Vulnerable House Internet Poker Opponents [Archive]

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 09:24 AM

The following congressmen voted for HR 4411 and won reelection in 2006 with <55% of the vote:

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54%
John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) 53.2%
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) 45.6%
Chris Shays (R-CT) 50.9%
Ric Keller (R-FL) 52.8%
Jim Marshall (D-GA) 50.5% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
John Barrow (D-GA) 50.3% (unlikely to be opposed by someone on our side, though)
Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%
Mark Souder (R-IN) 54.3%
Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 51.8%
Geoff Davis (R-KY) 51.7%
William Jefferson (D-LA) 30.1% (56.6% in run-off) [>55%, but very vulnerable]
Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 55.0%
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) 51.6%
Thad McCotter (R) 54.1%
Lee Terry (R-NE) 54.7%
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) 49.4%
Heather Wilson (R-NM) 50.2%
Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8%
Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%
Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%
Robin Hayes (R-NC) 50.1%
Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%
Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5%
Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%
Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 54.0%
Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%
Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%
Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%
Thelma Drake (R-VA) 51.3%
Dave Reichert (R-WA) 51.5%
Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 48.3%

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 10:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The following congressmen voted for HR 4411 and won reelection in 2006 with <55% of the vote...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it seems there are a few things to do with this info. First of all, if your congressman is on this list, he/she will be far more interested in your opinion (especially if you are a member of his/her party) than will someone who runs unopposed every time (but we need to write to them as well, of course).

As for who to oppose, it seems the ones from states where both major parties are strong (i.e., Ohio and Pennsylvalia reps are more vulnerable than are Georgia ones). Also, not everyone who voted for HR 4411 is against IGREA. Some just wanted regulation, like Peter King and Emanuel Cleaver (neither on this list), and support IGREA. Others are working hard against us. So, here's my first cut (in no particular order):

Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Renzi is currently under federal investigation for his involvement in a land-swap deal. On April 19, 2007, the FBI raided his family business, and he temporarily resigned from the House Intelligence Committee. On April 27 Renzi denied printed claims he was considering resigning office.

John Doolittle (R-CA). Tied to Abramoff scandal. Voted against us once he wasn't (allegedly) getting paid to vote for us.

Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). The Christian Coalition has ranked Musgrave's voting record at '100%' in support of the pro-Christian Coalition legislation listed on their scorecard (which includes Internet gaming).

Ric Keller (R-FL). Consistently against us. Appears he'll have strong challengers in 2008.

Mark Souder (R-IN)

Leonard Boswell (D-IA)

Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). You all read his letter to us.

Chris Shays (R-CT). Good target here, especially as he's so vehemently against us.

Geoff Davis (R-KY). Another good target, especially if former Rep. Ken Lucas runs against him again. Also, supports the horse carve-out for UIGEA.

William Jefferson (D-LA). He'll probably be in jail by 2008. This is a good shot for us (either against him for for an open seat).

Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%. Ohio is a good state for us, I think. It's becoming more progressive and libertarian, especially with regards to social conservatism.

Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5% Memorably called 38-year Marine Corps veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward for advocating leaving Iraq.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%. OSU, plus regular Ohio voters, make her seat vulnerable.

Heather Wilson (R-NM). Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician.

Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8%. NY is my kind of state, seeing how many are with us on IGREA.

Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%

Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%

Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%

Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%

Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%

Many of the others are good targets, too. That's just my first cut.

FYI: Charlie Melancon (D-LA) is cosponsoring IGREA

CountingMyOuts

06-22-2007, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The following congressmen voted for HR 4411 and won reelection in 2006 with <55% of the vote...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it seems there are a few things to do with this info. First of all, if your congressman is on this list, he/she will be far more interested in your opinion (especially if you are a member of his/her party) than will someone who runs unopposed every time (but we need to write to them as well, of course).

As for who to oppose, it seems the ones from states where both major parties are strong (i.e., Ohio and Pennsylvalia reps are more vulnerable than are Georgia ones). Also, not everyone who voted for HR 4411 is against IGREA. Some just wanted regulation, like Peter King and Emanuel Cleaver (neither on this list), and support IGREA. Others are working hard against us. So, here's my first cut (in no particular order):

Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Renzi is currently under federal investigation for his involvement in a land-swap deal. On April 19, 2007, the FBI raided his family business, and he temporarily resigned from the House Intelligence Committee. On April 27 Renzi denied printed claims he was considering resigning office.

John Doolittle (R-CA). Tied to Abramoff scandal. Voted against us once he wasn't (allegedly) getting paid to vote for us.

Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). The Christian Coalition has ranked Musgrave's voting record at '100%' in support of the pro-Christian Coalition legislation listed on their scorecard (which includes Internet gaming).

Ric Keller (R-FL). Consistently against us. Appears he'll have strong challengers in 2008.

Mark Souder (R-IN)

Leonard Boswell (D-IA)

Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). You all read his letter to us.

Chris Shays (R-CT). Good target here, especially as he's so vehemently against us.

Geoff Davis (R-KY). Another good target, especially if former Rep. Ken Lucas runs against him again. Also, supports the horse carve-out for UIGEA.

William Jefferson (D-LA). He'll probably be in jail by 2008. This is a good shot for us (either against him for for an open seat).

Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%. Ohio is a good state for us, I think. It's becoming more progressive and libertarian, especially with regards to social conservatism.

Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5% Memorably called 38-year Marine Corps veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward for advocating leaving Iraq.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%. OSU, plus regular Ohio voters, make her seat vulnerable.

Heather Wilson (R-NM). Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician.

Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8%. NY is my kind of state, seeing how many are with us on IGREA.

Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%

Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%

Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%

Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%

Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%

Many of the others are good targets, too. That's just my first cut.

FYI: Charlie Melancon (D-LA) is cosponsoring IGREA

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent list.

It will be very hard to have Steve Chabot (R-OH) "leached" out of office, as he has Cincinnati in his district, which is in the second most Republican county in the U.S. behind Orange County in CA.

Heather Wilson is a prime target and her opponent in the last election was an idiot and nearly beat her anyway. Besides our issue here, I'd like to see her ousted also because of her crying on the House floor about her kids seeing the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident on television. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BluffTHIS!

