PPA Hires New Lobbyist

[Jestocost]

POKER PLAYER. Lobbyists should know the issues and the political landscape when they head to Capitol Hill. For John Pappas, the new vice president of government relations for the Poker Players Alliance, being able to play the game helps, too. "I wouldn't say I am the most skilled player," says Pappas of his poker abilities. "But I can hold my own."

Pappas will focus on coordinating lobbying and grassroots efforts to establish licensed and regulated poker in the United States for online and offline players. The alliance, a nonprofit composed of poker players and enthusiasts, is relatively young, but boasts former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., as its board chairman. The group, headquartered in San Francisco, is poised to reach the 500,000-member mark soon.

Pappas, most recently an assistant vice president at Dittus Communications, came to Washington almost a decade ago. A native of Phoenix, his first job out of college was as a staff assistant for Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and he eventually became his communications director.

A University of Arizona graduate, Pappas roots for the Wildcats during March Madness. "My senior year [1997] was the year they won the national basketball championship, which was a sweet exit from college," he says. "I watch every year with the hopes that they will return to their glory."

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
A University of Arizona graduate, Pappas roots for the Wildcats during March Madness. "My senior year [1997] was the year they won the national basketball championship, which was a sweet exit from college," he says. "I watch every year with the hopes that they will return to their glory."

[/ QUOTE ]

is this a high school newspaper? why did they include this? i take it back, i'm sure my high school newspaper would have written a better article.

[MiltonFriedman]

PPA New Lobbyist to throw PStars, FTP, Absolute under a bus

From "Read between the Lines News Service": PPA has revealed its plan to throw existing US facing online poker rooms under the first bus that comes along.

"Pappas will focus on coordinating lobbying and grassroots efforts to establish licensed and regulated poker in the United States for online and offline players"

Biting the hand that fed them, the PPA leadership has determined that bigger handouts are available from Harrah's, MGM, Venetian, and a re-entering Party Gaming.

[Grasshopp3r]

How do you get to this interpretation? The NVG forum is a few up on the left, in case you need directions. Otherwise, post something that substantiates your views.

[MiltonFriedman]

Well, do you think that a regulated industry in the US would welcome Stars, FTP or Absolute ? If so, you are dreaming.

If not, isn't pushing for a regulated US industry akin to shutting them out / "throwing them under a bus" ?

Regulation of the gaming industry means:

1. Barriers to entry
2. A requirement of a "clean" past

I am saying that the PPA maybe DOES represent a view of the interests of US poker players, but it is clearly throwing the existing US-facing online providers to the wolves in its quest for "regulated US poker". PPA is not driving the bus, but it wants no part of the online US sites, except their money and players to claim as "members".

Its position is understandable, in its OWN interest as a lobbying organization and maybe in players' interests, coincidently.

The PPA is a classic evolution of a lobbying effort, deliberately and expressly modelled after the NRA.

[AP0CALYP5E]

IF i'm stuck playing Harrah's online against a new influx of fish, I'm all for it. I don't have emotional ties to a particular site.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, do you think that a regulated industry in the US would welcome Stars, FTP or Absolute ? If so, you are dreaming.

If not, isn't pushing for a regulated US industry akin to shutting them out / "throwing them under a bus" ?

Regulation of the gaming industry means:

1. Barriers to entry
2. A requirement of a "clean" past

I am saying that the PPA maybe DOES represent a view of the interests of US poker players, but it is clearly throwing the existing US-facing online providers to the wolves in its quest for "regulated US poker". PPA is not driving the bus, but it wants no part of the online US sites, except their money and players to claim as "members".

Its position is understandable, in its OWN interest as a lobbying organization and maybe in players' interests, coincidently.

