In December, 2012, a bill to regulate the online poker market in the United States of America on a federal level, filed by Senators Harry Reid and Jon Kyl, failed permanently, even though it had been widely considered one of the most promising proposals to legalise the game since the UIGEA of 2006. The Reid-Kyl Bill gained a wide supporter base but not powerful enough to overcome the counter-lobby, enforced by state lottery companies, the National Governors Association, Native American as well as religious groups.
Democrat Harry Reid has been working for years to conclude a central legalisation of online poker in the US, so far in vain. Now, Republican Representative Peter King (NY) tries to achieve the same.
Representative Peter King
Apparently, Representative King is about to file his own draft for the federal regulation, which will resemble the Reid-Kyl Bill in most of its aspects, except it aims to exclude its most debated features. For instance, the King Bill wishes to include the state lottery companies in the regulation process, which may weaken the counter lobby significantly.
Even though the details of the draft are unknown, its filing is certain, given King’s spokesman Kevin Fogarty’s statement at politico.com. Fogarty said that King have long since supported the idea of a federal regulation.
With the opening of the market in the State of Nevada, the issue of a federal regulation has once again become a focus point of debate in the US Congress. The federal legislation is unhappy about the state-level regulation process, which is considered risky. Since it is underway, though, it appears that the Congress wishes to take the initiative and introduce a federal-level regulation before more states join the regulated markets of Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey (in addition to Pennsylvania and California, where regulation is in the preparatory phase).
Even though most players are excited about the launch in Nevada, the preference of a future federal regulation is but unambiguous. State-level regulation might work in the short run but can easily result in serious problems, especially if certain states decide to join their markets. This would mean the need to adjust state regulations, which could end up in an unclear, bureaucratic system full of loopholes, instead of a clear-cut central regulation.
Democrat Harry Reid has been working for years to conclude a central legalisation of online poker in the US, so far in vain. Now, Republican Representative Peter King (NY) tries to achieve the same.
Representative Peter King
Apparently, Representative King is about to file his own draft for the federal regulation, which will resemble the Reid-Kyl Bill in most of its aspects, except it aims to exclude its most debated features. For instance, the King Bill wishes to include the state lottery companies in the regulation process, which may weaken the counter lobby significantly.
Even though the details of the draft are unknown, its filing is certain, given King’s spokesman Kevin Fogarty’s statement at politico.com. Fogarty said that King have long since supported the idea of a federal regulation.
With the opening of the market in the State of Nevada, the issue of a federal regulation has once again become a focus point of debate in the US Congress. The federal legislation is unhappy about the state-level regulation process, which is considered risky. Since it is underway, though, it appears that the Congress wishes to take the initiative and introduce a federal-level regulation before more states join the regulated markets of Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey (in addition to Pennsylvania and California, where regulation is in the preparatory phase).
Even though most players are excited about the launch in Nevada, the preference of a future federal regulation is but unambiguous. State-level regulation might work in the short run but can easily result in serious problems, especially if certain states decide to join their markets. This would mean the need to adjust state regulations, which could end up in an unclear, bureaucratic system full of loopholes, instead of a clear-cut central regulation.
0 comments