06-22-2007, 10:50 AM

Engineer,

I would like to make two points here. The first is that your winnowing of the list is very good, as you might as well just forget "targeting" in the deep south where it's often hard to tell a democrat from a republican. The excpetion would be in larger urban areas.

And the second is that before posters here "target" those that backed the IUGEA, they should consider writing to those congressmen and asking them to reconsider, at least for poker, based on the various arguments we have discussed in this forum. After all there have been some who now are on our side, including a couple surprising ones. Then if the response of that congressman is negative to such a an appeal to reconsider, only then to target him. After all as mentioned, incumbancy is very strong, and we are better off with an incumbant who supports our efforts and legislation like that of Reps. Frank and Wexler, than we are with trying to unseat such an incumbant.

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 10:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent list.

It will be very hard to have Steve Chabot (R-OH) "leached" out of office, as he has Cincinnati in his district, which is in the second most Republican county in the U.S. behind Orange County in CA.

Heather Wilson is a prime target and her opponent in the last election was an idiot and nearly beat her anyway. Besides our issue here, I'd like to see her ousted also because of her crying on the House floor about her kids seeing the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident on television. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I agree that the area is somewhat Republican. However, Chabot had a pretty tough fight last time, as did Davis, Schmidt, and many other Republicans in the region. It's not Alabama, that's for sure. Obviously we'll know more as challengers step forward, but he won't run unopposed, that's for sure. I hope we can do something here.

I agree on Heather Wilson. That was ridiculous.

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to make two points here. The first is that your winnowing of the list is very good, as you might as well just forget "targeting" in the deep south where it's often hard to tell a democrat from a republican. The excpetion would be in larger urban areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. It's good to know where to concentrate our energy, either in getting an incumbant to flip, or in finding one to Leach.

[ QUOTE ]
And the second is that before posters here "target" those that backed the IUGEA, they should consider writing to those congressmen and asking them to reconsider, at least for poker, based on the various arguments we have discussed in this forum. After all there have been some who now are on our side, including a couple surprising ones. Then if the response of that congressman is negative to such a an appeal to reconsider, only then to target him. After all as mentioned, incumbancy is very strong, and we are better off with an incumbant who supports our efforts and legislation like that of Reps. Frank and Wexler, than we are with trying to unseat such an incumbant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. My first statement was that these congressmen will likely be more interested in the opinions of their constituents. The elections aren't for a while, so we should be communicating with these guys to see if they'll work with us. However, the elections are right around the corner, so I guess we need to start looking at the political landscape while identifying those who are 100% against us, like Shays.

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 11:20 AM

Here's my second cut. These congressmen actively oppose us. Still write and call them and try to encourage them to flip, of course:

Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO). The Christian Coalition has ranked Musgrave's voting record at '100%' in support of the pro-Christian Coalition legislation listed on their scorecard (which includes Internet gaming).

Ric Keller (R-FL). Consistently against us. Appears he'll have strong challengers in 2008.

Mark Souder (R-IN). Brags about cosponsoring HR 4777 on his website. "U.S. Rep. Mark Souder joined a number of his House colleagues yesterday in cosponsoring H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, legislation designed to crack down on the growing problem of illegal, offshore gambling, as well as illegal gambling that crosses state lines via phone lines and the Internet. The bipartisan bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday.... "

Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). You all read his letter to us. Plus, as a New England Republican, he'll have a tough challenger in '08.

Chris Shays (R-CT). Good target here, especially as he's so vehemently against us.

Geoff Davis (R-KY). Another good target, especially if former Rep. Ken Lucas runs against him again. Also, supports the horse carve-out for UIGEA. Would be good to get him off the House Financial Services Committee.

Steve Chabot (R-OH). Ohio is a good state for us, I think. It's becoming more progressive and libertarian, especially with regards to social conservatism. Chabot is a foe of ours.

Jean Schmidt (R-OH). Memorably called 38-year Marine Corps veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward for advocating leaving Iraq. Definitely an opponent of ours.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH). OSU, plus regular Ohio voters, make her seat vulnerable.

Heather Wilson (R-NM). Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over whether she made inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician.

Uglyowl

06-22-2007, 11:49 AM

Nice work on the list... One correction

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). You all read his letter to us. Plus, as a New England Republican, he'll have a tough challenger in '08.

[/ QUOTE ]

MI=Michigan (not in New England)

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice work on the list... One correction

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). You all read his letter to us. Plus, as a New England Republican, he'll have a tough challenger in '08.

[/ QUOTE ]

MI=Michigan (not in New England)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif I looked at the "R-MI" too quickly and thought he was from Rhode Island for that split second. /images/graemlins/blush.gif Pretty bad, considering I had just read an article on him.

Actually, Michigan is as good for us as New England. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gregatron

06-22-2007, 01:43 PM

It might be a good idea to start scoping out potential congressional candidates for Jefferson's LA seat. He is going to jail, and will likely be replaced by another black, relatively liberal Democrat. LA uses a different system than the rest of the country, where the multiple opponents run in a first round, and there is almost always a runoff election of the top two candidates. There is a good chance that whoever will end up winning has not seriously thought about online gambling, but his/her position could easily be swayed for some campaign contributions. This might even be and instance where betting on BOTH horses is +EV.

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the Senate, John Sununu is already running afraid in New Hampshire. He has made some attempts to distance himself from the rest of the republicans on civil rights issues, and is very afraid that the Iraq war will send him home just like it did both of NH's representatives last fall.

Perhaps he can be made to see that support from a few thousand poker players could make the difference (actually, unless he backs off his war support, it probabaly wont). I will write him and report his response here.

I will also write whomever the Dems nominate to run against him.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a good one to target for the reasons you mentioned.

I look forward to his reply to your letter.

oldbookguy

06-22-2007, 01:59 PM

Engineer,

Add Shelley Moore capito, R. WV to this list.

