Harrah's and AGA lobbyng efforts

[mhcmarty]

According to the AP, AGA spent $900,000 and Harrah's spent $100,000 in the 1st half of 2007 to "lobby on online gambling, tax legislation affecting casinos and other matters"

Is it safe to assume these efforts are to move towards regulating the industry? Does anybody have any knowledge of what they would be trying to accomplish?

[Legislurker]

Cash transaction reporting in casinos is a bitch, and costs them a lot of money. I would think the lion's share went there. That's not huge money for them, but who knows where its going. The study bill maybe. Submarining WTO compromise?
You need more information on who was lobbied and where the checks went.

[oldbookguy]

The money has born fruit already, somewhere there was a story, is Regulation Coming and it centered on new cash / other transaction reporting rules that favor B&M and online as well were online regulated.

Sorry, I forget who had the story but the regulation was posted on the www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) site a month + ago.

obg

[hollaballa]

MGM and the AGA has said many times they want a study bill. In fact, i know a study bill is part of the plan for MGM (meaning that's what they want).

They want a study bill partly so they'll have time to prepare to enter the market.

Remember, you can google the head of the AGA who's made several statements like "no chance in hell" and "poker players are sadly mistaken", etc regarding Frank's bill and the thought that the ban is just going to get over turned.

The guy was the head of the republican national convention for like 15 years.....I think he knows politics.

I've posted it several times the last week. The study bill is the only think the big casinos are interested in.

There are many reasons, with one being... if a study bill passes, then the study comes back good for online gaming....then regulations have to be written. The big casinos certainly want to have a BIG influence on those regulations....they want to make sure its a "highly regulated" business.....which means tough barrier to entry....which means no competition......

I've seen one comment from the big B&M's that said basically they don't think anyone who doesn't already have a gaming license should be able to get one just for internet gaming. I doubt that will happen, but we'll see.

All this relates back to why the AGA says "no chance in hell" in regards to frank's bill, etc.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I've posted it several times the last week. The study bill is the only think the big casinos are interested in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many threads are you planning to hijack with this? Sorry, but we won't give up just because you keep trying to get us to. We don't give a rat's ass what the head of the AGA thinks. You know, we have a lot of smart people here as well.

This is about a movement for freedom and liberty, not a quick fix. We'll live if IGREA doesn't pass this year, you know. We'll still have the status quo, which we've helped to preserve with our advocacy. Sorry, but we're not particularly impressed with the fact that you read someone else's opinion on the Internet. Thanks for sharing, though.

[MiltonFriedman]

I agree with hollaballa.

You are referring to Frank Farhenkopf (sp?). I recall speaking to him a couple of years ago. He kept saying that the then-Goodlatte effort to ban online gaming was a cooperative one between the religious Right and the Democratic Left. Yeah, right Frank.

Well, I have a lot of respect for what Frank and the AGA may say, but keep in mind they have their own agenda and will readily portray matters to their own advantage, such as whether a particular bill has "a chance in Hell".

Regulatory Efforts of the AGA CAN help online poker:

As for the Brick & Mortar lobbying, the effort to change cash transaction reporting rules WAS beneficial to the likelihood that regulations under UIGE Act can be lightened. The key to the relaxed "cash reporting rules" was that the "cash" originated under the already 'know-your-customer" regulated banking system. This point was seized upon in crtiquing the UIGEA by Barney Frank, it can go a long way toward justifying loose UIGE Act regs, thanks to the AGA efforts on their own behalf ......

Why does this not regiater on the PPA radar ?

BUT does the PPA think this is important ? No, perhaps because it does not "build membership" or put money in lobbyists pockets perhaps ?

Milton

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[MiltonFriedman]

No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should support THAT bill.

I agree with his assesment rather of what the politics of the AGA are.

In his post above he does NOT advocate his usual conclusion, of roll over and play dead. Rather he offers only information as to what a part of the political landscape feels. I agree that his description is largely accurate.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should support THAT bill.

I agree with his assesment rather of what the politics of the AGA are.

In his post above he does NOT advocate his usual conclusion, of roll over and play dead. Rather he offers only information as to what a part of the political landscape feels. I agree that his description is largely accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pretty sure you weren't agreeing that we should only support the study bill.

I still think we should all focus on our political position. Congress just needs to know we support the right to play poker online. They aren't differentiating our positions on various bills, to be honest. If we blast away in support of our rights, we'll be better off than we were in the past, when we were surprisingly quiet.

I prefer SGPA as well, but I think we're better off both for that bill and for keeping the status quo to blast away in favor of that plus IGREA.

Again, the specifics hardly matter. If you're writing in favor of SGPA, you're doing as much as the next person writing for both IGREA and SGPA. And, supporting either of these helps the study bill, as it shows the American people (at least some of us) are demanding this.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should spare no effort to support THAT bill.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are poker players. My understanding of Wexler's bill is that it grants poker the same standing as any other contest of skill. meaning that anywhere you can play any skill game, you can play poker.

