[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
My girlfriend works in the department of health, and she had another suggestion for how that provision got in the bill. She thinks some of the gambling addiction people from the department of health might have had a hand in drafting that part of the bill. Those people are completely against any gambling at all. They were forced to ride along on the casino bill, but they might have squeezed in a provision to ban internet gambling, to try and put forward their own interest. It seemed almost as plausible as the casino lawyers theory. Maybe even more so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually knowing who is behind a bill or section is indeed often important in political strategy.

But IMO given these circumstances unless we were vunerable it really matters very little.

If as you suggest the secion was inserted by the on-line poker is the "crack concaine" of gaming, we win on the past history of legislative efforts in other contries and on the facts.

The facts are there is not one single piece of semi-respected evidence that poker or even on-line gaming leads to 1/10th of the problems often claimed. In additon the prohibition model fails to address the "problem gamblers". Other countries have shown the regulation model is the only way to provide a new revune stream for the problem gamblers advocates.

Strategically we should, as the sucessful efforts in other countries show us, enlist the problem gambling advocates to our side, through education and improved dialouge. This removes the most respected segment of those opposed to us, and leaves them with only an unsicentificly supported "morals" argument. We also remove any value of all the made for TV sob stories like the pastor's son who turned to robbing the neighborhoor to suport his on-line habbit.

If the section was inserted at the behest of the B&M's we actually have a much better opportunity strategically. We can show that on-line is not a threat to B&M revenues, in fact most evidence seems to show that on-line really creates new players. This seems very easily shown at least in the case of poker. Most B&M's operated and make money through much more than the actual gaming, on-line poker generates new players who bring their wives for the spa packages and sells many more hotel rooms for major MTT's than any other form of on-line versons of B&M gaming.

This is a group we do not have to argue emotions with. B&M's are most apporachable on a straight profit apporach. We can additionally develop goodwill with them in suporting this bill even after we get the on-line portion removed thus eliminating some of the political tension between on-line poker and the B&M's.

Properly played politically, this is a very strong hand for us in MA, and much more of an "awesome opportunity" than KY ever had a chance of being.


D$D