She will be finally challenged by a serious democrat
John Unger II a member of the WV State Senate.
Note: He is from Berkley County and was instrumental is getting the right of 4 counties to local option vote on gaming at the Horse Tracks as well.
For more on him:
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Senate1/members/senmemview.cfm

He will be a very strong candidate and has a very good chance of winning. He is from the center area of her strongest supporters as well and has a great following there.

obg

SoftcoreRevolt

06-22-2007, 02:34 PM

Shays is really vunerable. In 06 he was looked upon as the only Republican Rep in CT who might lose his seat, but then things got weird and he ended up as the only one to keep his seat. Having a repeat challenger from 04 may have helped him a bit, so hopefully a fresh challenger is prepared in 08.

Of those who have been listed the chances of getting him out are amoung the best.

The Venetian

06-22-2007, 02:47 PM

Another one to check up in the House is Vern Buchanan (R-FL). He won a highly disputed, extremely close election in the Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice area where there were serious allegations and possible proof of voting machine irregularities. His opponent, Christine Jennings, was a former bank president, and I'd be very surprised if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination again next time.

He ran a pretty dirty primary campaign and burned a lot of bridges in his own party, to the point where a few of them strongly considered not endorsing him in the general election. In 2008, this might be as close to an open seat as you can have with an incumbent running.

The only "problem" is that he's actually appeared to be a pretty even-handed Congressman, despite a campaign which pulled far, far to the right. Has anyone created a nice form letter looking for views on Internet gambling for those in the House who weren't around for UIGEA?

meleader2

06-22-2007, 03:16 PM

we really really need to get Bachus out just for darwin's sake, christ he is dumb.

Richas

06-22-2007, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see her ousted also because of her crying on the House floor about her kids seeing the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident on television.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I didn't know this. My kids sneaked out of their room tonight to see me cudddling my naked wife before she got ready to go out.

I'll give you 2-1 that her kids need therapy and mine don't. What would she do if her kids found her in such a compromising position - nervous breakdown?

ChrisAJ

06-22-2007, 07:03 PM

Might want to check their percentages in the '04 elections as well.

Tuff_Fish

06-22-2007, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
LOL, I didn't know this. My kids sneaked out of their room tonight to see me cudddling my naked wife before she got ready to go out.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reply is worthless without pics... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

CountingMyOuts

06-22-2007, 09:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see her ousted also because of her crying on the House floor about her kids seeing the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident on television.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I didn't know this. My kids sneaked out of their room tonight to see me cudddling my naked wife before she got ready to go out.

I'll give you 2-1 that her kids need therapy and mine don't. What would she do if her kids found her in such a compromising position - nervous breakdown?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since they share her genes, I'll pass on that bet. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I saw a YouTube clip of Wilson's performance just prior to the Congressional elections. Pathetically funny.

TheEngineer

06-22-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Might want to check their percentages in the '04 elections as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go for it. Should be interesting data.

ChrisAJ

06-23-2007, 10:40 AM

58% Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54% (not 54 – 51.8% in 2006)
65% John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%
-- Brian Bilbray (R-CA) 53.2%
51% Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) 45.6%
52% Chris Shays (R-CT) 50.9%
61% Ric Keller (R-FL) 52.8%
63% Jim Marshall (D-GA) 50.5%
52% John Barrow (D-GA) 50.3%
52% Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
64% Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%
69% Mark Souder (R-IN) 54.3%
55% Leonard Boswell (D-IA) 51.8%
54% Geoff Davis (R-KY) 51.7%
79% William Jefferson (D-LA) 30.1% (56.6% in run-off)
50% Charlie Melancon (D-LA) 55.0%
58% Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) 51.6%
57% Thad McCotter (R) 54.1%
61% Lee Terry (R-NE) 54.7%
57% Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) 49.4%
54% Heather Wilson (R-NM) 50.2%
90% Jim Walsh (R-NY) 50.8% (token opposition, no D in ’04)
56% Tom Reynolds (R-NY) 52.0%
51% Randy Kuhl (R-NY) 51.5%
56% Robin Hayes (R-NC) 50.1%
60% Steve Chabot (R-OH) 52.3%
52% Jean Schmidt (R-OH) 50.5% (the 52% was a ’05 special election, preceeding Rep., Rob Portman, regularly chalked up 75-25 wins)
60% Deborah Pryce (R-OH) 50.2%
53% Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 54.0%
60% Phil English (R-PA) 53.6%
51% Jim Gerlach (R-PA) 50.7%
59% Charles Dent (R-PA) 53.6%
55% Thelma Drake (R-VA) 51.3%
52% Dave Reichert (R-WA) 51.5%
55% Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 48.3%

Numbers to the left are '04 percentages.

Many of the Rs on this list were caught napping in '06, with many disregarding party warnings that they were in danger of losing. They will be much better prepared next year.

The Ds will also have to spend a lot of time and resources defending freshmen who won in districts that lean R, voted for Bush twice, etc.

spatne

06-23-2007, 05:46 PM

Robin Hayes (NC-08) is a top target this cycle. Hayes will get a rematch from Larry Kissel, who I believe came within 400 votes of winning despite being outspent 4 to 1 and getting next to no support from the DCCC. The DCCC overlooked Kissell when they were doling out cash during the stretch run, missed a chance to put him over the top, and looked pretty foolish when the votes were counted. Kissell will probably get anything he wants/needs this time around, so look for a very competitive challenge.

TheEngineer

06-24-2007, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
58% Rick Renzi (R-AZ) 54% (not 54 – 51.8% in 2006)
65% John Doolittle (R-CA) 49.9%.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Nice job. The data looks great. It shows that we're barking up the right tree. Almost all had tough challenges in '04 as well as '06, so they're almost always in a tough fight. As such, they may be more inclined to listen to their constituents than would someone who wins by 78% every time. Also, they're typically draw tough challengers, keeping them vulnerable.

PokeReader

06-26-2007, 04:47 AM

Since this is what I do, I would be happy to put a list together. Just PM the bill numbers of the votes I should be using for the for/against standard, and I will be happy to put together a list of the most vunerable seats. The NCEC numbers won't be out for a while now, but if I use D perf for last two cycles, and previous two elections results, with a bonus to high swing numbers we will get a good solid list. What I need to know also is how many House and Senate, and if you could get me PPA numbers per House district that would be helpful. If there is any additional considerations you would like for for/against status let me know. I realize we don't really have the cleanest votes. After that we can start scoping out the challengers in those districts.

