Just because they haven’t made a public statement doesn’t mean they don’t have position. I doubt the PPA would be backing it if it didn’t have Stars’ approval.

::shrug:: FTP is operating at their usually level of competence in processing cash-outs. Don’t take away my ability to play on Stars just because Full Tilt doesn’t have its act together

Thrown their support behind? Not really. Stars hasn’t taken a position one way or the other.

The fact that Stars & FTP threw in their support for the Reid bill should be all the sign you need that their future is getting bleak.

Additionally, entities within Poker Stars have been quoted on 2+2 acknowledging processor problems and how uncertain their future will be without legislation.

If the DOJ doesn’t kill the status quo, intrastate poker will. Those of us that live in CA, NJ, and FL have intrastate poker legislation to sweat in 2011. It will likely include high rake, harsh player penalties for playing on non-state sites(jail time and $$), and small player pools.

Great thoughts above Andrew. If you haven’t already done this, it would be cool if you posted this somewhere on 2+2. I’m sure awareness of the legislation issue has risen drastically in the past 2 weeks. We still don’t hear enough pros talking about it though.

Fair enough, but they should have fought it in court, imo. The 5th circuit
has already ruled that UIGEA doesn’t apply to poker (h/t to Slate.com).

Meh, I’m not much of a politics junkie, and it will depend on a lot of factors, but right now I think things will get worse for Democrats before they get better. Even if they do get back in control, there is no guarantee that they’ll get around to pushing online poker. As “Local Rock” argues above, they’ve had four years of virtual inaction on the subject. Two years is indeed a long time, and this is very much a “bird in the hand” situation.

Snap, that should say “House Finance Committee”. About to fix it, nice catch.

I suppose my opinion, based largely on what the PPA and others presumably in the loop have said, is that while it’s tough to get any politician behind the idea of online poker, Republicans are somewhat more predisposed to oppose it. It’s definitely not a given that a Democratic majority necessarily will translate into a push for online poker. A LOT of cultivation is required on the part of those most interested in the subject. But historically Dems have been more receptive to such overtures than have Republicans, who tend to have a much more socially conservative base to appease. Basically I’d expect any politician to be default against online poker in the same way that I’d expect expect them to be “tough on crime”. But on both issues, Dems are generally somewhat more willing to come around from these default positions when persuaded/lobbied.

Although I personally have some preference for Dems over Republicans, I’m not a member of either party. That claim was only meant to reflect the fact that while Democrats as a whole haven’t been enthusiastic about gaming, the primary opposition has come from Republicans, and the main proponents have been Democrats.

From what I’ve seen and heard, checks are taking longer to issue and bouncing more often. My assumption is that sites put a high priority on keeping withdrawals as cheap, simple, and fast as possible for players. Understandably, casual players are pretty freaked out when they try to withdraw and the check doesn’t clear. The fact that sites are presumably willing to invest heavily in payment processing and nevertheless can’t keep it running smoothly is very troubling, IMO.

But, what might be the reason for presuming Democrats would be likely to support this in the future? What do you imagine has been the reason their has been no legislation brought to the floor of either house throughout 2010, and 2009, and 2008, and 2007? They have had unchallenged domination of the federal legislative branch, controlling both houses by historic margins for four years. An overwhelming majority of Democrats, as well as Republicans, in both Houses originally supported a more restrictive version of UIGEA in a “clean” floor vote unattached to any other legislative vehicle:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-363

Virtually all of them continue to do so.

Speaker Pelosi has stated legalization would happen “over my (her) dead body.” I suggest you read the official position of the Democratic Caucus in the Congressional Record, delivered on the floor of the House to open the debate on H.R. 4411 by Rep. Hooley of Oregon supporting the banning of online gambling on July 11, 2006. That was not the opinion of an individual; she was designated to deliver the position of her party. It continues to be the position of the majority of her party. I do not think there is any sensible reason to think that position is about to change.

The commonplace notion in the online poker subculture that Democrats must somehow really be for them is a fantasy.

How did the Democrats lose control of the Senate Finance Committee though?

I agreed with what you said except this part:

“The prohibition on non-US players, once a US-based market gets up and running, is the part I find most puzzling. I suppose keeping everything domestic makes matters much simpler, but it also forfeits billions of dollars in potential revenue. From the perspective of the US government, revenue from non-citizens is far more valuable than revenue from citizens, and if anything about the bill changes in the next few years, I would expect it to be this.”

Having had some experience with government bureaucracies, there is a saying that comes to mind: “Your suggestion makes sense! That’s why we won’t do it.” Haha. (Actually, this applies to non-government bureaucracies, too. Never underestimate the Congressional ability to pass things that don’t make sense. Or leave things that don’t make sense.