Senate records show PPA given $720,000 so far......

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After Rep. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who wrote the Internet gambling bill, lost his re-election bid in November, the association conducted a poll in his district that it says showed that his opposition to online gambling could have cost him the election.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hope So, but probably just wishful thinking...

[ QUOTE ]
Leach's former spokesman, Gregory Wierzynski, called the poll "silly" and expressed doubts that the poker players could build such a potent lobby.


[/ QUOTE ]Probably, but I hope we prove this dufus wrong... At least his boss is out of power....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather have seen Kyl go. I like Jim Leach. He is literally the only Republican I ever voted for in a race for representative or higher. If I still lived in Iowa, I wouldn't have voted for him last election, but that is more because I really liked his opponent (Dave Loebsack...who was a poly sci professor of mine). Leach isn't someone who was pandering to the religious right. He had a heartfelt belief in his position. I see it as similar to the folks in the Democratic party that I vote for despite having views on gun control that I disagree with. I don't care for single-issue voting. If I were a single issue voter, poker wouldn't be it. This is despite the fact that I've made a fair chunk of money playing poker and am in a money crunch right now because I've ordered a car with money that is currently in limbo in neteller EFT-land.

I still strongly disagree that poker players put Loebsack over the top. The race was close. Lots of different groups of voters could have claimed to put him over the top. It's pretty egocentric to claim it was "your" group that did it. If anything put him over the top, it was the sleazy attack ads orchestrated from the central repub party. Leach eventually managed to get the ads stopped, but they probably did him more harm than good. They didn't play well with the voters in what was probably one of the most civil races in the country.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They've already paid a nice sum on money to congress, and that will continue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I sure hope that no one here thinks that the PPA is paying off members of Congress.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish they were. I don't know if the PPA is trying to steal from us or not, but I'm pretty sure they're do-nothing boobs.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't think that's a fair comment. They are doing something. It is fair however to question whether they could being doing it more effectively, especially as to the makeup of its board and whether they have hidden goals that they are not sharing wrt to sports and casino gambling that shouldn't be there as that ties poker into forms of gambling against which there is much more opposition.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll ask again - what is the back story between 2+2 and some members of the PPA board that led to the investigation and the hatchet job statement pinned to the top of the board?

I genuinely want to know why the only 2+2 action on this is to slag the PPA, if there are better or even more personal but potentially significant character issues I'd like to know what they are because from a neutrals perspective it looks like the PPA are doing all they can and started to work on this long before many of us knew it was a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


Richas,

And I'll ask YOU again. Are you affiliated with either party poker or another online gaming site, or a site such as neteller that provides logistical support to same? Your extreme interest in the PPA as a UK citizen raises this question.

Also regarding "backstory" vis-a-vis 2+2 and the PPA, why do you think there must be some sinister motive on Mason's part when many of us posters have raised the same issues regarding the PPA? If anything, you should question the makeup of the PPA board which consists *solely* of CP mag affiliated writers, and players who have either an ownership or sponsorship affiliation with an online poker site, thus leading to a reasonable conclusion that the PPA represents primarily the interests of those online sites and the media dependant on same, rather than its player membership. And this is important because an agenda of online poker only as opposed to both B&M and online, and one furthermore tied to other forms of gambling likes sports and casino games is what some of those same sites like party are very interested in, regardless of whether it harms poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I have no connection with online sites apart from using them. I don't work for them or any organisation connected to them. I gues you suspect me for similar reasons I am concerned about 2+2's attack on the PPA.

The reason I think that there is likely to be some "back story" is the way that this was done by 2+2. If 2+2 want to do an investigation and then make a decision to endorse or not then fine. If the investigation raises concerns then the way to handle it (without personal animosity) is to make a statement saying something like as 2+2 has concerns about financial acountability, board membership and player representaton we cannot endorse the PPA at this time. Job done. Instead we have a whole load of muck pinned to this forum written by a lawyer not 2+2 that essentially attacks the PPA for being a new, small organisation trying to present itself as larger and more significant than it is (this is after all the job of any lobby group!!!). This statement has been and continues to be damaging to the PPA and to the poker lobby. Why choose to damage the PPA to the maximum of your ability? is my question. As for 2+2 doing nothing else on the issue what else can you point to? Why isn't the statement pinned to the top of this forum a statement in support of online poker and explaining why 2+2 opposes UIGEA instead of an attack on the PPA?