This is what we poker players should be striving to get into law.

Tuff

[oldbookguy]

I agree, this would clear up any confusion.

A question I have, how are the 'poker clubs' in the U S not being bothered, orther than you pay a fee and get points to play with and no RG's.

I.E. ClubUBT; ChipVault and the others?

Are they just being ignored?

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should spare no effort to support THAT bill.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are poker players. My understanding of Wexler's bill is that it grants poker the same standing as any other contest of skill. meaning that anywhere you can play any skill game, you can play poker.

This is what we poker players should be striving to get into law.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

We are. All of us.

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, first, let me say that I certainly applaud the effort you are making on many of the forums (2+2, eog, etc). You work very hard at this and I certainly respect you for that.

But, I'm just trying to add some reality into the situation.

This isn't stuff I just "read on the internet".

I'm actually in this business. I speak to some people pretty well in the know on a regular basis. I'm not just making stuff up.

It's just my opinion, and I know it's the opinion of a lot of people high up in the gaming business, that there's slim to no chance of just reversing the internet ban.

I know it's a violation of our civil rights...it was unfairly attached to the port security bill, etc.....

None of that really matters at this point. that's just reality.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, first, let me say that I certainly applaud the effort you are making on many of the forums (2+2, eog, etc). You work very hard at this and I certainly respect you for that.

But, I'm just trying to through some reality into the situation.

This isn't stuff I just "read on the internet".

I'm actually in this business. I speak to some people pretty well in the know on a regular basis. I'm not just making stuff up.

It's just my opinion, and I know it's the opinion of a lot of people high up in the gaming business, that there's slim to no chance of just reversing the internet ban.

I know it's a violation of our civil rights...it was unfairly attached to the port security bill, etc.....

None of that really matters at this point. that's just reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, there is no Internet ban on poker. Our efforts keeping that true.

Please don't take my comments personally. They're not directed at your personally. However, I do have a right to address your comments concerning what we should do, and I fundamentially disagree with your ideas of us focusing only on the study bill. We should advocate it, and we are, but I think compromising at this point is a loser. We have every right to demand our rights, and we have a right to more than a study.

You've not proven what you think is "reality". Nor have you proven that the people who know what's "really going on" really know what's going on. Just because they run stuff in Vegas doesn't mean they know diddly about Washington.

We're not fighting for a quick fix. You act like it's this year or nothing. That's a mistake. We can lay the groundwork this year, keep the status quo, and bang away next year and the year after. None of this hurts the chances of the study bill passing.

You've not addressed my point that advocating IGREA and/or SGPA does more to advocate the study bill than anything else we could do.

[Skallagrim]

While every informed opinion deserves some respect, it is silly to simply accept opinions of "those in the know" as fact. This same group of folks you speak of hollabolla predicted the UIGEA was dead in the water last year.

There are 3 key factors at work here:

1) Bush's presidency - since it is indeed highly unlikely to have a veto proof number of congresspersons on our side, I agree that a change in legislation is not going to occur until 2009. This, I believe, is one reason it has stalled: why work to pass a bill that will surely be vetoed? (that last statement reflects legislators thinking - for us any movement forward, even a vetoed bill is a good thing).

2) The WTO, Banks, and the national debt - Bush is slowly bankrupting this country (whether you support or oppose the Iraq war, paying for it by borrowing money from the Chinese is a BAD thing), and so Congress is going to have to seek revenue from somewhere, and Banks dont like paying for the UIGEA, and companies wont like the trade sanctions that will come (in one form or another) from the WTO, This is a group of allies who can easily be persuaded to side with us, because the Number of FOF "gamblng is evil" types out there is small - gambling is one of the fastest growing industries across the US right now, it clearly would not be so if the majority of americans really believed it was "evil." This economic pressure is what will insure that something will have to happen.

3) Individual rights do matter to a lot of Americans, and a lot of Americans play poker. Should the PPA ever figure out how to work even half as effectively as the NRA, we would be home free.

Put the 3 factors above together, allow for some of the machinations of big money US gaming interests to play out, and you (we) have every reason to hope that new legislation will give us back our lost rights in 2009. But to be prepared for success in 2009, we have to continue the fight through 2007 and 2008.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

And to boot Skall, I think the number of the people "in the know" about what will happen are few, roundabout 0. WTO-wise we will know by September I hope. Right now, I don't think a decision has been made in our favour, and I don't think they have a failproof "out" to shut us out. A lot depends on how that arbitration panel rules. A lot on how hard the EU, india, Japan, etc push in negotiations. We ARE spectators, but the fix just isn't in. Maybe the CEO of Harrah's or MGM would know a few days ahead of time if a deal was reached, but theres no way it would be secret for long. Any number of things could drastically change the landscape, and almost all are in our favor.

[oldbookguy]

I think we are all missing the really big picture called Cover your A**.

