Throw the "Hail Mary" - Poker Carve-Out in the Lame Duck Session (PPA)

[BluffTHIS!]

Most posters in these forums who have followed the "progress" of the anti-gambling legislation that just passed congress, now know how that happened from a procedural point of view in congress. It got tacked on a conference committee report of a must pass bill (ports security), and where both the committee didn't actually meet but whose report was fashioned by select handful of members of each party chosen by the leadership in each party, and particularly the majority party, and then same was passed without possibility of debate or ammendment. We knew what their strategy was, and that we had to run the rapids of a series of such bills, not just in the run up to the recess prior to elections, but during the subsequent lame duck session as well, where an omnibus spending bill frequently acts as a "christmas tree" in attracting a host of non-germane matters.

Well we got what we feared and by the procedural means we feared, and earlier rather than later. And now many of us are feeling desparate, even though that is not necessarily called for as it is far from clear yet whether restrictions on funding poker sites can be enforced to an adequate degree to inhibit the casual player from playing.

But being desparate doesn't mean we shouldn't have any hope for legal change, even if that chance is extremely slim. So let's not view the game as over, but as 4th and long and down 2 points. So we and all the groups we support such as the PPA need to throw the "Hail Mary".

We've got enough lawyers and insiders here to fashion the language. What we need is the lobbying and influential muscle to get our non-germane carve-out tacked on in the lame duck in another must pass bill (and taking the long view we can try this tactic repeatedly just as our opponents did).

And one thing should be clear - despite the fact that many of our allies in the past fight are representatives of sports betting and online casino concerns and groups, we can only care about ourselves now - it's every gambling group for itself. So we only focus on our own carve-out, and make no effort nor accept any inducements to ally with sports betting concerns or online casino interests in the future. Only poker!

It is clear that this is what we need to do. However there is a catch. And that relates to the reason many posters here didn't see why the language covered poker. The new law basically just enforces existing state laws against forms of gambling that they haven't specifically authorized. And the new law rightfully (since the federal government's powers under the commerce clause don't allow it to regulate gambling inside an individual state for its citizens alone), allows states to legalize online poker within its confines for its citizens only (NY can legalize online poker within its borders but must take steps to block access to non-residents). So no carve-out for us can postively legalize online poker in a manner that forces an individual state to allow same. What it can do, is allow states to not only legalize online poker within its borders, but in a manner similar to multi-state lottery compacts, allow its citizens to be pooled into either a larger national multi-state player pool, or the current international pool we are used to.

All our efforts should be put in getting such a carve-out attached to some must pass bill in the future, either in the next lame duck session, or in future sessions of congress. So you lawyers here write that carve out which should to my mind do the following:

1) Ammend the provisions of the ports security bill regarding illegal online gambling to allow states to legalize their citizens playing in multi-state and international sites according to their own regulations (and taxation) for same.

2) Allow outside entities who are licensed by a state to conduct online poker for its citizens (like any of the current sites) to be registered as a legitimate business in the US providing that they only allow players from licensed states, and comply with all other legislation regarding online gambling (they can't have sports betting or casino subsidiaries that accept US players).

3) Make it clear that any provisions of the wire act cannot be construed so as to prevent the above.


So anyway that's my proposed focus for us, the PPA and any poker lobbying organizations. We're just for us, and have to cast aside our former alliances with online sports betting and casino interests, because they will sink our own smaller ship. We just care about poker. Period.




N.B. I am a serious religious Catholic and would not otherwise use the name of the Mother of Our Lord in a profane manner, and have only done so here because of the common football term which is appropriate for describing a possible tactic that can save our efforts.

[i]Maria, Mater gratiae, Mater misericordiae, tu me ab hoste protege et mortis hora suscipe.

[DrewOnTilt]

Bluff I admire the effort that you put into this post. It's good to see that at least a few people are getting creative in regards to how to address the situation.

My question is: who on the Hill would support such language? In all of the posts that I have read on this forum, essentially every Senator and Representative seemed either in favor of the IG ban or noncommittal. It seems as if we would need support from at the minimum 1 Senator and 1 Representative to make this work.

[BluffTHIS!]

Drew,

The difficult thing with a proposed carve-out for us, isn't really that it is particularly difficult to get a piggyback in general passed on some bill as opposed to a particular one, as there are many such add-ons favoring individual interest groups or corporations tacked on all the time to bills. The problem is that poker is a subset of gambling which is vehemently opposed by some interest groups (includes vested existing gambling interests and nanny staters of both the moral and protect-you-from-yourself kind), and thus harder to get it in under the radar as it were.

