Any real questions to pose to the PPA ? [Archive]

MagCFO

11-20-2006, 04:45 PM

Well, we know what his game plan is I believe, but I'd like to know how the plan is going. I'd like to know these things.

1) Has he gotten to speak to Mr. Reid or Mrs. Pelosi yet?
2) Has he spoken to any member of Congress that supports either the carve out or a study on regulation?
3) Has he seen the much from other groups representing the casino industry, gambling associations, etc? Are they pushing for a study on regulation?

I like the idea of a carve out, but I think it's a long shot. I think we have to at least get a study to regulate online gaming passed in the next Congress. Hopefully the PPA isn't putting all their eggs in one basket (with the carve out).

I'm really want to know more about what the casino industry in Vegas is doing than the PPA. I like the PPA, but if MGM and others get behind this push, something will happen.

TruePoker CEO

11-20-2006, 04:46 PM

(1. Is the PPA going to set up any state by state chapters?)

Good question, tied into the general topic of state-by-state poker lobbying.

MagCFO

11-20-2006, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Is there a plan to reach out to the poker sites for support?

[/ QUOTE ]

These sites have the emails to over ten million players. We should know who is ACTIVELY supporting the PPA so we can decide where to send our business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, I'm not sure this is even legal. That's why we haven't heard much from Party poker or others supporting a push to legalize. There are foreign corruption laws on the books that prevent foreign companies from lobbying our government.

I think if the PPA took $100,000 from Party Poker, that would be illegal.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

addictontilt

11-20-2006, 04:52 PM

Mag - Your timing is great on this, since I have been involved in trying to set up a PAC.

If I read the mindnumbing PAC PDF guidelines correctly

here is the link good luck-

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nongui.pdf

what you say is true, IMO any site would be a foreign national since they are offshore based - which kills my poker tourney idea, unless I can figure something out /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This is not going to be an easy fight

autobet

11-20-2006, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Is there a plan to reach out to the poker sites for support?

[/ QUOTE ]

These sites have the emails to over ten million players. We should know who is ACTIVELY supporting the PPA so we can decide where to send our business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guys, I'm not sure this is even legal. That's why we haven't heard much from Party poker or others supporting a push to legalize. There are foreign corruption laws on the books that prevent foreign companies from lobbying our government.

I think if the PPA took $100,000 from Party Poker, that would be illegal.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are correct that they cannot take money directly from foreign corporations.

Possibly that's why are membership with Party was free.

Maybe they can email the membership and ask us to join.

Beastmaster

11-20-2006, 05:41 PM

Chances of a study bill being passed this year or a poker carve out just like fantasy sports, lottery, etc

Cubswin

11-20-2006, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think if the PPA took $100,000 from Party Poker, that would be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would NOT be illegal. Foreign companies or individuals can lobby the US government all they want. However, they can not make political contributions to a PAC or candidate.

addictontilt

11-20-2006, 06:31 PM

Cubs -

I go with your statement then, its possible that I misread that PDF - then if the sites can be involved in a monetary way - the question for the PPA would be who is involved? and how much?

MagCFO

11-20-2006, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if the PPA took $100,000 from Party Poker, that would be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would NOT be illegal. Foreign companies or individuals can lobby the US government all they want. However, they can not make political contributions to a PAC or candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, that makes sense.

You would think Party poker and others would be giving to the PPA then, which maybe they are.

I'd like to know from Mr. B if he is getting any support from places like Party.

I would imagine that Pokerstars and others don't want anything to change.

I know for a fact Bodog would like things to stay "illegal" to keep competition from the MGM's of the world out of their way.

DeepTroll

11-20-2006, 06:52 PM

Not a question... but I would like to communicate that selling poker as a tax-generating vehicle is a losing strategy. The ban had nothing to do with money and everything to do with "morality" and politics. Asking for a "sin-tax" portrays poker as a sin, and fails to communicate that the ban is unfair and infringing on personal liberties.