By the way, the whole PAC idea I think is what has to happen, but while I can help alot with that, setting up, fundraising, press, grassroot for PAC is a full time job at least. I cannot work for candidate then get publicly involved as a person running a PAC. So, I can do work behind the scenes, I can set things up and organize them and do the strategic work, give you press contacts, train folks in fundraising and stuff, but I can't call anyone myself, and I can't have my name used. I'm really sorry, I'd like to help more, but it wouldn't be fair to the person paying my salary.

Is there anyone else with any political experience, or if not a willing person with available time. Most of my campaign hires aren't experienced, so I'm sure we could train some people into being operatives if they were willing and able to put time into the PAC project. The key will really be the fundraising aspect. We will really need someone/s with contacts into both live and online players. They would need to be aggressive, not take no for an answer types. Because without the cash the whole thing just doesn't work.

DrewOnTilt

06-26-2007, 08:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Rep. Bachus was unopposed in 2002, 2004, and 2006! (WTF is with the people in that district???) Bush won 78% of that district's vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to live in his district. It is undoubtedly the most conservative, Bible-belted district in the country. It is highly unlikely that a non-Republican will ever win a seat in that district, and it is a virtual certainty that no one friendly to our cause will ever win a seat. Bachus is a moronic bung hole, but I am afraid that we are stuck with him. Focus your efforts elsewhere.

Teldar

06-27-2007, 04:25 PM

This is a good discussion. I want to make a couple of points. First, if we are going to try to "Leach" some of these incumbents we better make darn sure that the candidate that replaces them is better on our issues, not worse.

Second, in regards to PokeReader, I am willing to devote a little time to this but it certainly wouldn't be full time. I know how to sell over the phone (I run a very successful retained search firm) and would be very good at fundraising. Why don't you IM me and we can have a discussion off line.

TheEngineer

06-27-2007, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good discussion. I want to make a couple of points. First, if we are going to try to "Leach" some of these incumbents we better make darn sure that the candidate that replaces them is better on our issues, not worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. I agree with the point you're trying to make, which to know the challengers. However, freshmen have little power in the House, so oftentimes we'll be better off with a new anti-gambling guy than the incumbant anti-gambling guy, especially if the new guy isn't an anti-gambling zealot. For example, Dave Loebsack is FAR better than Jim Leach. We'll have to look race-by-race once there are some declared challengers, I guess.

Teldar

06-27-2007, 08:33 PM

Engineer,
My point is there are a ton of races we can fund but we will have somewhat limited resources. I would prefer to invest a significant amount of our money in 5-10 races where we can make an impact on a race that will definitely turn an opponent to a supporter then to spread that same money over 50 races where 40 of them are only marginally better and it puts our best 5-10 races at risk because we didn't donate enough to them.

TheEngineer

06-27-2007, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,
My point is there are a ton of races we can fund but we will have somewhat limited resources. I would prefer to invest a significant amount of our money in 5-10 races where we can make an impact on a race that will definitely turn an opponent to a supporter then to spread that same money over 50 races where 40 of them are only marginally better and it puts our best 5-10 races at risk because we didn't donate enough to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. My original post says we should make a list of ten or so vulnerable pro-UIGEA representatives. Again, that's just the list. Of these, I imagine we'd be actually put our focus on some fraction of these.

PokeReader

06-28-2007, 02:21 AM

Actually about ten house seats and eight or less senate races are about industry standard for groups without huge resources, but not tiny ones. One of the big factor this cycle though will be a huge number of R retirements. They haven't been announced yet, but we could get a guess at some of them by the fundraising totals. My general point is that everyone knows that there will be a ton a R retirements as many senior Republicans who are unwilling to deal with the prospect of years as a minority retire. The number one factor determining whether a seat is vunerable is whether it is open or not. So a rash of R retirements might force us to try to come up with the resources to support a larger target list. Senate seats are much more expensive, so we might want to contribute, but not super target any Senate seats. It all depends on resources.

And this needs to start sooner than later, as direct mail fundraising especially has a significant time lag to full profitability. As I said, I am happy to do the target list, that is easy enough if you get me the stuff I asked for, but for this to really mean something we will need some people to spend to time on this.

Perhaps we could start a separate thread on the project - asking for people who are willing to help with press, internet, fundraising, field, legislative coordination - and if we get some interest we could post some similar threads on other poker sites? If anyone has any other ideas I'm all ears? Once we know we are going forward we should obviously get somebody to do a website and that can drive more traffic, but first I think we need to be sure we can administer the project.

TheEngineer

06-28-2007, 07:54 AM

I think the Republican retirements will help us a lot, especially one ones outside the South, as their replacements will be more likely to be on our side (or at least not vehemently against us).

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I am happy to do the target list, that is easy enough if you get me the stuff I asked for, but for this to really mean something we will need some people to spend to time on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for offering to help. I'll try to get the information you asked for over the weekend. HR 4777 and HR 4411 are the pertinent pieces of legislation, but we'll need other qualifiers to determine what a vote for these bills really means (rabidly anti-gambling, against unregulated gambling, against untaxed gambling, just going with the flow, etc). I don't know what those qualifiers are right now. For my list, I used public statements and congressional web pages (i.e., Bachus brags about getting UIGEA passed). I'll continue to check.

As for setting up a PAC, can you give us more info on how a group as small as ours (maybe 100 regular Legislation forum posters) does that? You sound confident that we can do it, and I have no experience in this area, so I'm trying to see how so few can do so much. It sounds very ambitious. I know I try to exceed what people think they can do by a little bit in the Action Item thread, but a PAC seems to be an order of magnitude (or more) above that.

Also, we do have an organization representing us... the PPA. They could be much better, especially in motivating their base, but they do have membership and an organization. I tried to open discussion to getting 2p2 posters (not 2+2 LLC, the owners of the board; rather, the community of posters, who are not owned by 2+2 LLC) to join and demand action. After all, we're active enough to take charge of various aspects of their organization. Unfortunately, that discussion didn't go so well.