The PPA is a classic evolution of a lobbying effort, deliberately and expressly modelled after the NRA.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are your opinions at best. Everyone is entitled to one, but to say we're "dreaming" to think Stars and Full Tilt will be able to compete in the U.S., and that the PPA is "clearly" throwing these companies to the wolves is just nonsense. As an aside, I don't really care all that much where I end up playing as long as I can play. I love Stars, and I think they're a great company, and I appreciate FTP sticking with the U.S. through all of this, but I feel no obligation to these companies. I'd be a little sad to leave Stars, but I have a feeling after about 30 minutes of 50 VP$IP games full of U.S. fish at MGM.com I'd be feeling a lot better.

[Skallagrim]

The irony of it all ... In other threads various folks either representing 2+2 or following their lead have refused to support the PPA because, they say, the PPA is too much in the pocket of the online sites. Now here's a post by a respected thinker opinining that the PPA will throw those sites to the wolves.

I did like the part about the NRA though, that is THE model of a succesful grassroots lobby.

Skallagrim

PS, it would take a truly tortured series of legal and political events for an online US gaming market to come into existence that did not allow for foreign competition. I am not worried about the future of FTP or Stars, I think you guys give Harrahs to much credit.

[Ron Burgundy]

If the foreign based sites are paying taxes and license fees, why would the govt care where they're located? Even if they did somehow try to block foreign sites by making them pay more, why wouldn't Stars/FT move their operations into the US? They would gladly spend a bunch of $ moving here if it meant total access to the US market.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]

These are your opinions at best. Everyone is entitled to one, but to say we're "dreaming" to think Stars and Full Tilt will be able to compete in the U.S., and that the PPA is "clearly" throwing these companies to the wolves is just nonsense. As an aside, I don't really care all that much where I end up playing as long as I can play. I love Stars, and I think they're a great company, and I appreciate FTP sticking with the U.S. through all of this, but I feel no obligation to these companies. I'd be a little sad to leave Stars, but I have a feeling after about 30 minutes of 50 VP$IP games full of U.S. fish at MGM.com I'd be feeling a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are not just opinions at best. I pointed out weeks ago that the silence from the established companies on the Frank bill was deafening, and that when the PPA supported the bill they were effectively distancing themselves from some of the companies that have so far provided the biggest membership drives.

In the end this is probably nothing more of a interesting side issue, but I made my initial point in the context of a fragmentation of effort with some bodies and people for legislative developments, and other bodies and people (such as Jay Cohen) against anything that did not bode well personally.

[Dunkman]

The sites never said anything about H.R. 4411 or about the UIGEA, so it seems to be consistent that they wouldn't say anything about the IGREA either. I forget where, but I remember reading several sites say that they would welcome regulation in exchange for the legitimacy that accompanies it.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
The sites never said anything about H.R. 4411 or about the UIGEA, so it seems to be consistent that they wouldn't say anything about the IGREA either. I forget where, but I remember reading several sites say that they would welcome regulation in exchange for the legitimacy that accompanies it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Email any major site. Ask them what they think of the UIGEA. You will get a response stating how bad it is etc. Ask them for their specific opinion on the IGREA and you will get a generic 'welcome regulation in exchange for the legitimacy' response which is significant in its non committal.

You should then ask where all the PPA membership drives have gone. PPA membership = 500K, I think I read a PokerStars rep saying they were close to 10m accounts. The sites can't be the turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

Like I said, this is somewhat irrelevant, but it does demonstrate that a major resource (the sites and their financial power) are not necessarily going to be pushing in exactly the same direction as the community..

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sites never said anything about H.R. 4411 or about the UIGEA, so it seems to be consistent that they wouldn't say anything about the IGREA either. I forget where, but I remember reading several sites say that they would welcome regulation in exchange for the legitimacy that accompanies it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Email any major site. Ask them what they think of the UIGEA. You will get a response stating how bad it is etc. Ask them for their specific opinion on the IGREA and you will get a generic 'welcome regulation in exchange for the legitimacy' response which is significant in its non committal.

You should then ask where all the PPA membership drives have gone. PPA membership = 500K, I think I read a PokerStars rep saying they were close to 10m accounts. The sites can't be the turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

Like I said, this is somewhat irrelevant, but it does demonstrate that a major resource (the sites and their financial power) are not necessarily going to be pushing in exactly the same direction as the community..