I also think it is CRITICAL for the PPA to spend some money to objectively demonstrate that the online gaming legislation tipped the scales to a Democratic-controlled Senate. A simple poll in Virginia and Montana could establish this. Even though the numbers might be small, if the poker players are seen as the ones who decided the control of the Senate we will have far more clout.

Properly played, I think this approach would earn the poker carve-out.

Cubswin

11-20-2006, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know from Mr. B if he is getting any support from places like Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Michael is focused on keeping this movement about poker players and because of this he is focusing on raising funds at the grassroots level rather than from the off shore sites. I would speculate that corporate contributions to the PPA are limited in nature. If you are lobbying for poker players you want to be funded by poker players.

ubercuber

11-21-2006, 02:11 AM

Do they have plans for a renewable membership with some perks? I think everyone just paid the initial membership fee thats it. A bi monthly magazine for "sponsor" level members or something would be easy to throw together for a profit and the suppport of the pros should provide interesting articles. Increasing levels of support and improving rewards to cooincide will generate continued money. They are going to need the members to give up more cash as well as trying to get more members.

Cubswin

11-21-2006, 02:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do they have plans for a renewable membership with some perks? I think everyone just paid the initial membership fee thats it. A bi monthly magazine for "sponsor" level members or something would be easy to throw together for a profit and the suppport of the pros should provide interesting articles. Increasing levels of support and improving rewards to cooincide will generate continued money. They are going to need the members to give up more cash as well as trying to get more members.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree that doing a lifetime membership was a little short sighted. Where is your funding going to come from once you reach critical mass? This is going to be one of the challenges going forward for the PPA.

Cubswin

11-21-2006, 02:29 AM

There are two ways a PAC can be set up:

1) Connected (has sponsering organization such as a corporation, association or labor organizations). The PPA could take this route.

Advantage - Corporate money (read all sources of PPA revenue) can be used to fund most PAC operating expenses (rent, postage, salary, software costs etc)

Disadvantage - You can only market to what is know as your 'solicitable class'. This basicly includes members of your organization and staff. The lifetime membership aspect of the PPA would create a few more hoops to jump through to keep members solicitable but this could easily be overcome.

2) Non-connected (entirely self-funded)

Advantage - You can market to anyone.

Disadvantage - All operating expenses come out of funds raised. There are very strict limits of the amount of corporate money that can be used for operating expenses.

permafrost

11-21-2006, 02:56 AM

One of the PPA 'Keep it Legal' ads says that the government is taking away our right to play online. How can the government take it away if it's legal?

jlkrusty

11-21-2006, 07:21 AM

How about ask him to have a permanent PPA representative on this forum (someone who takes comments every day and gives input back to us). I think if the PPA had a permanent representative here, it would do a lot as far as our opinion and support. We'd finally have someone to brainstorm with. I bet most of us would even be willing to pay a yearly membership fee. However, said representative could not just pop in once a month. They should be taking and giving feedback daily.

MiltonFriedman

11-21-2006, 09:56 AM

You opine: "I would like to communicate that selling poker as a tax-generating vehicle is a losing strategy. The ban had nothing to do with money and everything to do with "morality" and politics"

I agree that the Act had everything to do with morality and politics, but think you missed the whole point of "selling poker as tax generating".

Granted, you will NEVER sell it to the fundamental moralists, but you do not have to do so. You sell to those who might buy, i.e. State governments and those who want funds for education, roads, whatever.

Richas

11-21-2006, 10:16 AM

I'd like to know how foreigners can best support the PPA, is it through their own national equivalents? This is not a US only issue.

I'd also like to know how international opinion can best be used to influence legislators. Personally I think the UK model is pretty much spot on (especially as they are now talking about relaxing the rules on small stakes pub based tournaments).

Maybe the chair of the UK Gambling Commission (Peter Dean) could be invited out to give evidence to the senate?

