Don't mourn, organize ... MAKE this a political campaign issue

[MiltonFriedman]

This is a golden opportunity for a quick effective counterattack, there is an ELECTION for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate in 5 weeks.

We should make Online Poker a campaign issue in EVERY race, and the sites should pitch in.

If there is a significant showing of force by the poker players, then there is a better shot of a carve-out for poker coming next session.

THAT should be the number one priority for the next 5 weeks.

Hey PPA and NROG, get on the campaign trail, get the sites to cooperate .... they have a ready-made database, and we should all pound the Hell out of this as an issue AND make as many of the proponents who are up for re-election PAY.

Don't mourn, organize !!! .... (although the guy who said that was executed about 5 minutes later.)

[Albert Moulton]

I disagree. Any candidate that nails a "pro gambling" plank into his campaign platform in the next 6 months or so is just going to make himself a target for his opponent to paint as irresponsible, anti-family, and immoral. The details of the fact that poker, over the long run, has a sufficiently large skill element that it is not at all like roullette or craps will be entirely lost in the noise of youth gambling addiction, money laudering, bankruptcies, and ruined credit ratings.

I think there might be room, however, for the Democrats to try and fight for the "Real Values" of America with slogans like, "Liberty at Home First," or "Freedom at Home, Freedom Abroad." Basically, they could argue (1) that adults should be free to make responsible decisions about their bodies and their money regarding gay marriage, abortion, on-line gaming, etc. and (2) that fundamental rights to privacy and personal security must exist at home in spite of the very real threat to our national secuirty from terrorism that has resulted in the errosion of some of those rights in the form of the Patriot Act and related legislation stemming from our on going global war on terror.

As part of a larger platform of personal liberties and privacy, I think online gaming might have a chance. But as a stand alone issue, I just don't see it as being a winning issue right now.

On the other hand, if some of the poker programs on TV and some of the high profile professionals start making a deliberate effort to emphasize that poker is really a long-term game of skill much more than a short-term game of chance, I think we might eventually find a Nevada congressman or someone similar to sponsor legislation to carve out a special exemption for poker like there is for lotteries and horseracing. That way it could open up to US casinos, get regulated, and get taxed via W2s for withdrawals that are greater than deposits.

[mikechops]

Yes, I'd be interested to get a list from Berge20 or anybody in the know, whose fingerprints were on this bill. One consequence of the underhanded way this was accomplished was that we don't have a roll-call of congressmen/senators who voted for it - or do we? Forgive my ignorance.

Anyway does anybody have a list of targets? Obviously villain no 1 seems to be Frist, but anybody else? Incumbents up for re-election this fall in potentially vulnerable seats are particularly choice. I'd send a buy-in or two to their opponents.

[va1halla]

I disagree. Any candidate that nails a "pro gambling" plank into his campaign platform in the next 6 months or so is just going to make himself a target for his opponent to paint as irresponsible, anti-family, and immoral.

I'm not so sure about this with the economy not doing so hot this country could use the funds, and making a point of them being to irresposible, and out of touch to notice could put a positive spin on it.

[MiltonFriedman]

"He puts one of yours in the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue"

You write ; "Any candidate that nails a "pro gambling" plank into his campaign platform in the next 6 months or so is just going to make himself a target for his opponent to paint as irresponsible, anti-family, and immoral."

I am not talking about a POSITIVE campaign. I am talking about a grassroots campaign, easily communicated, among the supposed millions of American online poker players to MAKE this an issue ...

After all, the Volstead Act was repealled, but that took years ... With the databases and internet available to online poker sites, this CAN be raised in 5 weeks as a populist issue.

Poker players will never be taken seriously unless they collect some heads in November. Only then will it be worthwhile for someone to do what you suggest ... propose a carve-out.

Unless some politcal blood is spilled or there is a noisy issue raised THIS election cycle, this will be a complete fait accompli.