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that the sites don't expect IGREA to pass this year. Rather, they expect IGREA to serve to generate political support sufficient to bog down any new anti-poker legislation (HR 4777 was anti-poker). This would serve to maintain the status quo for the poker sites for this year. As next year is an election year, IMHO it seems unikely that HR 4777 will be introduced then. So, IGREA can serve to give the current U.S.-facing sites two more years.

Then, once we get our legislation through, these sites can figure out how to get licensed. As the sites not offering sports betting are not breaking any laws now, I don't see a huge problem. Also, they'll have a head-start on the new U.S.-based sites, giving them a few more years of profits.

[counthomer]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the sites don't expect IGREA to pass this year. Rather, they expect IGREA to serve to generate political support sufficient to bog down any new anti-poker legislation (HR 4777 was anti-poker). This would serve to maintain the status quo for the poker sites for this year. As next year is an election year, IMHO it seems unikely that HR 4777 will be introduced then. So, IGREA can serve to give the current U.S.-facing sites two more years.

Then, once we get our legislation through, these sites can figure out how to get licensed. As the sites not offering sports betting are not breaking any laws now, I don't see a huge problem. Also, they'll have a head-start on the new U.S.-based sites, giving them a few more years of profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I work in the industry, but don't have huge visibility on long term matters such as this. However, I would disagree that the sites see it that way.

My current reading (from the inside looking out) is that the sites are effectively stuck with their head on the block waiting to see how the regulations and the UIGEA pans out. Certainly there has been a large number of projects postponed until that outcome is known, and hiring has practically stopped.

I also think none of the sites are under any illusions as to how US licencing would pan out for them. It would be the Harrahs of this world allowed into the market first and the Full Tilts a distant second. If this happens after a time when there is no US market to speak of, then they at a huge disadvantage and this is a scenario they are desperate to avoid - it is probably even the worst case scenario for them.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not true. Email any major site. Ask them what they think of the UIGEA. You will get a response stating how bad it is etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, IF YOU ASK THEM, they will say they're against it. But why didn't they send out emails to all their players asking them to contact their reps? No poker site ever encouraged me to do that.

A few days before the UIGEA passed, I emailed all the poker sites asking them why they aren't screaming at their customers to do everthing they can to stop it. They all just gave me some cookie cutter response about "we are against it and blah blah blah." But they never actively did anything.

I highly doubt I'll be hearing anything about IGREA from the poker sites.

[counthomer]

I think that is two different issues. The poker companies were totally naive as to the potential of the UIGEA and have paid accordingly.

Now that they are politically aware, the lack of public support for specific items of potential legislation to fix the situation (at least from our perspective) is significant.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, once we get our legislation through, these sites can figure out how to get licensed. As the sites not offering sports betting are not breaking any laws now, I don't see a huge problem. Also, they'll have a head-start on the new U.S.-based sites, giving them a few more years of profits.



[/ QUOTE ]

You may have missed Al D'Amato being quoted as saying UIGEA created a " criminal culture (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/gambling_laws) ". It started a paragraph about the online poker industry. (I don't agree that UIGEA created such, but Al does; and it seems like they are looking for a handy bus! I assume he was referring to the businesses, because if he was calling the members criminals...wow.)

Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

Should you and Al get your talking points aligned?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Should you and Al get your talking points aligned?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I don't even have talking points. I'm just a poker player trying to encourage other poker players to fight back.

[ QUOTE ]
You may have missed Al D'Amato being quoted as saying UIGEA created a " criminal culture (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/gambling_laws) ". It started a paragraph about the online poker industry. (I don't agree that UIGEA created such, but Al does; and it seems like they are looking for a handy bus! I assume he was referring to the businesses, because if he was calling the members criminals...wow.)