My "extreme interest in the PPA" is really an extreme interest in the future of Poker. I'm also interested in the differences between the politics/legislature in the US/UK and how new political issues arise and are dealt with, including new campaigns on issues I care about(including international trade).

I'm also concerned that the UK has all too often followed the US. In the past week we have had three TV programmes and numerous op-ed pieces attacking the UK government for regulating casinos and poker instead of "banning" them like the US. Most in the UK are not scared by what the US government is doing - I am.

[BluffTHIS!]

Richas,

As I have said before, I do understand how a citizen of another country can be interested in what happens over here and its possible global effects. However I still don't see why that legitimate interest translates into the specific organization that americans might or might not use to fight for their interests. Nor indeed why you would spend more time in these forums focusing on the PPA instead of trying to rally your fellow countrymen into taking some actions in your own country to stem the apparently rising anti-online gambling tide.

Regarding your criticisms of the way 2+2 conducted and posted the results of an investigation, I think despite being a regular here you don't understand some some things fully. Posters here hounded Mason for not backing the PPA or through some other means fighting the legislation in its runup to passage. However he made it clear he certainly didn't support the legislation, but as a publishing entity lacked the expertise or direct interest (they sold books to B&M players long before online) so as to take a more direct political role. And as to supporting the PPA, he had some prima facie concerns and wanted to see if those were valid.

So he had his attorneys do an investigation. But as to giving either a very short response regarding same as you suggest, posters here just wouldn't have accepted that. They would want to know the reasons and judge for themselves whether they would reach the same conclusion from the facts uncovered.

Of course you might still fairly not agree with the above. But note as well that Mason has allowed not just the PPA, but you or any interested party to have his say on these matters in this forum, even when all parties aren't being forthright as to their vested interests in the issues, and obviously some very interested parties have their HQ in London, which is why I asked you a question regarding yourself.

And note one final thing, which is that the PPA prez has thus far not come here and discussed not just the issues raised by Mason's attorneys, but also by many of us player-posters. He's the one who let a sore fester and get infected, and so far he is just trying to put a band-aid on it and hope it gets better by itself.

[Richas]

Thanks I think that is the back story I was looking for.

As for being interested in the specific organisation for the US my only interest is in a successful outcome. I have done quite a bit back here in the UK on this but I shan't bore you with the details. Fortunately we are in better shape here even if being attacked for doing what's right.

[dc_publius]

PPA's problem is that they don't seem to have a spokesman/public face to field questions from the public and the press. This creates the illusion of poor transparency and no accountability. I certainly support them in spirit and I hope that either Michael does this or they hire a press guy. A few long interviews would do wonders for PPA and certainly wouldn't distract them from their daily duties.

[BluffTHIS!]

dc,

Michael IS that spokesman/public face, though perhaps lacking the full range of skills necessary for same. And in the era of ubiquitous websites, not having all the info on the organization on same is what creates the *reality* of poor transparency and accountability. Especially when there are legitimate reasons to question whether the organization believes its primary duty is to serve the wider membership and goals of same, or the online sites and advertising media that have contributed a lot of the money, but which also have goals more narrow in some areas than what the membership would like (no/little emphasis on B&M poker), or wider goals in other areas that many of us believe actually harms our poker goals (not distancing poker enough from sports/casino gambling because of the desire of many online sites to promote same).

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA isn't going to give 2+2 the time of day, but they would like to reach the 2+2 members.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a reason for them to reach 2+2 members but that reason doesn't rate an override of their aversion to coming onto the forum, then whatever they have to say to the members must not be very important. Or, maybe I missed something that would make your statement more logical. Dialog is good. Your turn...or theirs.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a reason for them to reach 2+2 members but that reason doesn't rate an override of their aversion to coming onto the forum, then whatever they have to say to the members must not be very important. Or, maybe I missed something that would make your statement more logical. Dialog is good. Your turn...or theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the debate has now moved on with discussions held and the release of more information by the PPA maybe the next move toward rapprochement should be taking down the sticky now second to the top of this forum which is undoubtedly damaging to the PPA and whatever it's original intention has now served it. Taking it down might help allow PPA President to post again.