Overestimating the poker lobby and voting democrat?

[ottsville]

There is a lot of energy in these forums about protecting the game of poker(and internet gambling), but does anybody else feel that many of us are overestimating the strength of the poker lobby?

The PPA's website says that "nearly 80 million Americans play poker." In a country that is just under 300 million people(20% of which are under the age of 15), that means that around 1 in 3 adults play poker. I believe this number is highly optimistic. A non scientific scan of my family and close friends, many of whom are game players and recreational gamblers, shows less than 10% playing poker, with number playing online for money being around 2%. Maybe my circle of influence is different than most, but I still believe that the number 80 million is probably significantly higher than the actual number of people who play poker somewhat regularly(my defintion of "somewhat regularly" would be ~once a month).

As poker players, our current lobby group, the PPA, seems to be lacking. Their site says "Following the House vote to ban online poker the PPA membership has more than doubled and continues to grow," but this article is dated July 27, 2006, quite a bit of time before the current legislation was passed. Despite all the activity that they *should have been* involved in over the past few weeks, the "press release" section of their website's most recent article is July 28, 2006. As a member since they first started, I have gotten very little correspondence from them keeping me abreast of the legislative issues and their actions. I believe I got an email about their recent "phone rally" and one other more recently from them. As a member and a poker player, I am disappointed in their representation of me and the game.

These facts about the PPA along with what I believe to be a gross over-estimation of the number of people who play poker lead me to question the strength of the poker lobby.

As players without an effective lobby group, it would seem that it is left directly up to us to determine ways to defend what is our hobby/sport/livelihood. Many of us feel that we can voice our beliefs in the upcoming congressional elections. One statement that seems to surface in these forums repeatedly is "vote democrat..." to protest the passing of this legislation. That is well and fine, but unless you let your republican representives know why you are "voting against them," you are not really protesting. The democratic party has also shown time that is not against impinging on individuals' rights. Take gun control for instance - a topic that repeatedly is associated wtih the democrats. I encourage those of you in areas with congressional races going on to find out where your candidates stand on the gambling/poker issue and other issues that are important to you.

The current legislation has also been said to be an effort of the religious right. This is definitely one of the groups that supported the current legislation, but also realize that some officials supported it for other reasons. On the website of congressman Goodlatte, one of the sponsors of the original house bill, he states that he wants to ban online gaming because it "makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering." This factor seems to be his major reason for wanting to ban it. Perhaps he has some moral/religious reason to oppose online gambling, but that doesn't seem to be his focus. Also, Rep. Goodlatte has accepted donations from the quarterhorse racing association, so I doubt he can effectively argue that his is a moral issue with gambling.

[00's]

I get the impression that the PPA started as an idea for one guy to make some money.. and now he is in over his head.. just a feeling

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I get the impression that the PPA started as an idea for one guy to make some money.. and now he is in over his head.. just a feeling

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is not a PAC and therefore cannot legally lobby congress. But then again since the poker sites were all foreign entities they could not lobby congress either, and since they were the greatest source of revenue for the PPA there was no incentive to create a Political Action Committee.

In short, I think your right.... PPA might have been altruistic but in the end its a paper tiger, a sham. Its a shame because we really don't have any other option yet, therefore a PPA investment is better than nothing.

Additionally the PPA made a huge error... instead of fighting for the rights of players they should have been out encouraging regulation and taxation because thats the only way we would have been able to save our beloved game.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I get the impression that the PPA started as an idea for one guy to make some money.. and now he is in over his head.. just a feeling

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the exact same feeling.

[5thStreetHog]

I dont think many here overestimate the PPA at all.In fact i would guess that most here have very little faith in them(read the posts and threads).The view i have is that if they do anything at all(even minimal time they have received on national tv shows),its better than nothing.

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,everytime a republican wants to show that democrats are just as intrusive on are rights they bring up guns.I still have my guns!!!Yes its true,democrats have been behind many pushes to regulate and control gun rights.But the idea that democrats are for taking guns away is a flat out lie,its a tool conservative rebublicans have used for years to generate FEAR.Also,just to let you know,im not a democrat,but i know the trick.

[Asianj]

If PPA will not work, it is up to the Full Tilt crew - Chrs F, Howard L as wellas Mike Sexton, Barry Grennstein, Greg Raymer to pull a organziing/lobbying effort together. They are the smartest, richest, most qualified people to do this. If they will not do it, noone will.

[Asianj]

I agree w the initial poster that these 80m stats are not accurate. However, I also think the actual support base is large enough to be a potent lobby if focussed correctly.