So just a couple ardent proponents in each house would do, *if* they can convince conference committee members and the leadership not to block it (and the theme of their efforts should be that the states should decide, but just be allowed broader latitude than under the current law). Still a tall order, but ultimately the only way we can achieve same, apart from the longer term program I outlined in that other thread of working at the state level.

[iron81]

There were a couple high ranking Dems like Harry Reid the Minority Leader who seemed sympathetic to our cause. The problem is, they are in the minority so their power is limited. Quotes (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=7489074&S earchpage=1&Main=7488250&Words=+iron81&topic=&Sear ch=true#Post7489074) The problem with someone like Warner is that he doesn't actually care about poker, he just didn't want Frist's hands on his bill.

[BluffTHIS!]

There are members of both parties who have shown sympathy to our cause. We need to stress the historical and cultural importance of poker in the US as well as the fact that it is a skill based game, albeit one with a strong short term element of chance, where ordinary people play against each other and not against the house in a negative expectation game in which they can never come out ahead in the long run.

Also, in addition to the reasons in my OP about why we have to separate ourselves from sports betting, another relevant reason is that we can prove that poker is a game of skill primarily (in Mike Caro's words - "your decisions really matter"), but with sports betting, the "proof" it can be beat is a negative one, i.e. you can't prove it can't be beat, as Mason pointed out in one of his essays once IIRC. That type of negative proof is easy for intelligent poker players who read 2+2 books and have a reasonable grounding in math and logic to understand, but it is harder to get accross to legislators, much less the average citizen. Additionally, a lot of the opposition to sports betting comes from colleges and pro sports worried about fixing of games for profit of gamblers. We can't carry their baggage.

[AlexM]

One fun possibility would be if online poker were allowed but only without rake, forcing poker sites to make their money either through playing fees or advertising.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
One fun possibility would be if online poker were allowed but only without rake, forcing poker sites to make their money either through playing fees or advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would solve absolutely nothing in regards to the recently passed bill.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I think that you need

1) non-anonymous online poker

2) burdening online casinos with the task of sending players tax statements on wins and losses

to show that online poker can be regulated and taxed.

[LetsGetItOn]

Damn someone should've done a filibuster.

[BluffTHIS!]

All: this thread should be for comments on the plan I gave above, and not "coulda, shoulda, woulda" type of stuff about water under the bridge. If you want to discuss the bill and how it passed, do it in one of the many existing threads on same please.

[PPA President]

Bluff,
This is exactly what we are focused upon now. There is no other option other than giving up, and the PPA is not leaving the fight. We always have pressed for a Poker carve out, while opposing the bill at large.

Here is a letter that we are sending to members of the PPA

Dear Members,

As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker prohibition late Friday evening. The ban was snuck into the Port Security Act during a back room deal and following extensive political strong-arming by the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL). This tactic discouraged debate on the bill and allowed it to pass without any public discussion. Why a poker ban was included in the Port Security Act is beyond me and most poker players and should be of concern to every American. It was a “bad beat” but we are still at the table.

This is no time to panic, but rather we must learn and build from this loss. The Poker Players Alliance is not leaving the fight, although now it is going to take an even greater effort from poker players and our organization to achieve our objectives.

What do we want to do now?

Poker Exemption

We continue to demand that poker receive separate treatment from other forms of gaming. It is a game of skill, where performance is merited, and a community game, where the house is not your competition. These are real and significant differences. Our desire is to achieve the same type of exemption from legislation that other interests have received (Horseracing, Lotteries, and Fantasy Sports). We will continue to push forward to obtain this separate treatment when Congress comes back from the elections and into the next legislative session. Between now and when the new bill becomes effective (3 to 9 months) poker has an opportunity to achieve the same exemption. This is our most immediate short-term goal.

License, Regulate and Tax

Regulation is the best public policy solution for both the federal government and the American poker player. Prohibition of on-line poker will only drive the game underground and build distrust and misunderstanding amongst the 70 million Americans who enjoy the great game of poker. I spent the better part of the year engaging members of the House and Senate about the idea of regulating Internet poker. This has raised interest from both Democrats and Republican’s alike. There has even been legislation introduced that seeks to establish a Congressional commission that would examine the best way to regulate this industry. Early this summer the PPA commissioned an economic analysis of the potential tax revenue that could be raised through regulation. Members of Congress have been receptive to this study and the $3.3 Billion that could be raised annually for the federal government. This is our ultimate goal and the PPA will drive this agenda.