[/ QUOTE ]

He's entitled to his opinion. What's that got to do with me?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

What laws are poker-only sites breaking?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
What laws are poker-only sites breaking?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ones that you want poker players to "fight".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What laws are poker-only sites breaking?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ones that you want poker players to "fight".

[/ QUOTE ]

I recommended that we fight UIGEA, but I don't believe poker sites are breaking that law. While UIGEA doesn't make any online gambling illegal that wasn't already illegal, it had the effect of shutting out many major poker sites and Neteller to U.S. players. I'm also concerned that the DOJ will go after poker-only sites under their interpretation of the Wire Act (plus RICO and money laundering) once they're done with big sports betting sites.

What federal laws do you think poker-only sites are breaking?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

A University of Arizona graduate, Pappas roots for the Wildcats during March Madness. "My senior year [1997] was the year they won the national basketball championship, which was a sweet exit from college," he says. "I watch every year with the hopes that they will return to their glory."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was this germaine at all to the article? Who cares who he roots for? Weird.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you $100 if you can show me a federal law that makes internet poker illegal.

[MiltonFriedman]

D'Amato: As permafrost puts it very well: "You may have missed Al D'Amato being quoted as saying UIGEA created a " criminal culture ". It started a paragraph about the online poker industry. (I don't agree that UIGEA created such, but Al does; and it seems like they are looking for a handy bus!"

Harrahs: During WSOP2006 sign-ups, even while taking in about $35 million from online poker sites, some Harrahs tool was issuing press releases gratuitously swiping at online poker as criminal enterprises.

WPT: In defending the anti-trust case brought by various poker pros, the WPT stated in court that PStars and FTP were criminal emterprises.

(Both Harrahs and the WPT's labeling their customers/advertisers as criminals pre-dated the UIGEA by the way.)

Have NO illusions that the PPA, with D'Amato at the helm, has ANY qualms about throwing PStars, FTP and Absolute under any convenient bus if they think it will advance their careers and, coincidently, promote the cause of "regulation".

Tha the PPA has so completely and utterly abandoned the free market principles which created the online poker industry is pretty sickening and a disservice to US players.

An unregulated poker market beats the hell out of any alternative..... regardless of what the PPA professional lobbyists might have the PPA believe.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Have NO illusions that the PPA, with D'Amato at the helm, has ANY qualms about throwing PStars, FTP and Absolute under any convenient bus if they think it will advance their careers and, coincidently, promote the cause of "regulation".

Tha the PPA has so completely and utterly abandoned the free market principles which created the online poker industry is pretty sickening and a disservice to US players.

An unregulated poker market beats the hell out of any alternative..... regardless of what the PPA professional lobbyists might have the PPA believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think we can keep unregulated poker, though? I can't think of anyone here who wouldn't prefer unregulated, legal poker. Seems the PPA is simply acknowledging reality. After all, HR 4411 sailed through the House; the DOJ believes that online poker is included in the Wire Act; the fish aren't playing; and HR 4777, a bill that bans interstate online poker, could be reintroduced whenever Goodlette feels like it (and it had over 100 cosponsors last time).

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you $100 if you can show me a federal law that makes internet poker illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ask Al. He's the PPA's criminal culture explainer, not me.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you $100 if you can show me a federal law that makes internet poker illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ask Al. He's the PPA's criminal culture explainer, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think online poker is illegal at the federal level? After all, you said my statement was a "stunning delcaration". Curious what was stunning about it.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
An unregulated poker market beats the hell out of any alternative..... regardless of what the PPA professional lobbyists might have the PPA believe.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a realistic scenerio.

Sorry.

Tuff

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I just read your stunning declaration that the online poker only sites aren't "breaking any laws".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you $100 if you can show me a federal law that makes internet poker illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take you up on this bet. Its the UIGEA, though not in the way you think.

The UIGEA made it a crime for a business "in the business of betting an wagering" to accept money that violated STATE gambling laws. Playing poker for money is a misdemeanor in Oklahoma.