[Uglyowl]

Another day, I just sit here helpless /images/graemlins/frown.gif I have no idea what I should be doing, I want to help.

I am making a few phones calls per week voicing my displeasure, will vote democrat in a few weeks. Other than that, I am lost.

I am afraid alot of people feel this way. It would be nice if someone was organized to say on Monday and Tuesady we will call x,y, and z. On Thursday we will protest. We are appearing on CNBC this day, Foxnews this day.

Pretty clueless and not liking it one bit. PPA and NROG have informaton that is very old, it is meaningless. No updates on members, etc.

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think many here overestimate the PPA at all.In fact i would guess that most here have very little faith in them(read the posts and threads).The view i have is that if they do anything at all(even minimal time they have received on national tv shows),its better than nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that most people here probably look at the PPA with a certain amount of disdain, and rightfully so. More so than that, I question what people here think of the power of poker players as a whole. People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

Until there is an organization that is capable of forming a united front and is willing to actively educate and encourage legislators(which is what the PPA should have been doing) online poker will be at risk. Of course, once US companies get approval to run poker sites, that all goes out the window.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why they needed to sneak it into the Port security bill if it was so popular?

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw,everytime a republican wants to show that democrats are just as intrusive on are rights they bring up guns.I still have my guns!!!Yes its true,democrats have been behind many pushes to regulate and control gun rights.But the idea that democrats are for taking guns away is a flat out lie,

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason I brought up guns is that is the first thing that came to mind. I still have my guns too. In my OP I never said that the democrats want to take your guns away(that is another argument), but even you admit that [ QUOTE ]
its true,democrats have been behind many pushes to regulate and control gun rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although republicans have generally been considered more sensitive to individual rights it has become very evident that even they are willing to lessen indivduals rights.

But I'm wandering from the point I was trying to make in my OP...which was, no one should assume that because one candidate has a different political affiliation that they will better serve your interests.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA is not a PAC and therefore cannot legally lobby congress. But then again since the poker sites were all foreign entities they could not lobby congress either

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its time to go hit the civics books again /images/graemlins/ooo.gif Foreign entities can lobby congress and being a PAC is not requirement to lobby.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw,everytime a republican wants to show that democrats are just as intrusive on are rights they bring up guns.I still have my guns!!!Yes its true,democrats have been behind many pushes to regulate and control gun rights.But the idea that democrats are for taking guns away is a flat out lie,

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason I brought up guns is that is the first thing that came to mind. I still have my guns too. In my OP I never said that the democrats want to take your guns away(that is another argument), but even you admit that [ QUOTE ]
its true,democrats have been behind many pushes to regulate and control gun rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although republicans have generally been considered more sensitive to individual rights it has become very evident that even they are willing to lessen indivduals rights.

But I'm wandering from the point I was trying to make in my OP...which was, no one should assume that because one candidate has a different political affiliation that they will better serve your interests.

[/ QUOTE ]Fair enough,Agreed

[Merkle]

[ QUOTE ]
no one should assume that because one candidate has a different political affiliation that they will better serve your interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where can I find a list of candidates that we want to vote for at the state and national level in the upcoming elections? On PPA I found how the candidates voted on the recent bill; but as someone pointed out, what savvy politician would vote against a homeland defense bill. I would like to know which candidates are pro legislation that "carves out poker", legalizes and regulates poker, or at least does not support government interference in our personal lives to this extent.

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why they needed to sneak it into the Port security bill if it was so popular?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying. The motives for sneaking it onto a bill can be endlessly debated. Frankly, I think that is is screwed up that our system allows for this type of thing, but it does happen all the time.

Here's a question for you though...
Can you explain why, when the bill was voted on on its own merits, it passed decisively?

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why they needed to sneak it into the Port security bill if it was so popular?

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been explained many times. Do a search on Mr.K's posts and you will find some very good detailed explanations. Here is a quick and dirty explanation for us laymen. There were some procedural holds placed on the bill in the senate. This meant that it would have taken time to bring the bill to the senate floor for debate. Given time, these holds would have been overcome and the bill would have passed overwhelmingly. However, the bill's sponsors did not have time because they wanted this done before the election and because the end of the session is coming up pretty quickly. In other words, political gamesmanship was working in our favor to keep it from being debated, so it took other political gamesmanship to get it passed before the elections. Make no mistake, this bill had plenty of support from both sides of the aisle and would have passed overwhelmingly if it had made it to the senate floor on it's own.

