Very interesting conversation with one of PPA's DC Lobbyists

[Hock_]

So it turns out that the friend of a friend of mine is one of PPA's DC lobbyists. So I gave the guy a call and had a very good hour-long conversation with him. We covered an awful lot of ground, but I though you'd all be interested in some of the highlights. Bottom-line is that this guy is clearly knowledgeable and competent, and their approach seems to have been well-conceived, but they were facing very long odds and were severely handicapped both by getting into the game very late and by the fact that they had almost no help from any other constituency, including banking and the AGA. So maybe we need to give PPA more credit, although, as I emphasized to this friend of my friend, they need to do much more to earn the support of the poker community. So, here are some of the highlights of the conversation:

1. PPA was really behind the 8-ball from the get-go, since it really only got active in the last 18 months or so. As we all know, there's a long history of Congress trying to ban internet poker, and so PPA already had its work cut out for it.

2. One of the biggest problems PPA faced was that, even though many Reps, Sens, and staffers played poker, it is still generally seen as a "sin," which made it extremely hard to get anyone overtly to support poker, its players, or the industry. He talked a lot about the political dynamic on the hill, and how it was a little bit surprising that the Dems wouldn't take up the issue; but he explained that (a) Dems have now started trying to campaign as being more values-oriented than the Reps, and supporting "personal liberties" sounds too much like it's soft on terrorism (e.g., wire-tapping); and (b) the Reps have done a really good job making "regulation" and "taxation" dirty words for the Dems -- so much so that the Reps themselves obviously favored banning the activity altogether over regulating it. He said that these points were among the reasons Dems wouldn't oppose the legislation.

3. PPA had virtually no allies in its fight. The poker sites weren't much help since they aren't US companies. The banking industry did no real lobbying -- the Community Bankers Ass'n sent that one letter that was posted here, but other than that, nothing. And the AGA wasn't any help either. He said he didn't know -- and couldn't fathom -- why the AGA wouldn't lobby to legalize on-line gaming since they seem to have so much to gain (by getting into the game) and so much to lose (most of the 8800 players in the WSOP ME won their seats on-line and wouldn't have gone to Vegas at all if it weren't for on-line poker; general increase in B&M traffic due to poker popularity; Nevada tourism, etc.). He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues.

4. He said that PPA was in fact extremely active on the hill over the past year, and in particular in the month leading up to the legislation passing. He said that it was particularly frustrating work because Frist tried to attach the bill to virtually every piece of legislation around, so PPA's lobbyists had to keep re-focusing on new committees and new politicians every time Frist gave up on one bill and moved to the next.

5. Even Republican lobbyists were thoroughly disgusted with the way the bill was passed (no debate, tacked on to an unrelated bill, etc.). he said that there was an element of this being a perfect political storm, in that the Reps. were trying to pass legislation appealing to their base before elections; Frist was trying to pass legislation appealing to the Reps' base before they lost power, in large part because he thought it might help him raise funds for his Presidential run; and the Abramoff issue. He added that, other than the few main sponsors of the legislation who seemed to have downed the Cool-Aid, he doubted than any of the co-sponsors or supporters acutally believed in the legislation as a matter of principle. Pure politics.

5. I mentioned the many nice press pieces opposing the legislation we've all seen in the past 6 months (60 Minutes, WSJ, NY Times, Wash Post, George Will's article, etc.) He said that many were not accidental, and were due in part to the work of PPA's PR people.

<u>NEXT STEPS</u>

He said that one of the main things that PPA was going to try to do was to change general sentiment about on-line poker. He acknowledged this would be a long-term project. Although poker has become very mainstream, he said that combatting the general reluctance of almost every Member and Senator to come out in favor of a form of gambling was almost impossible. To this end, we discussed more press, more polls, and more active PPA membership.