If we assume a poker site is "in the business of betting and wagering" (which is arguable, but I think the courts would answer yes) then the poker site violates the federal UIGEA whenever it accepts money from a player in Oklahoma. The same poker site does not violate the UIGEA when it accepts money from a player in California (where live poker is regulated, but poker is not, in and of itself, illegal).

No federal law criminalizes the player, though, on that you are right.

Skallagrim

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A University of Arizona graduate, Pappas roots for the Wildcats during March Madness. "My senior year [1997] was the year they won the national basketball championship, which was a sweet exit from college," he says. "I watch every year with the hopes that they will return to their glory."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was this germaine at all to the article? Who cares who he roots for? Weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is meant to appeal to the AZ crowd. Big rivalry between U of A and ASU and the two teams that play for each. Well, to be more exact, the U of A people (in Tucson) feel that they are a pathetic little brother who is always trying to say how "equal" they are. ASU is in Tempe/Phoenix and could care less and knows they are not "equal." /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
D'Amato: As permafrost puts it very well: "You may have missed Al D'Amato being quoted as saying UIGEA created a " criminal culture ". It started a paragraph about the online poker industry. (I don't agree that UIGEA created such, but Al does; and it seems like they are looking for a handy bus!"

Harrahs: During WSOP2006 sign-ups, even while taking in about $35 million from online poker sites, some Harrahs tool was issuing press releases gratuitously swiping at online poker as criminal enterprises.

WPT: In defending the anti-trust case brought by various poker pros, the WPT stated in court that PStars and FTP were criminal emterprises.

(Both Harrahs and the WPT's labeling their customers/advertisers as criminals pre-dated the UIGEA by the way.)

Have NO illusions that the PPA, with D'Amato at the helm, has ANY qualms about throwing PStars, FTP and Absolute under any convenient bus if they think it will advance their careers and, coincidently, promote the cause of "regulation".

Tha the PPA has so completely and utterly abandoned the free market principles which created the online poker industry is pretty sickening and a disservice to US players.

An unregulated poker market beats the hell out of any alternative..... regardless of what the PPA professional lobbyists might have the PPA believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would go one step further and say they supported the UIGEA from the start in order to get rid of the sites that are currently in business so they can steal all their money and customers and give them to their friends.

Since all of the current online sites cater to some of the states that have made online poker illegal in their states they have broken the law (UIGEA) and therefore they will not be eligible for a license. Cute setup, make up a law so they will break it and then make up a new law saying we are being fair all non-lawbreakers can get a license.

I am not surprised by this. It is clear that this was the plan from day one. Get all the money into the hands of the US casinos at whatever cost. There was simply too much money being made and the thugs had to figure out a way to take it.

What bothers me even more is where he says that the PPA is sending this lobbyist to Washington to regulate non-online poker. " Pappas will focus on coordinating lobbying and grassroots efforts to establish licensed and regulated poker in the United States for online and offline players. "

Offline players? WTF?????? Now they want to invite the gov't into the B&M rooms? What have they got planned for the rest of us? I don't like the PPA or this guy.

BTW, Milton, I love your posts.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would go one step further and say they supported the UIGEA from the start in order to get rid of the sites that are currently in business so they can steal all their money and customers and give them to their friends.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they supported it because it's in their members' best interest. The poll I took here shows overwhelming support for IGREA. Seems their membership would be about the same.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not surprised by this. It is clear that this was the plan from day one. Get all the money into the hands of the US casinos at whatever cost. There was simply too much money being made and the thugs had to figure out a way to take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep....a big conspiracy.

[ QUOTE ]
What bothers me even more is where he says that the PPA is sending this lobbyist to Washington to regulate non-online poker. " Pappas will focus on coordinating lobbying and grassroots efforts to establish licensed and regulated poker in the United States for online and offline players. "

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is working at the state level to legalize B&M poker in states where it's currently not legal. Again, it's what the members want.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the PPA or this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of us are working on creating change in Washington to generate support for the general position of supporting online poker. This is hard to do if we only support unpassable legislation that allows unregulated online gambling. Even Ron Paul decided against proposing legislation that allowed unregulated online gambling in favor of supporting and cosponsoring IGREA.