What do you think? Should 100 of us start from stratch with a new PAC? Can we be effective? And, can we do all this part-time and still get it off the ground?

Thanks.

Teldar

06-28-2007, 08:24 AM

Engineer,
I think we can. If PokeReader can take care of the filing and set up aspect of the PAC which is something that requires expertise, then it just comes down to fundraising and picking the proper races. Those two activities don't require political savvy, just effort. I am prepared to help on the fundraising efforts and I am willing to kick in the first $500-$1,000. Why don't you and PokeReader PM me. BTW, are either of you two going to the WSOP ME next week? If so, we can get together and chat.

Jeff

oldbookguy

06-28-2007, 08:40 AM

Engineer, I am in though I have (you may post the idea I presented to you).
It is a good idea, just more than I can undertake.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Republican retirements will help us a lot, especially one ones outside the South, as their replacements will be more likely to be on our side (or at least not vehemently against us).

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I am happy to do the target list, that is easy enough if you get me the stuff I asked for, but for this to really mean something we will need some people to spend to time on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for offering to help. I'll try to get the information you asked for over the weekend. HR 4777 and HR 4411 are the pertinent pieces of legislation, but we'll need other qualifiers to determine what a vote for these bills really means (rabidly anti-gambling, against unregulated gambling, against untaxed gambling, just going with the flow, etc). I don't know what those qualifiers are right now. For my list, I used public statements and congressional web pages (i.e., Bachus brags about getting UIGEA passed). I'll continue to check.

As for setting up a PAC, can you give us more info on how a group as small as ours (maybe 100 regular Legislation forum posters) does that? You sound confident that we can do it, and I have no experience in this area, so I'm trying to see how so few can do so much. It sounds very ambitious. I know I try to exceed what people think they can do by a little bit in the Action Item thread, but a PAC seems to be an order of magnitude (or more) above that.

Also, we do have an organization representing us... the PPA. They could be much better, especially in motivating their base, but they do have membership and an organization. I tried to open discussion to getting 2p2 posters (not 2+2 LLC, the owners of the board; rather, the community of posters, who are not owned by 2+2 LLC) to join and demand action. After all, we're active enough to take charge of various aspects of their organization. Unfortunately, that discussion didn't go so well.

What do you think? Should 100 of us start from stratch with a new PAC? Can we be effective? And, can we do all this part-time and still get it off the ground?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

tangled

06-28-2007, 10:27 AM

I have two thoughts concerning a possible PAC. The second one is admittedly over the top, so if anyone wants to laugh or flame, go ahead. At least I will have gotten it out of my mind.

The first is: if we could raise beaucoup dollars, should we consider -also- starting a defense fund that would target challenge the illegality of poker in the courts based upon the skill or equal-protection arguments that have so effectively been presented on this forum.

The second thought is: should we consider funding the PAC and its mandate through poker itself. For example, what about holding poker tournaments, either live or online, that would raise money for our non-profit group. We could run the tournaments, even the online ones, right here on US soil, as long as we only ask for donations, not require them. (I’m pretty sure this would be legal ???). Most people who might want to play in the tournament wouldn’t have a problem donating a small amount to something they agree with. We also could almost insure participants would donate, if we want , by just making it a lot easier and convenient for those who donate to register for the tournaments. We could also have as many or as few tournaments as we want. We could even give away prizes if we want as long as donations are voluntary (again, I think this is true???)

I am not familiar with funding laws for PACs, but I think we could even ask Party or another site that has been locked out of the US market, but wants back in, to help fund the start up for the tournaments, provide software, and even donate prizes.

I don’t know if this would raise a great deal of money or not, but maybe.

There would, potentially, be other benefits to having tourneys too. Tournaments could help us to identify, gather, educate and mobilize a great number of people. There is probably a million+ people out there that have played online poker or who have thought about it. They would be sympathetic towards our goals. Most people, it seems to me, even otherwise apathetic people, will take activist actions if you can get them to invest something towards the cause you are advocating. By donating, say $5 dollars, and then playing in a tournament, these people would be inclined to take another step, like voting for friends of our cause. Also during the tournaments, and through e-mails after the tournaments, we could educate people who in Congress supports us, and who doesn’t.

Another possible benefit might be that a tournament will help us to get exposure for our political argument. For example, if you were to call a newspaper and complain about the restrictions on internet poker, they will tell you to write a letter, maybe they will print it. But a poker tournament is an event, and events stand a good chance of being reported on. And, of course, they will want to know why we are holding a tournament -- so we tell them. There was a charity poker tourney here awhile back, and it received front page coverage, and was reported on all day, on radio.

Poker tournaments are used often nowadays to fund a variety of causes. Why not use this device for the benefit of poker itself?

PokeReader

06-28-2007, 10:40 AM

Quick note after sending a PM to Teldar. Setting up the PAC in a legal sense is easy. Keeping it maintaining, i.e., somebody taking the legal responsibility to be Treas. and keep the bank records and file the reports, not too hard, but has some minor liability and intermittant work and somebody will need to do that. Someone will also need to sign up to be Pres., it would be nice if we could get someone somewhat well known.

The harder work is the fundraising and grassroots organizing. I will be happy to put together training packages for this, and talk people through it, and if we get pretty far I would consider a training weekend or something of the sort - but the timing would be a nightmare. Somebody will also need to put up a fairly skilled web site - I might be able to get someone to do that gratis. I don't have any applicable fundraising software for this - but we should be fine running out of Access - I can set that up. I can also set up a customized access database for field ops, for the targeted campaigns. I don't suppose we can get a district count of 2+2 members?

I talked to the PPA and another Poker lobbying group about this sort of thing. PPA really did not have any strategic plan. I would be much more comfortable starting up a new organization, and I think we would avoid the managerial conflicts with PPA and the problems many players have with it. One of the problems with the PPA is that they hired R lobbying firms, which was fine was before the switch, but after the switch they still hired R firms and all R people. Not smart when the people you need to get to repeal your leg are D's.