[toomanydenny]

Like all grass root efforts it takes time to educate and organize. Its amazing how many U S online players were not even aware this was happening. Now they are shocked but this has been coming for a while. This law will eventually be challenged on several legal arguments in the courts. I think our best best hope is with the courts. My state has made it a felony to PLAY online poker. I would love to see a prosecuter explain to a judge why I can play poker in anyone of hundreds of casinos in my state but not from the privacy of my home! I believe common sense will win out eventually. At least on this no brainer..... [ QUOTE ]
the road to hell is paved with politicians...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
Where can I find a list of candidates that we want to vote for at the state and national level in the upcoming elections?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would encourage you to contact your candidates' offices and ask them specifically about issues that concern you.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why they needed to sneak it into the Port security bill if it was so popular?

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been explained many times. Do a search on Mr.K's posts and you will find some very good detailed explanations. Here is a quick and dirty explanation for us laymen. There were some procedural holds placed on the bill in the senate. This meant that it would have taken time to bring the bill to the senate floor for debate. Given time, these holds would have been overcome and the bill would have passed overwhelmingly. However, the bill's sponsors did not have time because they wanted this done before the election and because the end of the session is coming up pretty quickly. In other words, political gamesmanship was working in our favor to keep it from being debated, so it took other political gamesmanship to get it passed before the elections. Make no mistake, this bill had plenty of support from both sides of the aisle and would have passed overwhelmingly if it had made it to the senate floor on it's own.

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure if it wouldve "passed overwhelmingly" in the senate.The bill probably wouldve faced tougher resistance in the senate actually then it did in the house.But your point is well taken,and it probably wouldve passed.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People here who say "this would never have passed if it hadn't been snuck through" are severely disillusioned. The Goodlatte-Leach bill had already passed in the house. (http://www.house.gov/list/press/va06_goodlatte/061106.html) The vote was 317-93...which shows how much support this actually has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain why they needed to sneak it into the Port security bill if it was so popular?

[/ QUOTE ]
It has been explained many times. Do a search on Mr.K's posts and you will find some very good detailed explanations. Here is a quick and dirty explanation for us laymen. There were some procedural holds placed on the bill in the senate. This meant that it would have taken time to bring the bill to the senate floor for debate. Given time, these holds would have been overcome and the bill would have passed overwhelmingly. However, the bill's sponsors did not have time because they wanted this done before the election and because the end of the session is coming up pretty quickly. In other words, political gamesmanship was working in our favor to keep it from being debated, so it took other political gamesmanship to get it passed before the elections. Make no mistake, this bill had plenty of support from both sides of the aisle and would have passed overwhelmingly if it had made it to the senate floor on it's own.

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure if it wouldve "passed overwhelmingly" in the senate.The bill probably wouldve faced tougher resistance in the senate actually then it did in the house.But your point is well taken,and it probably wouldve passed.

[/ QUOTE ]PS...Wouldve been nice to see them have to earn it at least though huh? lol

[FearNoEvil]

[ QUOTE ]
[Given time, these holds would have been overcome and the bill would have passed overwhelmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is speculation. The holds may or may not have been overcome in time. The bill may or may not have passed if it reached the floor. Like the online gambling bill, the bill to amend the constitution to prohibit flag burning also passed the house overwhelmingly; however, when it reached the Senate for a vote, it did not pass.

Plus, if it didn't pass in the congressional session, it would have had to go back to the house, and the process would have had to start all over again. In the next congress, the republican's may have less power, and thus would have been less able to effectively push the bill.

[BBill]

Per the title of this post I think the issues is that just voting Democrat is not the sure answer to protect our gaming interests.

For instance, I'm a lifelong Democrat. I have voted for for a Republican on occasion but not often.

I live in Maryland which is a mostly Democrat state.

Our current Governer Bob Ehrlich is Rep, he has been fighting hard to leagalize slots in MD. He has been defeated time and again byt the Democrats.
Also, under Democratic rule in the previous decade, Poker, even Charity Tournaments that the Fire Department used to hold, were made illegal in Maryland.

The upcoming elections on November 7, 2006 (less than 3 weeks) are when we cam make our opinions count.

I'll vote for Ehrlich (R) for Gov for this reason

I will also vote to re-elect Steny Hoyer (D) if he's on my ballot
And I'll vote for Elijah Cumings (D)for Congress
Both of these candidates voted NOT to make online poker illegal

If I could I'd develop a list of candidates that support our gaming interests for each State and the readers of this forum would know who to vote for in November, but its a bit more that I can do at this time.

If we could organize something like this it would be a real help for our cause

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
In the next congress, the republican's may have less power, and thus would have been less able to effectively push the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This requires the assumption that democrats would not support the bill.