He also said -- and we already know this -- that in the immediate term PPA was going to focus on distinguishing poker from other forms of gambling. I told him that I thought this was a long-shot. He didn't seem to disagree necessarily, but at the same time seemed to think there might be something there. We didn't talk too much about this point though

I discussed with him the fact that PPA has relatively little credibility in the poker community, in large part because we couldn't see either that they were actually doing anything or the results. He seemed to understand the need for more transparency. I suggested that PPA should find more ways for those of us who are particularly interested to contribute to the cause -- beyond just having our names listed on a petition. He mentioned that they were considering more local (state) associations that might be headed by one or more in-state players.

BOTTOM-LINE: PPA seems to be trying hard, and doing some good things. It does sound like many of the problems they face are systemic and will take some time to change. Hopefully they'll start to give us more information about what they're doing and get more of us involved. They are a very new organization and obviously need to grow and mature. I told them that one place they should turn to help do that was this forum; that they could gain a lot of credibility and support if they just explained what they were doing and how we could be more involved.

If you have any specific questions about the conversation feel free to ask. Like I said, it lasted for an hour and we talked about a lot more than I've mentioned here.

[JPFisher55]

Litigation in US courts and WTO are the only real means to attack this legislation.

[WLC4Ever]

Thanks alot for this, it's really great information. I think I'm gonna try and get in touch with them about more state-oriented volunteer work. Good Job man, Bravo!

[jmillerdls]

sounds like he did a lot of complaining.

[redbeard]

great post as usual hock_. keep up the good work and post more it always educates me. thanks.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like he did a lot of complaining.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not at all. Just explaining. I asked lots of questions and he was very professional and showed a good understanding of the issues, our concerns, and the available options. His negativity -- if you want to call it that -- was mostly just an appropriate way of explaining to me why certain approaches might not be as successful as one might have hoped.

[NoSoup4U]

If this is his best analysis of the situation, I'm not that impressed. I'm not the best connected guy in the world, but I can call BS on at least two pieces of this:

[ QUOTE ]
The banking industry did no real lobbying -- the Community Bankers Ass'n sent that one letter that was posted here, but other than that, nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, the banking industry lobbied very effectively. They were behind early holds on the bill and they secured the main thing that they sought -- an out that lets them not do anything if it isn't reasonably easy to do. They were particularly aggrivated about the possibility of having to code checks and intercept them by account.

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned the many nice press pieces opposing the legislation we've all seen in the past 6 months (60 Minutes, WSJ, NY Times, Wash Post, George Will's article, etc.) He said that many were not accidental, and were due in part to the work of PPA's PR people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is mostly silly.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the banking industry lobbied very effectively. They were behind early holds on the bill and they secured the main thing that they sought -- an out that lets them not do anything if it isn't reasonably easy to do. They were particularly aggrivated about the possibility of having to code checks and intercept them by account.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should recognize that lobbying to get that exception is very different from lobbying to oppose the legislation altogether.

[Berge20]

Hock, who was it? Just curious if it's the same guy I know that I've spoken with or someone else from their team.

PM it to me if that is more appropriate

[DeepTroll]

Thanks for the great inside info!

What you wrote is long, so I want to highlight something here: passing this bill was purely about politics and appealing to voting groups. It wasn't about banning online poker or “the government” resenting nonpayment of taxes. This is a huge point that is almost universally missed.

Now a couple of points that I hope will inject a bit of perspective.

First, the PPA didn’t necessarily fail (even though criticism is warranted). As you mentioned, Frist was determined and had the position and power to get it passed even if all other 99 members opposed it, which they didn’t. But the legislation that was ultimately passed was a half-assed swipe at online gambling and they don't care that it won't be effective. Frist got his "victory" and can now move on with some chest-thumping, and everybody who wants to will still gamble as much as they ever did. Really, could we have reasonably expected a better outcome? And let's be careful not to make them care about how ineffective this law will be.

Second, as you mentioned, there is a lot of sympathy toward poker. Representing poker as the great American game that it is, loved and played by huge numbers of voters throughout productive America, will get a lot of support. On the other hand, fighting for poker players as a special interest is a losing cause. If it’s seen as an effort to protect poker players whose greatest life accomplishment is being really good at taking other peoples’ money (no offense, just need to put it into perspective), it will get our game crushed. It can be a fine line, but I think the poker carveout (even though I support it) falls on the wrong side of that line.