But I know Engineer is a key person with them, and hopefully he can get us a membership district breakdown, if not a list. Honestly, we don't intend to lobby, just add to the polical strength for repeal, so hopefully if they were willing to believe we were for real someday we could get the list. It would be nice to see somebody fundraising it effectively. If we do a couple of good quarters on our own we could swap lists. We will also need a name player at some point, someone people will recognize, for fundraising and for credibility.

Feel free to volunteer if you just have some time, even you don't have a speciality. We don't need that many people spending alot of time. MoveOn.Org went from nothing to political force in no time, and still has one full time staffer. The important thing is that we create a way to connect all the pissed off poker players and give them a place to direct that anger into political action.

Wow, not really quick.

CountingMyOuts

06-28-2007, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I talked to the PPA and another Poker lobbying group about this sort of thing. PPA really did not have any strategic plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always have the feeling that they have their own agenda and it I'm not sure what interests are being served and this does not change those feelings. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Keep up the good work, PokeReader!

oldbookguy

06-28-2007, 06:00 PM

This idea seems to be catching on, it is a good one.

It needs and deserves its own thread now.

Again, count me in, I am retired and have some free time.

obg

TheEngineer

06-28-2007, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But I know Engineer is a key person with them, and hopefully he can get us a membership district breakdown, if not a list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry....I'm not a key person at PPA at all. Just one of 600,000 members.

Merkle

06-28-2007, 09:14 PM

Damn. I wasn't planning on another fight with feds, but I like the direction this thread is going. Let me know what a volunteer can do to be helpful.

PokeReader

06-29-2007, 06:06 AM

Look, on second thought I really think we should set up a 527 group, thus keeping donors and amounts shielded, and we won't have contribution limits. The only limitation we will take on is not being able to say vote for or vote against in advertisements we pay for. Much better idea. Will just have to fill IRS paperwork.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Since this is what I do, I would be happy to put a list together. Just PM the bill numbers of the votes I should be using for the for/against standard, and I will be happy to put together a list of the most vunerable seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here's what I have.

Key criteria:

Brags about leading effort to ban Internet gambling on his/her website
Supported H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
Supported H.R. 4777 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Supported any act starting with "Internet Gambling Prohibition.."
Supported the June 2003 bill banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Last name is Goodlatte, Kyl, or Bachus /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Supported S 692, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Kyl).
Supported HR 3125, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Goodlatte).
Supported HR 4419, Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act (Leach).
Supported HR 2380 (105th), the Goodlatte ban
Supported S 474 (105th), the Kyl ban
>90% ratings from the Christian Coalition and/or FoF (filtered for social issues)

Again, challenges are in determining who's gung-ho to ban this, and who is going with the flow. I posted some filtered info on my Future of Online Poker in the USA (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) thread.

ChrisAJ

07-02-2007, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since this is what I do, I would be happy to put a list together. Just PM the bill numbers of the votes I should be using for the for/against standard, and I will be happy to put together a list of the most vunerable seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here's what I have.

Key criteria:

Brags about leading effort to ban Internet gambling on his/her website
Supported H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
Supported H.R. 4777 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Supported any act starting with "Internet Gambling Prohibition.."
Supported the June 2003 bill banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Last name is Goodlatte, Kyl, or Bachus /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Supported S 692, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Kyl).
Supported HR 3125, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Goodlatte).
Supported HR 4419, Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act (Leach).
Supported HR 2380 (105th), the Goodlatte ban
Supported S 474 (105th), the Kyl ban
>90% ratings from the Christian Coalition and/or FoF (filtered for social issues)

Again, challenges are in determining who's gung-ho to ban this, and who is going with the flow. I posted some filtered info on my Future of Online Poker in the USA (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how many Democrats would get caught in this net if not for the last criteria.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since this is what I do, I would be happy to put a list together. Just PM the bill numbers of the votes I should be using for the for/against standard, and I will be happy to put together a list of the most vunerable seats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here's what I have.

Key criteria:

Brags about leading effort to ban Internet gambling on his/her website
Supported H.R. 4411 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
Supported H.R. 4777 [109th]: Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
Supported any act starting with "Internet Gambling Prohibition.."
Supported the June 2003 bill banning Internet gambling by credit card.
Last name is Goodlatte, Kyl, or Bachus /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Supported S 692, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Kyl).
Supported HR 3125, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 (Goodlatte).
Supported HR 4419, Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act (Leach).
Supported HR 2380 (105th), the Goodlatte ban
Supported S 474 (105th), the Kyl ban
>90% ratings from the Christian Coalition and/or FoF (filtered for social issues)

Again, challenges are in determining who's gung-ho to ban this, and who is going with the flow. I posted some filtered info on my Future of Online Poker in the USA (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10532519&an=0&page=0#Pos t10532519) thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how many Democrats would get caught in this net if not for the last criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria are not mutually exclusive, so some should get caught in it. However, while the majority of House Democrats did vote for HR 4411 last year, it's hard to put many of them on the "zealot" list (Maxine Waters is. In the Senate, Feinstein is a Democrat who jumps out).

A big challenge is finding a Republican pro-Internet gaming rights challenger for a Democrat not with us. In fact, it's been the opposite, like how we're better off with Loebsack than with Leach.

I strive to keep our efforts nonpartisan, but the facts are what they are.

Legislurker

07-02-2007, 04:18 PM

I don't think being non-partisan will help, but I think we are regardless. What we NEED to be is anti-incumbent. If we don't have some regulation or status quo we can live with by next november, we need scalps. If its all Republicans, it wont really matter, but if we can't say hey, Representaive [censored] ChristaNazi Panderer lost by 500 votes, and we had 1000 poker players vote against him and donate tens of thousands to his opponent, then we did nothing. We need letters(Oct-Nov 08), near election phone calls, and documentable poker donations.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think being non-partisan will help, but I think we are regardless. What we NEED to be is anti-incumbent. If we don't have some regulation or status quo we can live with by next november, we need scalps. If its all Republicans, it wont really matter, but if we can't say hey, Representaive [censored] ChristaNazi Panderer lost by 500 votes, and we had 1000 poker players vote against him and donate tens of thousands to his opponent, then we did nothing. We need letters(Oct-Nov 08), near election phone calls, and documentable poker donations.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say we're non-partisan, I mean we're not aligned with a party. I don't mean we're trying to keep things even between parties. We're clearly going to oppose far more Republicans than Democrats just by the nature of the office holders.

