This is positive, if true .... Poker-specific lobbying on the Hill

[TruePoker CEO]

Poker: As American as Apple Pie

Between them, they've won millions of dollars and countless poker tournaments with their tricks and strategy, but when the game's Big Three storm Washington next week to fight an online gambling ban, they won't be bluffing about how bad the impact could be. To stop the steamrolling legislation, poker royalty Greg Raymer, Chris Ferguson, and Howard Lederer will meet this week with lawmakers, staff, and even war vets at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to build support for online gambling.

from US NEWS

[PocketAces]

What makes you think legislators who determined to ban online gambling are going to listen to those guys, as opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, for example?

Without Abramoff to stand in the way, it's more likely than not that the legislation will pass, especially when Congressman are falling all over themselves to support the bill to prove that they're not in Abramoff's back pocket prior to the upcoming election.

[grapabo]

While it's relevant now in proposing and sponsoring the legislation, I don't think the "we're not in Abramoff's pocket anymore" angle will be enough to get an internet gambling prohibition bill passed. And I don't think the voting public is waiting for this bill to pass before giving them credibility for being out of Abramoff's influence.

Six important years have passed between then and now. To try to pass this bill as a means to put the genie back into the bottle doesn't sound like a winner.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think legislators who determined to ban online gambling are going to listen to those guys, as opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, for example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know their strategy, but I'm going to assume they're not blithering idiots, and therefore:

the people they are targetting are the ones who are in fact NOT determined to ban online gambling, but are rather undecided/have no opinion/on the fence, as well as people who oppose the ban to help find more allies/build public support. See how that works?

[BluffTHIS!]

CEO,

What you report has been mentioned in another thread, but it still is important an offense is being mounted. However as I have said before, I think it important that pro-poker and other gambling groups only assert one thing they are willing for government to get involved with, which is legalization plus taxation.

What they should not assert, is agreeing to government watchdog regulation or other regulation restricting stakes and venues as a sop to the anti-gambling crowd.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think legislators who determined to ban online gambling are going to listen to those guys, as opposed to the Southern Baptist Convention, for example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't know their strategy, but I'm going to assume they're not blithering idiots, and therefore:

the people they are targetting are the ones who are in fact NOT determined to ban online gambling, but are rather undecided/have no opinion/on the fence, as well as people who oppose the ban to help find more allies/build public support. See how that works?

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA has hired some fairly well regarded lobbyists, and seems to be starting to get their act together. I won't comment on their strategy, since I don't know what it is, but they are off to the right start.

Frankly, if they want to win, they had better embrace a ban on casino style gambling online, and differentiate poker as a game of skill from things like roulette, etc. PPA would probably also do well to embrace all kinds of deposit limits, automatic taxation, required age verification technologies, money laundering monitoring, advertising restrictions to teens, and so on. Without caving on these issues, and embracing the underlying idea that online gambling (as opposed to online skill games like poker, fantasy sports) in its worst forms must be banned and forcefully prosecuted, PPA and its allies will lose in Congres, and lose big.