http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...tional-587937/
A few interesting take-aways from this:
- Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was paid by the PPA to analyze the bill and comment on it. His biggest problem was the language restricting sites that took US bets after 2006 (for example, Pokerstars) from participating in the legalized US online poker market. He feels that denies these entities their rights to apply like everyone else, and he feels that's unconstitutional.
- The PPA has also analyzed the bill and "also has called for changes in the Reid/Kyl draft. Among them: relaxed restrictions on overseas providers and broadening the landscape so U.S. players can compete against counterparts from other countries." This is is interesting because it shows that the PPA still seems to have a loyalty to Pokerstars, who largely funded them (along with Full Tilt) over the years.
- Pokerstars is allowed by their Full Tilt purchase agreement to provide games to US players if the law changes, but only if they receive a license. It is not known whether they will ever be granted a license.
- Clement also feels the bill is unconstitutional because it dictates how states can opt in or out to a federally-legalized online poker room, which is a violation of states' rights. (He feels states should be able to make their own rules as to what constitutes agreement to participate in federal-level online poker, or it's not constitutional).
I think this bill is going to fail anyway. There isn't enough time left before mid-January when the new Congress takes seat, and this just isn't important enough to the country to rush through.