Below is a link to the UK Gambling Commission.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/index.asp?ContentId=1

Berge20

11-21-2006, 10:45 AM

"2) Has he spoken to any member of Congress that supports either the carve out or a study on regulation?"

Study Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05474:)

Check the cosponsor tab for supporters

damaniac

11-21-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not a question... but I would like to communicate that selling poker as a tax-generating vehicle is a losing strategy. The ban had nothing to do with money and everything to do with "morality" and politics. Asking for a "sin-tax" portrays poker as a sin, and fails to communicate that the ban is unfair and infringing on personal liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but alcohol, tobacco, and live gambling all fit under those descriptions and got regulated and taxed. The thing with "sin-taxes" is they are going to generate revenue no matter what. Unlike other taxes, which if too high will just influence consumer behavior (tax gas too much and people will drive less/buy more fuel efficient cars/alternate energy becomes more cost-effective by comparison), people are always going to drink, smoke, and gamble, so it's an easy way to generate tax revenue without imposing it on everyone, only those few bad people who partake in drinking, smoking, and gambling. Plus the tax is to discourage use and take the morality road. Obviously if you tax those things too much a black market will spring up.

It'd be nice if we could change the perception of poker as being distinct from gambling, but it would be far easier and more likely to be legalized under the taxation idea.

Berge20

11-21-2006, 02:27 PM

What are PPA's strategies for garnering Congressional support for the legislative efforts they are pushing?

DeepTroll

11-21-2006, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
True, but alcohol, tobacco, and live gambling all fit under those descriptions and got regulated and taxed. The thing with "sin-taxes" is they are going to generate revenue no matter what. Unlike other taxes, which if too high will just influence consumer behavior (tax gas too much and people will drive less/buy more fuel efficient cars/alternate energy becomes more cost-effective by comparison), people are always going to drink, smoke, and gamble, so it's an easy way to generate tax revenue without imposing it on everyone, only those few bad people who partake in drinking, smoking, and gambling. Plus the tax is to discourage use and take the morality road. Obviously if you tax those things too much a black market will spring up.

It'd be nice if we could change the perception of poker as being distinct from gambling, but it would be far easier and more likely to be legalized under the taxation idea.

[/ QUOTE ]In the scheme of things, taxing poker just can't raise enough money to make a difference. Government revenue or lack thereof wasn't, and isn't, a motivating factor.

When selling widgets, and a potential customer doesn't care about the "thingy" attachment, stop talking about the "thingy". Focus on the issues your customer really does care about.

Also consider that many who opposed online gambling did so because of their perception that the American public is/was being harmed by the large amount of money they were losing to online gambling. Trying to sell online poker as a government revenue stream only serves to reinforce that perception.

I think it's worth repeating, that the PPA needs to make sure everyone is aware of the impact poker players had on the last election. That's an issue all of these legislators really do care about.

MiltonFriedman

11-21-2006, 05:55 PM

"In the scheme of things, taxing poker just can't raise enough money to make a difference. "

You are WAY off. A State can cut a lottery 40% easily. Why would you think that a State would blow off 40% of what Party made from its residents ?

metsandfinsfan

11-21-2006, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You opine: "I would like to communicate that selling poker as a tax-generating vehicle is a losing strategy. The ban had nothing to do with money and everything to do with "morality" and politics"

I agree that the Act had everything to do with morality and politics, but think you missed the whole point of "selling poker as tax generating".

Granted, you will NEVER sell it to the fundamental moralists, but you do not have to do so. You sell to those who might buy, i.e. State governments and those who want funds for education, roads, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it was about money. Otherwise, there would not be provisions in it exempted lotteries and horse racing

come on man

slavic

11-22-2006, 01:37 AM

True-

Ultimatly these battles seem to be won or lost at the local level. Gambling is regulated in large part at the state level. What is the PPA's strategy for addressing its message to the local level?