The trade negotiations provide that IF we can get companies to simply push back saying ban all you want except I am NOT paying for it, go to someone else.

IF enough do this, even the Kylies can say, hey, we want to but......

OK, so, what is REALLY best is regulating with strict guidelines. No, I do not want them strict but they would be.

All in all, they can tell FoF, we did our best,sorry, no, I am NOT going to give away potential jobs AND MORE seats in congress from peeved off voters who may lose jobs.

obg

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
And to boot Skall, I think the number of the people "in the know" about what will happen are few, roundabout 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, that's why I called them "opinions". No one knows what will happen.....

I just happen to side with CEO's of $10bil companies and people like the president of the AGA.

They obviously have a vested interest, but they have a realistic view (in my opinion) of how things will unfold.

Believe it or not, internet poker becoming legal would mean $1mil or more to me. Trust me I want this to happen as much as anyone else.

I'm hoping for (hoping because I think it's the best case in my opinion) a 3 year time line.

The study bill gets passed in 2008. Study happens during 2009. 2009-2010 regulations are developed. 2011 the US goes live with online poker.

I think that's a best case scenario.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all missing the really big picture called Cover your A**.

The trade negotiations provide that IF we can get companies to simply push back saying ban all you want except I am NOT paying for it, go to someone else.

IF enough do this, even the Kylies can say, hey, we want to but......

OK, so, what is REALLY best is regulating with strict guidelines. No, I do not want them strict but they would be.

All in all, they can tell FoF, we did our best,sorry, no, I am NOT going to give away potential jobs AND MORE seats in congress from peeved off voters who may lose jobs.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but GATS has provisions about "regulating" out foreign competition, and thats the beauty of the WTO for us. They US has to be adjudged in compliance before Antiqua would have to cease and desist the sanctions. Besides, I don't think the appetite is there for a vast regulatory body. Its either ban and prosecute, or back away. Bush is going to fight what he can fight, and if he can't destroy remote gaming, he will just focus elsewhere. No one thinks there will be legit, forthright, best for the consumer negotiations. Its a [censored] pissing match. Someone is going to decide too much splashed their face and back down.
Compromise for [censored] gaming were a past possibility. Either ANtigua wins, or Bush wins. If Antigua wins, we have good gaming, if Bush, well we will be beating each other up and calling each other donks all day at the .05/.10 tables are stars in a few months. The outcome won't be a middle ground of BS regs.

[JPFisher55]

I think that we need to distinguish between foreign online gambling and US based online gambling. The former could become legal with one judge interpreting the Wire Act more narrowly than the court in the Jay Cohen case. The latter will require legislation which I agree is not likely until after the Bush Administration.
But WTO pressure on key industries and companies could influence a judicial decision, lead to DOJ relaxing war on online gambling or even some other alternative, such as Rep. Wexler's bill, that provides us free, unregulated online poker in the near future.

[TheEngineer]

Gambling Companies Spent $1.3M Lobbying for Internet Regulation

www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/gambling_companies_spent_1_3m_lobbying_for_interne t_regulation_46869.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/gambling_companies_spent_1_3m_lobbying_for_interne t_regulation_46869.html)

Worldwide gambling companies spent more than $1.3 million lobbying politicians in Washington D.C. in the first half of 2007, presumably to persuade them to pass Bill HR 2046, ie. the Internet Gambling Regulation Enforcement Act.

According to our research of the US Senate of Public Records PartyGaming PLC spent $140,000, Harrah's spent $100,000, World Poker Tour spent $20,000, Station Casinos Inc. spent $60,000 and the American Gaming Association (who represents over 50 gambling companies) spent $900,000 in lobbying efforts the first half of this year.

All companies are required by federal law to release papers on their lobbying efforts every six months. The numbers for the first six months of 2007 have just started to be filed and it is apparent that there is a great deal of lobbying going on behind closed doors to persuade politicians in Washington to pass Barney Frank's bill to legalize, regulate, and tax online gambling.

Of course, it does not say what side of the issue the company is lobbying, but it is assumed that these companies who list HR 2046 as one of their efforts are lobbying for the passing of the bill because they would all benefit.

It goes without saying that PartyGaming and World Poker Tour are in favor of US legislation to legalize the industry, and Harrah's and MGM have stated earlier in the year that they would jump all over an opportunity to release their brand online to US customers.

Although many companies have a vested interest in the industry getting regulated in America, in September Casino Gambling Web representatives will head to Washington D.C. to lobby on behalf of the American people, who are desperate to gain one of the freedoms back that was stolen from them by a corrupt senator late last year.

The Casino Gambling Web reps that are headed to Washington D.C. will not be spending money to persuade politicans, rather they will be presenting facts about the industry to politicians and aids in hopes of enlightening them about the issue.

August 24, 2007
Posted By Larry Rutherford
Staff Editor, CasinoGamblingWeb.com