Harry Reid's Internet Poker Bill: While We Wait

Harry Reid's proposed bill to license, regulate and tax internet poker, the "Prohibition of Internet Gambling, Internet Poker Regulation, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2010" doesn't lend itself to much of an acronym. PIGIPRSUA? Meh, let's just call it the Reid bill. Anyway, the Reid bill continues to be a moving target. Significant developments this morning:

1. As noted by PokerGrump, among others, the PPA is suddenly in favor of the bill, telling its members to call their Senator and ask him/her to support it. This is not 24 hours after the PPA made a non-statement about the bill.

Remember that the PPA is basically a mouthpiece for the major existing players in the online poker industry. Could it be that the 2-year exclusion for non-casino-backed operators -- the so-called penalty box provision -- has been removed in the latest draft?

2. Rumblings that this thing *will* be attached to the tax-cut extension bill, *before* it goes to the floor of both chambers of Congress (rather than after approval, as was done with the UIGEA). Pokerati Washington correspondent Tricia Takanawa Scarlet Robinson seems to think tomorrow or Friday for attachment. And how weird is it that Pokerati has a Washington correspondent? When did Michalski get to the big leagues?

If President Obama was worried about Senators and Representative voting against the tax cuts yesterday, wait until Harry Reid attaches the online poker bill!

3. Bill Rini made a great point I hadn't considered previously, namely: offshore sites that try to give the US government the middle finger, and continue to operate in the US in spite of this legislation (if it were to pass), will quickly wind up on the DOJ's UIGEA blacklist of sites with which financial transaction providers are forbidden from doing business. Those sites may not have to worry about the $1 million per day penalties and the 50% non-licensing fee -- being outside the jurisdiction of the US -- but how are their customers going to get money on and off the sites?

4. This thing is starting to get quite a bit of mainstream media attention after Politico picked up the story yesterday. Not sure if that's #goodforpoker or #badforpoker, and how it will affect Reid's chances of getting the thing attached to the tax cuts and passed. For that matter, there are a lot of people questioning whether the #reidbill itself is #goodforpoker or #badforpoker, largely because of the 15-month #pokerblackout that would result if the bill passed in its current form (never mind the penalty box provision).

I continue to believe that, long term, any scheme that makes online poker 100% legal and legit is good for the game. But there may be some bumps in the road -- short-term variance -- along the way. Obviously the bill in the forms that we've seen so far heavily favors the casinos, to the detriment of existing online poker sites and (perhaps) players. But with a few tweaks it could turn into something that everyone -- the casinos, the existing sites and the players -- could live with.

Right now all we can do is watch and wait.