As for what we need to do, please continue to participate in the Action Item thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9946416&an=0&page=0#Post 9946416), both in actions and in planning.

PokeReader

07-02-2007, 07:39 PM

Alright, then what we are clearly going to need to do is take all incumbents for whom we have no clear status, (self-declared standing on internet poker), and make a large list for people whose district they are in to write and ask about the issue. That will hopefully get us most Congressmen/Senators, and then we will have to pick the rest up when we send out questionnaires closer to the election. If you can try to get the PPA district count I will do the target list blind, (so we can see the most vunerable members), and we will decide pro and cons more throughly at a later date. Sorry, I'm still a bit squashed right now, end of quarter, (fundraising). Should be better in a couple of days.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 09:11 PM

Cool, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can try to get the PPA district count

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that? The number of members per district? I can try to get some info, but please keep in mind that I have no capacity at PPA, other than as a member.

PokeReader

07-02-2007, 09:28 PM

Yes, if we can get a count of the number of PPA members broken down by Congressional district it will help up know what grassroots resources we would have available if we targeted that district.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 09:43 PM

I have no reason to assume they'll provide the info, but I suppose I can ask. If they do provide it, I don't know how we'll be able to use that info, as we don't have access to their mailing lists. Do you think you can get them to give us that?

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 09:49 PM

Also, I hope we can do this. Thanks for the preliminary advising. So, how many volunteers and how much money will we realistically need for this effort?

PokeReader

07-02-2007, 10:08 PM

Well, more is always better, will always get you more. However, even 10 dedicated volunteers in a Cong. campaign can make a difference. Money is another thing. Generally, if they are in a more expensive media market it will be a more expensive campaign, also open seats are more expensive. If in a combination of ways we could get a minimum of 25K in a House seat, that would make a difference. We would also need money to run the operation.

Bilgefisher

07-02-2007, 10:31 PM

Didn't read the whole thread, my apologize if this is a repeat. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) is not very popular here. She only won when her opponent ran out of funds. Be wary though, this district may be a lost cause for finding someone in our favor. This is a fairly conservative area. She represents Northern Colorado. Fort Collins, Loveland..etc.

TheEngineer

07-02-2007, 10:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, more is always better, will always get you more. However, even 10 dedicated volunteers in a Cong. campaign can make a difference. Money is another thing. Generally, if they are in a more expensive media market it will be a more expensive campaign, also open seats are more expensive. If in a combination of ways we could get a minimum of 25K in a House seat, that would make a difference. We would also need money to run the operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info. Now we know what we'll need if we decide to go down this road.

Berge20

07-03-2007, 09:42 AM

Curious as to why you think a 527 is a better way to go than a PAC for this type of effort.

PokeReader

07-03-2007, 12:13 PM

527 can get unlimited donations, (soft money). A PAC is limited to 5K per person per year,, (and then they can't be fed maxed), and you have hard/soft splits. Also, your donor list public with a PAC and although the law was changed a bit, donors are still pretty much shielded with 527's. Considering some politicians would potentially have political problems taking money from some of our donors, it is just another reason that 527 is much better. Also, the pros could dump huge contributions to us this way, no max. In fact, all the powerful groups are more 527's than anything else. We might eventually form a PAC and get bundling reg. also, that is typical development. That way we can get people hard money and run direct advocacy ads, but scale should be first priority.

KDawg

07-03-2007, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Melissa Bean (D-IL) 50.9%
Mark Kirk (R-IL) 53.4%

[/ QUOTE ]

With Bean's district, we're kind of screwed either way because her opponent David McSweeny would be even more against us(this is a guy who is both socially and financially conservative, not a good combo for us).

I live in Kirk's district, and it will be hard to unseat him. It was very close this year, but this district is traditionally republican even though lately it has been leaning more democrat. I don't know how much a letter campaign would do for us because this district doesn't include evanston (which is where northwestern is located at). THe vast majority that live in this district are 35+ and have a family, or are elderly living in very nice retirement homes/communities. I've sent Kirk a couple of letters and have gotten stock answers from them (I voted against kirk regardless because I have other issues with his voting record)

PokeReader

07-03-2007, 01:07 PM

Note: I don't want a letter campaign. We just don't have good votes, i.e. know who is really against us and how much. What I want is someone in districts where we don't know where the incumbent stands to write in asking, (not even sounding pro-interent poker, prob better to sound neutral), so we get a letter back stating their intentions and can mark them off. Later in the campaign season we can send out a detailed questionnaire with all the shades of grey to fully sound out people, but we need the basics to get a basic target list. Maybe Engineer could work on a sample letter, neutral, asking about a range of internet poker issues? We probably won't get many that will answer in detail, but anything is better than nothing. Then we can create a sign up list, 1 per district. Sound alright?

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
..... we can create a sign up list, 1 per district. Sound alright?

[/ QUOTE ]

We'd better find out how many people we have.

PokeReader

07-03-2007, 05:25 PM

They only need to send one letter at this point. But I'm find with the poll.

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I don't want a letter campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we get more people and more money, we can probably expand beyond letter writing and other advocacy typical of smaller groups. For now, the letter writing is laying the foundation for our future advocacy efforts, so let's continue that until we're ready to air commercials or some other such thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Engineer could work on a sample letter, neutral, asking about a range of internet poker issues?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been pretty busy with the work I've been doing to date. Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

[ QUOTE ]
We probably won't get many that will answer in detail, but anything is better than nothing. Then we can create a sign up list, 1 per district. Sound alright?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll need around 3,000 people (10 per district X 300 or so of the 435 districts) and $10 million ($25K per district plus money to run the organization?

