also not be played only online or “mimic online games.”

The proposed Reid/Kyl bill has caused some dispute between one of the author’s and his fellow state Senator. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Tetreault, Reid and junior Nevada Senator Dean Heller have been at odds over Reid’s insistence that Heller lead the charge for getting the necessary votes in the Senate from other Republicans. In a letter to Reid on the online poker issue sent Monday, Heller stated that it “would be best for the Senate to step back and let the House of Representatives act first on Web poker,” according to Tetreault.

The continued “dragging of feet” by legislators on any online poker legislation is threatening to see those proposals die in the current Congress. Rep. Barton’s online poker bill still hasn’t emerged from committee as of yet and, at this point, the proposed Reid/Kyl bill is still that…a proposal that hasn’t actually been introduced to committee. With the Congress recessing in days for the November elections (the entirety of the House and a third of the Senate are facing reelection) – and the “lame duck” session that will follow – time is running out for passage of federal online poker legislation in 2012.

According to Virginian-Pilot reporter Dave Forster, Charles Daniels, a former poker hall operator in Portsmouth, received word yesterday that his appeal against the current laws on the books of the Commonwealth would be heard in front of the Virginia Supreme Court during its upcoming session. Daniels, who has previously enlisted the aid of the Poker Players Alliance in fighting the cause and was also notified of the appeal, makes his case for overturning the existing regulations on two fronts.

Forster reports that two matters will be under consideration for the Virginia Supreme Court. First, Daniels contends that the state’s gambling law is unconstitutionally vague and therefore unenforceable. The second contention of Daniels’ case is regarding the element of chance in a particular game and whether the mere existence of that element is enough to make a game illegal under the current statutes. Daniels has contended that poker, unlike other casino table games, is predominantly a game of skill and is legal.

The case dates back to the mid-2000s, when Daniels operated a business called the “Poker Palace” which offered poker for its customers. That business operated from 2006 through 2010 and donated much of its proceeds to charitable causes. During arguments last year in Portsmouth’s Circuit Court, Daniels produced records to show that 74% of the business’ revenues (approximately $700,000) were donated to organizations such as the March of Dimes, the Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office Charities and the Portsmouth Catholic Regional School.

During those arguments last year, it was revealed that Portsmouth’s Commonwealth Attorney, Earle Mobley, ordered the closure of the “Poker Palace” in 2010 (and other poker halls in the city) despite allowing many of them to operate for the past four years. Mobley contended that, previous to that, he had problems with the way the Virginia laws were written and couldn’t effectively enforce them (it is unknown what caused Mobley’s change of heart in 2010).

The hearing in November 2011 brought out the support of the Poker Players Alliance and perhaps one of the most effective ambassadors of the poker community, former World Champion Greg Raymer. During the hearing, Raymer demonstrated for the court the skills required to be an effective poker player. Raymer showed Circuit Court Judge Thomas Shadrick how players could utilize math to maximize their odds of winning and other abilities, such as logically figuring out an opponent’s strategy and reading tells, to prove the predominance of skill.

After hearing arguments from Daniels and the Commonwealth, Judge Shadrick ruled in favor of the Commonwealth despite Raymer’s and Daniels’ arguments. He agreed that poker involved skill but that the outcome was still left to chance. Judge Shadrick also rejected Daniels’ claim regarding the vagaries of Virginia’s gaming laws.

The citizens of Virginia have responded to Forster’s story, seemingly supporting the case of Daniels. Poster ‘sas310’ wrote, “The Virginia lottery is a game of chance and a lot of money is wasted playing it. Poker is a game of skill. The only difference is that the lottery proceeds go to the state. That is why the state doesn’t like poker or any games that the state does not get a cut.” Another poster points out a statement from Daniel Negreanu that a good player can play an average player and win without looking at their cards, attempting to drive home the skill aspect of the game of poker over the chance argument.

Forster doesn’t report on what approach Daniels will take in preparing the briefs for the appearance in front of the Virginia Supreme Court. Those briefs are expected to be filed over the next few months and a decision on the case from Virginia’s highest court should be rendered by early 2013.

The GOP platform – the statement of positions that the party will advocate for arguing for its election to office – was passed on Tuesday during their convention in Tampa, FL, and the question of online gaming and poker was a plank of said platform. Although it was buried deep within their 62-page position (on Page 32, to be exact), it still has drawn considerable fire for the position that the Republicans plan to take should they earn election in November.

Under a heading of “Making The Internet Family-Friendly,” the GOP position states, “Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.”

The platform stance is based on the December 2011 decision by the DoJ that the Wire Act of 1961 only applied to sports betting but not to any other forms of gaming. This has sent not only the federal government but also state legislatures into a frenzy to be the first to enact legislation that would allow for, at the minimum, online poker and, at its furthest extent, complete online casino gaming to American citizens.