[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the next congress, the republican's may have less power, and thus would have been less able to effectively push the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This requires the assumption that democrats would not support the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

My district is currently represented by a Republican whose voting record is something like 98% party-line. His Democratic opponent bills himself as a "man of the people, not of the special interests", and promises to "help protect children from the Internet" if elected. There's no doubt in my mind that he would have voted in favor of UIGEA.

I'll still vote anti-incumbent, but I haven't yet decided whether the evil of voting for a pro-prohibition Democrat is less than the evil of voting for a third-party candidate with zero chance of winning.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll still vote anti-incumbent, but I haven't yet decided whether the evil of voting for a pro-prohibition Democrat is less than the evil of voting for a third-party candidate with zero chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the election's likely to come down to one vote? A vote for a third party candidate might be a vote for a losing candidate, but get those losing candidates enough votes and their voice is heard even if they don't win, and that's what we really need here.

[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll still vote anti-incumbent, but I haven't yet decided whether the evil of voting for a pro-prohibition Democrat is less than the evil of voting for a third-party candidate with zero chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the election's likely to come down to one vote? A vote for a third party candidate might be a vote for a losing candidate, but get those losing candidates enough votes and their voice is heard even if they don't win, and that's what we really need here.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I tend to vote in most elections. However, it's looking like this one might be close. The challenger leads in the polls, but there are still enough "undecided" votes to make the outcome uncertain.

[MagCFO]

Dude, don't look to blame the PPA. The PPA is the only voice the players have. This law didn't go through because the PPA didn't do enough.

It's been reported that Party Poker and others gave millions to lobbyist to fight this bill over the past year or so.

I agree that the 80mil number is ridiculously high, but don't blame the PPA as if they could have done more.

Bill Frist and a few others wanted this bill to go through and no one was going to be able to stop it.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Given time, these holds would have been overcome and the bill would have passed overwhelmingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is speculation. The holds may or may not have been overcome in time. The bill may or may not have passed if it reached the floor. Like the online gambling bill, the bill to amend the constitution to prohibit flag burning also passed the house overwhelmingly; however, when it reached the Senate for a vote, it did not pass.

Plus, if it didn't pass in the congressional session, it would have had to go back to the house, and the process would have had to start all over again. In the next congress, the republican's may have less power, and thus would have been less able to effectively push the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, it is speculation, but if you'll look at posts from some of our most informed D.C. insiders they all agree - it would have passed had it come to the floor. Also, you are making my point. Frist did not have the luxury of time. There were too many important issues that needed to be addressed before the elections for him to proceed with cloture motions and all the rest of the rigamorole that it would have taken to get this to the floor. Again, I'm speculating, but I believe if H.R. 4411 had passed the house a year ago, Senators Frist and Kyl would have gotten a gambling bill to the floor and it would have passed. There certainly would have been a healthy debate, and we would have had time to lobby our senators, and it's even possible that would have changed the outcome, but I'm pretty sure we'd have been on the losing side.

[Gringo777]

I have sent the PPA an email previously with similar concerns that they hardly were emailing members with updates, etc. Of course i support PPA, but I would love to see it improve by adding some big name players to the base or ssing a new group surface. I am not blaming the PPA for the vote, but rather reflecting on what happened and how we as poker players can improve our chances of seeing political changes made.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Although republicans have generally been considered more sensitive to individual rights it has become very evident that even they are willing to lessen indivduals rights.


[/ QUOTE ]

Am curious to which individual rights you reference? Last time I checked I had no individual "right" to play online poker, I could have missed it in the Constitution but I don't think so.

This thread is one of the better ones on the subject. I think voting for the candidate that has similar values to your own is the best way to get things changed in our form of government. It takes time and patience, you's think that poker players would have this aplenty.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although republicans have generally been considered more sensitive to individual rights it has become very evident that even they are willing to lessen indivduals rights.


[/ QUOTE ]

Am curious to which individual rights you reference? Last time I checked I had no individual "right" to play online poker

[/ QUOTE ]You absolutely have that right,just because there isnt a "poker thread" in the constitution,doesnt mean you dont have this right lol.It falls under other other sections.Pursuit of happyness ect.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although republicans have generally been considered more sensitive to individual rights it has become very evident that even they are willing to lessen indivduals rights.
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is one of the better ones on the subject. I think voting for the candidate that has similar values to your own is the best way to get things changed in our form of government. It takes time and patience, you's think that poker players would have this aplenty.

[/ QUOTE ]with ya on that part /images/graemlins/wink.gif