Your friend, and the PPA, don’t need to change public sentiment about online poker. They need to cultivate and encourage the existing public support for Poker as a game, whether online or live. Remind the public and our politicians that poker is enjoyed by everybody from teachers to janitors to executives to politicians to Supreme Court Justices, where they all can meet at the same table and become equal before the cards. And I don't mean mention it on the PPA web site, it needs to be the core of the PPA message. Counter the emerging image of America losing legions of its brightest to the lure of easy money and varying degrees of the Stu Ungar lifestyle. Build the image of poker, and online poker comes naturally.

[S0meGuy]

Thanks for the post Hock...very informative...It was good to hear the PPA was doing something substantive. Hope they work on getting their public relations issues ironed out with the poker community.

S0meGuy

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the post Hock...very informative...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Petomane]

Banning online poker is an issue of personal freedoms guauranteed by the Constitution - the pursuit of happiness? It being poker doesn't make it worthy for the ACLU to fight it - they have bigger fish to fry.

It really is a question of organizing 23 million online players to represent one cohesive block - that is a force that can't be argued with.

I belong to the PPA and they rarely send e-mails as to what's going on. They did send e-mails to call your representative, which I did, but the number was busy all day.

When Clinton was being impeached, MoveOn managed to flood congress and senate with 500,000 e-mails in a single day.

I suggest the PPA attemps the same. And they need a catchy slogan - how about naming the e-mails "The War on Poker"? Spin it, make it seem like politicians are banning poker altogether (which in a sense they are - online poker evolved and advanced the game - what B&amp;M offers head up games and Sit'nGo's?)

Without online, the poker boom is over. Yes, politicians are stifling our game and this message needs to be pounded in.

Unfortunately, Balcerek is not an effective speaker, Annie Duke is gold.

[AJackson]

Interesting post.

You're right on that they have to do more to get us involved. Up until this point, I assumed they were mostly a worthless organization that was little more than a PartyPoker scam.

Perhaps you could suggest that they spend some time posting here. If I felt involved, I would certainly be motivated to give money to the cause.

[IndyFish]

Great post! Thanks for all the info. It's nice to know that the PPA is up to something. Did you happen to ask the lobbyist if the PPA was planning on working with pros such as Annie Duke or Lederer? Both are very good speakers and represent poker well. Also, was there any feeling that a change in political landscape (bubbye, GOP) would help our cause?

[NickyD]

Excellant post, probably one of the most informative since this issue evolved. I'm ready to get involved on the state level while the issue is still warm. Thanks again.

[Self Made]

The thing that infuriates me, though I've heard it before, is "He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues." Let's boycott the NFL.

[oober]

I think they also need to be working on producing a working regulation module to show this could be a very profitable industry if taxed in the US. The crooks on Capital hill can never turn down a cash cow....

[Gringo777]

Great post--very informative! Thanks for the time you put into this.

[RemyXO]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that infuriates me, though I've heard it before, is "He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues." Let's boycott the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it .. how does NFL benefit from online gambling ban?

[j2zooted]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing that infuriates me, though I've heard it before, is "He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues." Let's boycott the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it .. how does NFL benefit from online gambling ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

they got the fantasy sports carve out, then look good by supporting the pro-family movement.

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing that infuriates me, though I've heard it before, is "He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues." Let's boycott the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it .. how does NFL benefit from online gambling ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

they got the fantasy sports carve out, then look good by supporting the pro-family movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, they look like hyprocritical bastards to me.

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
Banning online poker is an issue of personal freedoms guauranteed by the Constitution - the pursuit of happiness?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Priests are pursuing their happiness when they molest little boys. Doesn't mean they have a Constitutional right to it.