Now I don't want an answer, I don't even want someone to think about it for a couple of days and put out a statement. I want the group to recognize the issue and fundamentally move towards addressing it.

SlapPappy

11-23-2006, 10:12 AM

The Question is what can "we" do?

TruePoker CEO

11-23-2006, 10:14 AM

Could you be a lot more specific in your question ?

TruePoker CEO

11-23-2006, 10:15 AM

Good, I'll press him on this ... once he actually explains what "regulate/tax" means in the same context.

TruePoker CEO

11-23-2006, 10:16 AM

Can you email me a copy of such an "ad" ? Where are they placing ads ?

management@truepoker.com

AAAA

11-23-2006, 11:17 AM

but poker sites should certainly make it easy for players to join...in other words, a poker site should be able to purchase memberships for USA players...every year...and the amount of the membership should be directly proportionate to the amount of rake the player pays.

doesn't that make sense? that way the player doesn't have to worry about who pays a player membership...they all pay to the ppa based on the amount of rake generated from usa players!

half of one percent of gross rake would give us a huge presence in the lobbying pool, but even better would be if that money didn't go to politicians, but to a Poker Charity! Let the world see what entertainment can do that is good!

MiltonFriedman

11-23-2006, 01:16 PM

"doesn't that make sense? that way the player doesn't have to worry about who pays a player membership...they all pay to the ppa based on the amount of rake generated from usa players!"

No it does not make sense, .... what it would do is make the PPA an onshore affiliate of the contributing poker sites .... not a politically feasible position to hold.

MiltonFriedman

11-23-2006, 01:20 PM

"of course it was about money. Otherwise, there would not be provisions in it exempted lotteries and horse racing

come on man "

Hey, Man, I'm cool, but your argument only goes so far ... the EXEMPTIONS were about money, the bill was morality and politics. Anyway, you miss the point .... which is that sufficient support exists IF IT SEES itself getting money from online poker ... i.e. State of California getting 40% of the rake from poker for starters, "man".

permafrost

11-23-2006, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can you email me a copy of such an "ad" ? Where are they placing ads ?

management@truepoker.com

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA ad from poker magazine (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/logoad.html)

metsandfinsfan

11-25-2006, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"of course it was about money. Otherwise, there would not be provisions in it exempted lotteries and horse racing

come on man "

Hey, Man, I'm cool, but your argument only goes so far ... the EXEMPTIONS were about money, the bill was morality and politics. Anyway, you miss the point .... which is that sufficient support exists IF IT SEES itself getting money from online poker ... i.e. State of California getting 40% of the rake from poker for starters, "man".

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are saying that if enough money could be made then the nuts will put their morality beliefs on the backburner, then fine i guess we agree

pifhluk

11-25-2006, 06:02 PM

Anyone see this?

http://www.fightwhatsnext.org/

AAAA

11-26-2006, 12:02 AM

this argument went on for a long time...in real estate who paid the commission, the buyer or the seller...i always maintained that the buyer brought the money to the transaction, and IMO if the players bring the rake dollars to the transaction, the ppa would be representing the players.

MiltonFriedman

11-26-2006, 01:53 AM

No, I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying is enough money can be made that the "nuts" allies will desert them in favor of funding schools for example, and the moralists will not be able to block a "publicly beneficial" site.
Think lottery.

MiltonFriedman

11-26-2006, 01:58 AM

I think you miss the point. It would be viewed by DOJ as ILLEGAL for the PPA to take a share of revenue from an offshore gambling site. "Who brought the money to the table " is completely irrelevant because the money would pass directly from the poker site to the PPA, measured by revenue earned from the player involved ... That would clearly be a revenue share by an on-shore entity, the PPA, derived from the offshore poker games.

Regardless of whether DOJ prosecuted, the political fallout would be enough. (Frankly, if the PPA were really perceived as a threat by the anti-gambling forces, this issue likely would have surfaced before to sap its credibility.)