What should you do know? First, every member of the PPA should be registered to vote in the upcoming state and federal elections. If you are not yet registered there is still time, click here to find out about how to register in your state. https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/e4/nvra/
Second, be sure to vote on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 7th. We must put our vote where our voice is and establish a poker voting block. While the Port Security Act which included the prohibition legislation was passed near unanimously in both the House and the Senate, the House did have a clean vote on the poker prohibition in July. A list of how House members voted in July is available on our Web site.. Finally, the PPA needs your help to spread the word about our organization. Please tell at least nine friends who might not know about the Poker Players Alliance to join the fight. We need to be 1 Million strong going into 2007.

Very soon a brief analysis of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Amendment will be posted on our website. Please return to www.pokerplayersalliance.org (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org) soon so you can learn how this legislation will affect you.

Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next level of commitment. This is not over.

Regards,
Michael Bolcerek
President
Poker Players Alliance

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn someone should've done a filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to have the majority to have a chance at doing this.

[Burno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Damn someone should've done a filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to have the majority to have a chance at doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't, unless they are going to go nuclear on you. Frist loves to threaten it, but it hasn't been done in 20 years.

All beside the point anyways, as this bill was a "must-pass" and a filibuster stood little chance in our position's current state.


I'm sort of breaking Bluffthis's request here, but for the life of me I can't figure out why Party, Stars, or the PPA didn't buy themselves a congressman or two. OR WHY THEY DON'T NOW.

It's not like most aren't clearly for sale.


Maybe Bush will go chill back in Crawford for a week and a half and forget all about it.

[spidey74]

Any idea how we can find out who was behind the successful the horse-racing carve-out?? We need to find those lobbyist and get them to work for poker as well. Whatever route they took, it worked!! What does horse-racing have that poker doesn't?

Spidey74

[Gabe DV]

[ QUOTE ]
Any idea how we can find out who was behind the successful the horse-racing carve-out?? We need to find those lobbyist and get them to work for poker as well. Whatever route they took, it worked!! What does horse-racing have that poker doesn't?


$$$$ sir, and lots of it.

[BluffTHIS!]

PPA Prez,

Hi,

I am glad to see you agree this is the best way to go right now. This seems the best way to get what we want. However, you might also review my other thread, PPA- Take the Battle to the States (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7485691&an=0&page=7#Post 7485691), which encourages you to also fight a longer term state by state battle, but with targeting only a few states first.

Regarding the carve-out way, I would like to know if you agree with my OP here and followup posts, regarding casting aside our alliances with sports betting and casino interests? I would imagine you do and that you agree with the sentiments above of mine that we just can't carry their weight and allow them to sink us.

However, I think you and most of us realize the chances of a carve-out in this particular lame duck session are very small. In fact one of our insiders said that to me in a PM in response to a question I put to him by PM. Nonetheless, that tactical strategy is valid, can be tried infinite times, and is the one used to bring about this law we are fighting. So even if we don't succeed in the lame duck session, I hope you will just keep your lobbyists looking for opportunities to get it attached in the next and subsequent sessions.

However, the "it", i.e. the carve-out language, has to be written and ready to go. There I would encourage you to use this forum, and the lawyers and other knowledgeable individuals we have here to craft such language as soon as possible so that it is sitting on the shelf ready to be used at a moment's notice.

Finally, my atttitude toward you and your organization has always been generally supportive, but with reservations. I would also like to take this opportunity to urge you and the PPA to meet the reservations of others, including the toughest ones posed by Mason, and take all measures that are practical and don't reveal confidential contacts and strategies, to be more open and transparent, especially about expendiures, and to be more informative as well, by seeking qualified volunteers to update your website and us here more often with news of what you are doing.

Thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work to make our historic American game of poker legal in B&M venues and online from sea to shining sea.


P.S. There is a catch here. And that is that if the legal analysis of TruePoker CEO is correct, and the definition of accepting a bet or wager doesn't apply to poker sites because congress poorly worded the legislation, then some consideration has to be given to just not rocking the boat. I am going to talk about that interpretation at greater length in another thread.

[TruePoker CEO]

Mike, you write: "Why a poker ban was included in the Port Security Act is beyond me"

That development was the subject of a lot of discussion in THIS forum before it happened. That it happened should NEVER have been a surprise to you. Who the Hell is advising you on lobbying matters, Nrog ? In the future PLEASE, "Listen to Mr. K., he knows of that of which he speaks".