[Poker_Hoar]

Yes, it's a great post. But it's also very self serving for the PPA and their lobby. I made a living in the online gaming space for the past three years--not as a player but in the industry itself. It is a good rally piece to try to regain support behind the issue.

Some of the facts are a little twisted.

Look, a gaming site(s) was behind setting-up the PPA. So there was support, if hidden from public view. Who paid for most of the player memberships?

The real question for me is what the US DOJ and COngress will do in the coming six months. Will the pressure that we have seen concerning arrests and legislation become more intense. If so, what hope in the world does the PPA have as a grassroots player organization? For example, with the leading players crippled for the time being from a dollar standpoint (Party, 888) who will foot the bill for counter measures against more legislation? The sites showing the USA the middle finger? I doubt it.

I have the feeling this is the US' next "Crusade" and very little is going to stop it in the short term.

You can call me a pessimist. In terms of making money I am moving on. If it looks like a good game again then great, I will be in the industry doing what I do well.

In the mean time I think the PPA did a terrible job and I removed myself from their mailing list. Luckily Party Poker paid for my membership (as they did for just about everyone else, probably). If another, better form, of lobby leadership comes along then I will pledge my support for them. I thought NROG was way more on target than the PPA ever was, FYIW.

Good Luck.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they also need to be working on producing a working regulation module to show this could be a very profitable industry if taxed in the US. The crooks on Capital hill can never turn down a cash cow....

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, one other thing he mentioned is that PPA commissioned a respected economist to generate a model estimating the tax revenue lost from both the sites and players by not taxing &amp; regulating. I've seen the number in some PPA press releases but can't recall it offhand.

The crooks on the Hill only can't turn down a cash cow if the milk is flowing into their own back pocket . . . or something like that.

[Ron Burgundy]

Thank you for this post. It's nice to know that the PPA is actually doing something.

But why do we have to get this information from 3rd parties? Why do we find out what the PPA is doing from a friend of a friend of a lobbyist? The main reason everyone is skeptical of the PPA is because Micheal Bolcerek isn't the one providing this info about their activities.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing that infuriates me, though I've heard it before, is "He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues." Let's boycott the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it .. how does NFL benefit from online gambling ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

they got the fantasy sports carve out, then look good by supporting the pro-family movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main reason is becasue they're paranoid about a sports betting scandal with players losing on purpose to make $$$ for themselves or others. There was a big scandal at Notre Dame a few years ago, and the NFL wants do everything possible to prevent that.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the banking industry lobbied very effectively. They were behind early holds on the bill and they secured the main thing that they sought -- an out that lets them not do anything if it isn't reasonably easy to do. They were particularly aggrivated about the possibility of having to code checks and intercept them by account.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should recognize that lobbying to get that exception is very different from lobbying to oppose the legislation altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine with that. It just isn't right to say that they "did no real lobbying." They didn't care about stopping the bill, so they didn't try. They got what they wanted.

In fact there were four main lobbying efforts on this bill. The banks didn't want to have to make certain changes and they didn't. The ISPs didn't want to have to try to firewall off the poker sites and they didn't. The horseracing lobby didn't want to have the bill affect their wagers and it didn't. PPA was the only group that didn't get what they wanted in any way, shape or form.

I freely admit that their job was harder, but the fact remains that they failed completely. Maybe it was hopeless, I don't know.

I also think that they did a terrible job of persuading the poker community that they were doing anything effective during the critical fund-raising period. When opinion leaders in the community like Mason and David are openly derisive, that suggests that the PPA failed at its PR mission -- they couldn't even sell their own side on their usefullness.

Despite the fact that I gave them money, they never once wrote to me to say what they were trying to do. They never wrote to me and said "We need more money now because we want to do X, Y, Z" Even though the PPA guy was making posts here, he never made a clear case that they were spending the money effectively.

Even now, we are not getting a well-conceived plan of future action or explanation of what happened to the money we already sent from PPA. Your post was fine and good information, but why I am getting "a friend of friend says" kind of reports? Why didn't I get it in my email directly from PPA?