Why NOT flex muscle, it is there and, if players really care what happens when they try and deposit, it is there ready to organize.

[Foucault]

A lot of people in this forum need to get something through their heads: very few people care about this. I know it is a big deal to you, but for the US and most of its citizens, it is a very very minor issue, probably not on their radar, nor is it something they would be outraged to hear about.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people in this forum need to get something through their heads: very few people care about this. I know it is a big deal to you, but for the US and most of its citizens, it is a very very minor issue, probably not on their radar, nor is it something they would be outraged to hear about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's true for a lot of issues. Really who cares about ethanol subsidies? A few farmers in the mid-west care intensly about it and the rest of the population pays a few cents extra everytime they fill up their SUVs. If the right pressure is brought to bear, they'll give us what we want. Particularly since there isn't anybody being harmed by it.

But right now I'm just pissed off. I want to see somebody lose their prestigous job as a congresman this fall. Please give me a name of somebody who could realistically lose their seat this fall, if an opponent had a few extra $100,000$ (not from all from me I'm afraid!)

[MiltonFriedman]

"very few people care about this ... it is a very very minor issue, probably not on their radar"

I agree that was the case, and it would have stayed that way until last night.

It will become much more of an issue when poker players learn about it .... after all, someone watches television and plays on Party/Stars etc.

Also, likely VERY few people cared about this issue on the other side. (Personally, I have always understood how and why their opposition was sincere, if misguided.)

Politics is a numbers game, our numbers of people who care will rise, as this becomes a public issue .... which is PRECISELY why we need to make it one.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people in this forum need to get something through their heads: very few people care about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few would care about the sleazy business of attaching unrelated business to important national security bills, just because they can, in order to get their pet projects passed?

Really?

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
congressmen/senators who voted for it

[/ QUOTE ]

Two members of the house voted no. It was assumed the vote would go 100-0 in the Senate, so they didn't bother. You can start your enimies list with Frist, Kyl, Leach, and Goodlatte then fill it out with everyone else in Washington.

[TenFourOff]

I posted a similar thought in a different thread, but why not take a tact similar to that taken by Frist? Have a friendly congressman place relatively benign language into a bill unrelated to online gaming. If we aim to decriminalize low stakes and ONLY low stakes (i.e. 0.25/0.50 - 0.50/1.00) limit poker, the "click a mouse, lose your house" argument goes away, and opposition would hopefully be minimal.

[MiltonFriedman]

Saw it, good post.

[TenFourOff]

Don't make this about poker- make it about freedom. The public loves soundbites, and there is no reason we cannot frame the issue in any light we choose. For example, "Representative X (R-TN), does not trust you to spend your hard earned money responsibly, instead he wants to dictate your hobbies. We want a congressman who trusts his constituents rather than act as their parent." Another example (borrowed from Lautenberg) "Congress was more interested in sending YOU to jail for playing poker on YOUR home computer than it was in providing security for mass transportation- a true terrorist target- in a bill designed to protect US from terrorism."

[scorer]

Im a poker player and a sportsbook gambler also so i fit into the group of people on his board. While phone calls to politicians seemed like a good idea, it wasn't going to be achieve the end result we wanted. As much as we want online gambling to continue our best hope was for the government to look the other way. You can't ask lawmakers to not vote or pass something that is deemed illegal. Remember the us government makes no money on this and has no oversight with online gambling. The only reasonable and hope are 2 things. This will not be a main concern of politicians and lawmakers and to legalize this somehow within the us bounderies. Legalization will be very difficult. If you look at Las Vegas they have accepted sports wagering years ago and still are the only state to be allowed to take these wagers. Even with the outbreak and expansion of the lottery in all states; still no sports wagering is allowed in any other state. The only way to get this done and to legalize it will be to have us oversight or have it run within us bounderies where taxation and employment comes from the USA. Bottom line is as i see it, the banking transactions will be stopped in a way to slow down and control the gambling certainly not to stop it as nothing can be stopped.