The GOP stance is not surprising if we look at the history. In 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA), proposed by former Republican Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, was tacked onto a piece of “must pass” legislation to become the law of the land and was signed into law by former President George Bush. For many years, some in the Republican party have fought against any type of online gaming, including poker, despite the pleas from not only players but from major casino industry leaders to allow for such action.

The Democratic Party hasn’t exactly been at the forefront of moving legislation forward to allow for online poker either. Although Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank attempted to push legislation through in 2008, those measures never came to a vote in the halls of Congress. In 2010, Rep. Frank’s efforts died with the seating of the current Congress.

Of course, we all remember that it was under this current Presidential administration that “Black Friday” came into being. The April 2011 indictment of the three leading poker rooms in the United States was led by Attorney General Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice, and has for all practical purposes decimated online gaming in the United States. Furthermore, neither the Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party has come out with any firm position on the issue.

Where the GOP stance is strange is that, over the past couple of years, it has been members of its own party that have been pushing for legislation. Texas Representative Joe Barton has a bill, HR 2366, that would allow for online poker but put stringent restrictions on other forms of online gaming and criminalize play on non-regulated sites. This proposal has languished in committee since its introduction last year.

Earlier this year, it was rumored that retiring Arizona Senator Jon Kyl had reached an accord with Nevada Senator Harry Reid regarding a Senate bill allowing for online poker. This yet-to-be released bill has sat in the minds of the two Senators as they attempt to find enough votes to pass it through the body. With Congress now on recess until after the November elections, the only hopes for either the Barton bill or the Reid/Kyl effort is passage during the “lame duck” session that follows the elections.

Naturally, the stance of the GOP has drawn the ire of the poker community. The Poker Players Alliance’s Rich Muny stated on the PPA website, “It is unfortunate that the authors of the plank are at odds with many House Republicans who are leading the charge for licensed and regulated online poker, but it even worse that they are so out of touch with the actual voters.” The comments by Muny, the Vice President of Player Relations for the PPA, are some of the calmest of the clamor that has erupted over several poker message boards.

What the effect of the GOP stance – and whether the Democrats will respond during their convention next week in Charlotte, NC – will have on the upcoming elections is unknown. But if the vitriol that is running through poker players at this moment is translated to November, it could make for an interesting Election Day.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board (GCB) recommended South Point for approval earlier this month, so it was up to the Nevada Gaming Commission’s (NGC) three-member panel to formally grant South Point the license on August 23rd. It did so in unanimous fashion. The company expects to launch sometime in October.

In July, eGaming Review magazine (EGR) interviewed South Point chief executive Michael Gaughan about the likely license approval. While he doesn’t expect South Point Poker to become an unstoppable behemoth, he is excited to have the first legal U.S. online poker site. “I may not be the biggest or the best,” he told EGR, “but hopefully I’ll have a head start by two or three months.”

Unlike other online poker license applicants, South Point has developed its own software client, rather than partnering with a developer. In that same July interview, Gaughan said that the software was in its second wave of testing. An independent lab is still finishing tests, but there has been no indication that South Point’s client will not pass. In June, the GCB registered Gaming Laboratories International and BMM International to test interactive gaming equipment for the state, so the testing lab is likely one of those two.

South Point actually has an online poker room up and running already, but it is completely different from the one that is coming. The current South Point Poker is a free-to-play room on the ZEN Entertainment Network. The rooms on the network are totally free – no monthly fee is required – and offer cash and prizes to winners of their tournaments. Gaughan’s first venture into online poker has not been as successful as he would have liked. “It (the software) was complicated and hard to download,” he told EGR. “[The poor results were] partly down to the provider and partly because I lost interest in it when it didn’t grow as fast as I thought it would.”

The software that is currently undergoing testing is a completely new product and will be unrelated to what is currently being used on South Point’s ZEN site.

While Gaughan and the South Point team are excited about being the first in the Nevada intrastate online poker arena, being first isn’t without its drawbacks. South Point is the guinea pig and will arguably be scrutinized harder than any of its successors. “We want to make sure it’s done correctly because what you do might have an impact on what others do later,” Commission Chairman Peter Bernhard said at the licensing hearing.

Lawrence Vaughan, South Point’s Chief Operating Officer is confident that his product will be up to the task. Of particular concern is keeping those who are underage and/or outside of Nevada’s borders off the site. “We have to make sure you are who you say you are,” Vaughan said. “We’ll know if the person playing is the person who is supposed to be playing.”

There will also be safeguards on the site to prevent cheating and money laundering and to help problem gamblers.

While South Point was the headliner Thursday, Reno-based Monarch Interactive also received the green light from the Nevada NGC. Monarch is a step or two behind South Point, though, as it does not have its own software, instead planning to partner with an established developer. Also licensed was Global Cash Access Inc., which will be an online payment provider. The company already supplies ATMs and provides credit services to casinos and will now partner with South Point as the online poker room’s payment processor.