[MiltonFriedman]

Bet on it. Actually, the best bet to have access to unregulated online poker is for a loosening of the UIGE ties for a regulated online poker industry in the US. If that happens, defacto unregulated offshore sites will thrive.

Kahnawake and Antigua "regulate" online poker on paper. In fact, the Gaming Commissions in those jurisidictions do little, if any , enforcement activity.

The truth is that the free market discipline has regulated the poker industry pretty well so far. (The underage gambling issue is a red herring, big time. Any site facing potential chargeback liability watches for under 18 players already.)

Offshore sites have been attacked for their success, not for their short-comings. They can survive, they have the technology AND players will not care ....

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I would go one step further and say they supported the UIGEA from the start in order to get rid of the sites that are currently in business so they can steal all their money and customers and give them to their friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump to conclusions much?

[ QUOTE ]
Since all of the current online sites cater to some of the states that have made online poker illegal in their states they have broken the law (UIGEA) and therefore they will not be eligible for a license. Cute setup, make up a law so they will break it and then make up a new law saying we are being fair all non-lawbreakers can get a license.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's only the execs of the company that need to have a clean record, not the entire company itself. All they would have to do is a little firing and hiring to be considered a lawful business and eligible for a license.

[ QUOTE ]
Offline players? WTF?????? Now they want to invite the gov't into the B&M rooms?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Are you trying to say that B&M poker should stay illegal in most states?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet on it. Actually, the best bet to have access to unregulated online poker is for a loosening of the UIGE ties for a regulated online poker industry in the US. If that happens, defacto unregulated offshore sites will thrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't bet on it, but I do hope so. That's everyone's preference. For this to happen, we all need to do our part to tell Washington that this is what we want. This week's action plan, at Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 5/28 & 6/4 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) , is to write to Bush, Paulson, and Gonzales.

Every good outcome requires us to work for political change. I discussed this a bit at Future of Online Poker in the USA (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) . Again, HR 4411 (harsher than UIGEA) won in the House 317-93, and HR 4777, Goodlatte's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, was cosponsored by 1/3 of the House. No matter what we want, we need a positive buzz in Washington.

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the free market discipline has regulated the poker industry pretty well so far. (The underage gambling issue is a red herring, big time. Any site facing potential chargeback liability watches for under 18 players already.)

Offshore sites have been attacked for their success, not for their short-comings. They can survive, they have the technology AND players will not care ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm convinced. /images/graemlins/smile.gif The issue is convincing Washington.

[MiltonFriedman]

"It's only the execs of the company that need to have a clean record, not the entire company itself. All they would have to do is a little firing and hiring to be considered a lawful business and eligible for a license.'

Ron, you do not understand of gaming licensing in the US. What you write is simply completely wrong.

Now it IS theoretically possible that someone like Party, who bolted from the US market, "could" qualify for a license. However, in light of the BetUS indictment for accepting uncoded credit card charges for deposits, it seems very unlikely that Party is squeeky clean.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would go one step further and say they supported the UIGEA from the start in order to get rid of the sites that are currently in business so they can steal all their money and customers and give them to their friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jump to conclusions much?

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

[TheEngineer]

Speaking of PPA, I cross-posted the Weekly Action Thread to their deader-than-dead discussion board, at Weekly Action Thread at PPA (http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewtopic.php?t=1534) . We'll see if we can get their 522,000 members to send letters.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume he [Al D'Amato] was referring to the businesses, because if he was calling the members criminals...wow.


[/ QUOTE ]

This got me thinking about some CardPlayer mag interviews with Al D'Amato that I saw weeks ago. They were getting his statement as Chairman about the PPA problems and policies.

I watched part of them again just now. He twice said online poker players were criminals and once used outlaws. Wow.

Hey, could we get an amendment including millions of us in the amnesty bill?