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They only need to send one letter at this point. But I'm find with the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking about later on. You said we'll need 10 dedicated volunteers and $25K per district. I think it's doable if we get some forward momentum now, as we may be able to get some contributions from the primary beneficiaries of the legislation (Harrah's, MGM, etc) if we show there is potential to make this happen. That will enable us to get volunteers, which will enable us to get more money, and so on.

Berge20

07-03-2007, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
527 can get unlimited donations, (soft money). A PAC is limited to 5K per person per year,, (and then they can't be fed maxed), and you have hard/soft splits. Also, your donor list public with a PAC and although the law was changed a bit, donors are still pretty much shielded with 527's. Considering some politicians would potentially have political problems taking money from some of our donors, it is just another reason that 527 is much better. Also, the pros could dump huge contributions to us this way, no max. In fact, all the powerful groups are more 527's than anything else. We might eventually form a PAC and get bundling reg. also, that is typical development. That way we can get people hard money and run direct advocacy ads, but scale should be first priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree, but you really have to be sure you can raise the necessary funds to get what you need done. Media production and buys aren't cheap--unlimited contributions aren't a guarantee that the money will flow in, particularly with a completely new organization with limited track record.

PACs have a lower total dollar threashold to be able to serve their purpose--which I think may be a slightly different animal. I'd say they would serve more to further legitimize (in the minds of some legislators inside the beltway) organizations advocating for change in this area.

Either, done properly, would definately help the cause.

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They only need to send one letter at this point. But I'm find with the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one other thing we can do in the mean time. PPA already exists, and they have almost 600,000 members. They member outreach has been nonexistent, to say the least. If they would only send out an occasional email asking for us to do anything, they'd really be heard.

I really think we should, in conjuction with examining the feasibility of starting a more active 527, consider raising our voices over there to strongly encourage them use their member strength. They actually do have to listen to their membership. Why don't we start demanding action, both on their forums and via email? I've been posting over there for a month now (it's been a lonely experience). Let's post a few "dammit guys, let's get going" posts, okay? It's at http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewforum.php?f=2 .

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 07:18 PM

Thread demanding action, at PPA site, at Request for more member outreach by PPA (http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewtopic.php?t=1607).

oldbookguy

07-03-2007, 07:19 PM

A good idea, I tried posting there are well, little or no result.

E-mailing them, all I get is a letter response from someone named 'Josh' that my e-mail is being forwarded to the PPA president and that seems to be the end of it.

Yes, if they received MANY e-mails from members it may help although I get the feeling the PPA prefers working alone.

obg

TheEngineer

07-03-2007, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if they received MANY e-mails from members it may help although I get the feeling the PPA prefers working alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually not up to them. It's up to the membership. I've exchanged a few emails with several higher-ups there (I'm not active there....just a member looking at potential). I think they are trying to figure out what to do with the members. I hope we'll help them to make that decision sooner than later. If we could activate the 600,000 members, we'd be huge! I posted a poll on the PPA board. Let's all drop in and vote.

oldbookguy

07-03-2007, 09:06 PM

Will do in a few, in a tourney.

obg

Skallagrim

07-04-2007, 10:47 AM

All great ideas above, and all poker players owe some thanks for the effort. I have been really busy last few weeks and also am leaving today for a 10 day European vacation /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But when I get back you can count on my continued support, and any efforts I can perform as an attorney, I will do for free (only limited by my free time). KEEP IT GOING FOLKS!

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

07-04-2007, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All great ideas above, and all poker players owe some thanks for the effort. I have been really busy last few weeks and also am leaving today for a 10 day European vacation /images/graemlins/smile.gif. But when I get back you can count on my continued support, and any efforts I can perform as an attorney, I will do for free (only limited by my free time). KEEP IT GOING FOLKS!

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks! I'll participate as much as possible as well. I think it's doable. We'll need more people than we have here, and we'll need more money than we have as a group. If we get some successes over the next few months, we can probably use that track record and momentum to gain both.

Enjoy your trip.

Bilgefisher

07-04-2007, 11:48 AM

Eng

I like the idea of pushing the PPA to activate its members. 600,000 members are useless if their voice is nothing more then the squeak of a mouse. They have a forum that has no active membership, heck even the site admin has less then 86 posts.

Many folks have asked for action before, I'm not sure why the PPA hasn't gotten the ball rolling. I'm hoping they have an agenda in mind. I really hope the inaction is not because they don't know how to utilize their members. Its not like they are trailblazing here, many other grassroots organizations have already shown them the way.

So I ask this, how do we convince the PPA to activate its members and turn this mouse squeak into a lion's roar?

TheEngineer

07-04-2007, 12:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So I ask this, how do we convince the PPA to activate its members and turn this mouse squeak into a lion's roar?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your comments. I think we should all go to their forum and express our thoughts. I posted a thread there, at Request for more member outreach by PPA (http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewtopic.php?t=1607&start=0&postdays=0&postorder= asc&highlight=). Also, we should all email them at email@pokerplayersalliance.org and ask them to email their membership with specific actions for us to take. They've always replied to my inquiries. This hasn't translated to action, but they do read email and reply.

MinRaise

07-04-2007, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R, OH-15) voted "yea" for HR4411. She was reelected by only a few hundred votes in the last election and there was a recount. She has Ohio State University as part of her district.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, great target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm late to this thread. I only check this forum once a week or so.

Anyways, I live in this district on campus (not an OSU student however). I do know a lot of students, several of which play poker. If this district is targeted, I would be happy to help.

A few notes about this district though. Columbus is a fairly moderate city, but the districts are gerrymandered horribly in favor of Republicans. Price got smoked in Columbus last election (like 70% for her opponent IIRC), but still won thanks to the very conservative rural counties included in this district. See picture below. The key will be getting the high turnout even higher on campus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/OH15_109.PNG

Price has also moved considerably toward the center since the last election, and she was fairly moderate before that. I think an e-mail campaign from OSU students may be effective to get an idea if she may change her mind on this issue. She certainly is feeling the heat still from her very narrow victory.

I will e-mail her this weekend and let everyone know if I get any kind of meaningful response.