Secondly, please do NOT attempt ANYTHING in the Lame Duck Session. Why even THINK of subjecting the industry to further attacks by the current Senate Leadership ?

Rather, get on the stick and SPEND SOME MONEY on issue ads in key races and motivating these hundreds of thousands of memebers you have, presumably from Party, which just left the building.

Do you have a membership list for lobbying or not ? If so, use it for this election cycle.

[highland]

[ QUOTE ]

What should you do know? First, every member of the PPA should be registered to vote in the upcoming state and federal elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the PPA, or anyone else, supply information about the candidates views on online gaming and poker in particular? I've contacted several congresspeople and 1 candidate via email. Only 1 of them admitted their position, and it was for hr4477. Most describe the bill to me and say they will keep my view in mind (without even parroting what my view is). I'm sure I could get 15 or 20 people to get out and vote for someone who was pro regulation of poker, but I don't know who in my district is, if anyone.

cheers,
-highland

[Jay Cohen]

Wow, every man for himself is in part how they got this bill through. You mock the exemptions for bingo, lotteries, and horse racing but now you want to throw the others affected to the wind for your own exemption.

Back in 1997 the billl actually went after horses as well and the NTRA was lobbying against it. Once they got their exemption they were all for it.

There are those who can argue that handicapping and picking winners in sports is a skill game, it's certainly more of a skill than picking lottery numbers.

On the other side of the industry there are some that argue that poker was not only the target of this but the driving force behind them wanting to stop it. The poker companies really pushed this industry, online gambling, into the mainstream. True or not, stories of college kids obsessed with the game spread through the media.

What they did with this bill was wrong. Getting a poker exemption while selling sports and casino players down the river won't make it any better. It's too bad that all gaming interests couldn't stick together all along. Maybe we wouldn't be in this position today.

Of course if all of the people posting about this these days had picked up the phone when it mattered we may not be here either. Not to mention all of the operations who had their heads in the sand.

[scarr]

I think Horse Racing was exempted because it is currently taxed by the states. There is a revenue stream coming from Horse Racing, there is no revenue for the government from Online Gambling.

I don't know how the card rooms in CA are taxed by the state. But I know that placing a bet on a horse race in another state, will show up as tax revenue in the state hosting the race.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting a poker exemption while selling sports and casino players down the river won't make it any better.

[/ QUOTE ]


JC,

I was not advocating that we "sell sports and casino players down the river" because we don't owe them anything, except for one thing. And that is not to be hypocritical as you note other gambling interests have been and after getting their own exemption then either oppose or not speak up when other interests try to get one as well.

So I'm not saying "screw sports betting interests because they should be illegal", but rather that we should not hitch poker to sports betting. Sports betting is opposed by far more people than poker, is more clearly (though arguably not in some interpretations) illegal via the Wire Act, and just can't help poker that much therefore because of their own high negative opposition.

Thus I advocate we just go after a poker exemption. But if we are successful in getting same, then we should indeed continue to argue against the hypocrisy of favoring some forms of gambling and not others. And the more exemptions that come to pass for specific forms of gambling, then the easier it will be to get the remaining ones legalized.

However wrt to casino gambling, i.e. -EV gambling, there is a HUGE difference between that and poker/sports betting/backgammon etc. that are predominantly skill based gambling. Arguing to legislators that citizens should be able to wager money with other citizens in skill gambling, is a lot easier than arguing that they should be able to blow their dough in keno so some mega-casino corporation can get richer yet.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a serious religious Catholic and would not otherwise use the name of the Mother of Our Lord in a profane manner, and have only done so here because of the common football term which is appropriate for describing a possible tactic that can save our efforts.


[/ QUOTE ]

this, along with your take on how it is OK to attack Iran/North Korea preemptively make it abundantly clear that you have a warped view of what offends the Virgin Mother. i am sure tens of thousands of slaughtered is gonna piss her off substantially more than using the term "Hail Mary" to describe a prayer or longshot. your zealousy (i have no idea if that is a word, but it fits) is no more horrifying than the nutso Islams who flip out over Danish cartoons, but have no problem flying planes into buildings.

[DownLow]

[ QUOTE ]
longshot. your zealousy (i have no idea if that is a word, but it fits)

[/ QUOTE ]

The word you are looking for is zealotry.