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for this post. It's nice to know that the PPA is actually doing something.

But why do we have to get this information from 3rd parties? Why do we find out what the PPA is doing from a friend of a friend of a lobbyist? The main reason everyone is skeptical of the PPA is because Micheal Bolcerek isn't the one providing this info about their activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little transparancy would help a lot with getting support from the general poker community. Every time a piece like this comes up there are always at least 30% of the posts that range from sceptical to downright distrustful with regards to the PPA. A lot of that would go away if they would just be a little less secretive.

greg

[Asianj]

Great post

[betgo]

The online sites must have devoted a lot of resources to lobbying against this bill and they would be crazy not to. I am sure that is one of the first rules of this business. If you operate a poker room in a basement somewhere, you devote some resources to a "lobbying effort".

Also, it is wrong to assume they were not successful. This bill could have been much worse. The fact that the banks and ISPs got what they wanted is also to the advantage of the online sites.

[MicroBob]

1 - very informative post Hock. Thanks.



2 -
[ QUOTE ]


But why do we have to get this information from 3rd parties? Why do we find out what the PPA is doing from a friend of a friend of a lobbyist? The main reason everyone is skeptical of the PPA is because Micheal Bolcerek isn't the one providing this info about their activities.

[/ QUOTE ]


completely agree.


3 -

[ QUOTE ]

I mentioned the many nice press pieces opposing the legislation we've all seen in the past 6 months (60 Minutes, WSJ, NY Times, Wash Post, George Will's article, etc.) He said that many were not accidental, and were due in part to the work of PPA's PR people.



This is mostly silly.

[/ QUOTE ]



absolutely agree.
Perhaps SOME of their PR push got SOME of that information out.
But it's a real stretch to take even partial credit for all the different articles/editorials on this issue from the NYTimes to the Walla Walla Tribune.

But clearly the PPA publicity people are getting something accomplished as Bolcarek has been on a number of TV shows. And I assume they were partly responsible for arranging Sexton, Duke and Bolcarek to appear on the CNBC On The Money program.

But I wouldn't be patting myself on the back too much if I were the PPA publicity people though.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
A little transparancy would help a lot with getting support from the general poker community. Every time a piece like this comes up there are always at least 30% of the posts that range from sceptical to downright distrustful with regards to the PPA. A lot of that would go away if they would just be a little less secretive.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said this to the guy probably ten times on the call.

[NorthDakota]

The mention of the PPA moving to the Local/State level seems promising to me. My State of North Dakota would be a logical choice. State representative Jim Kasper has gotten internet poker legislation through the house last year before the Senate and he's planning another attempt.

North Dakota is a small state and a vocal group of Poker Players in the state could influence.

Hopefully, the PPA will consider this possibility instead of tilting at the windmills of the Federal Government.

If state passes it... The Wall gets chipped away.

[davebwell]

[ QUOTE ]
Banning online poker is an issue of personal freedoms guauranteed by the Constitution - the pursuit of happiness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit, but you can't find anything in the constitution about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". This comes from the declaration of Independence which was written 13 years prior to the constitution. The ideas of functional government obviously changed over that period since our current constitution is the result of a failed initial attempt. (The Articles of Confederation)

[jah7_fsu1]

Thanks DB, I was about to post that. Many people mix it up, I'm not sure why.

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think they also need to be working on producing a working regulation module to show this could be a very profitable industry if taxed in the US. The crooks on Capital hill can never turn down a cash cow....

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, one other thing he mentioned is that PPA commissioned a respected economist to generate a model estimating the tax revenue lost from both the sites and players by not taxing &amp; regulating. I've seen the number in some PPA press releases but can't recall it offhand.

The crooks on the Hill only can't turn down a cash cow if the milk is flowing into their own back pocket . . . or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number is 3.3 Billion annually. It was in a PDF from the PPA website about a study they commissioned. Can't find it now.

It seems one of the questions I asked earlier has been answered: Howard Lederer, Jesus, and Raymer are now on the PPA Board.