Very interesting conversation with one of PPA's DC Lobbyists

[Hock_]

So it turns out that the friend of a friend of mine is one of PPA's DC lobbyists. So I gave the guy a call and had a very good hour-long conversation with him. We covered an awful lot of ground, but I though you'd all be interested in some of the highlights. Bottom-line is that this guy is clearly knowledgeable and competent, and their approach seems to have been well-conceived, but they were facing very long odds and were severely handicapped both by getting into the game very late and by the fact that they had almost no help from any other constituency, including banking and the AGA. So maybe we need to give PPA more credit, although, as I emphasized to this friend of my friend, they need to do much more to earn the support of the poker community. So, here are some of the highlights of the conversation:

1. PPA was really behind the 8-ball from the get-go, since it really only got active in the last 18 months or so. As we all know, there's a long history of Congress trying to ban internet poker, and so PPA already had its work cut out for it.

2. One of the biggest problems PPA faced was that, even though many Reps, Sens, and staffers played poker, it is still generally seen as a "sin," which made it extremely hard to get anyone overtly to support poker, its players, or the industry. He talked a lot about the political dynamic on the hill, and how it was a little bit surprising that the Dems wouldn't take up the issue; but he explained that (a) Dems have now started trying to campaign as being more values-oriented than the Reps, and supporting "personal liberties" sounds too much like it's soft on terrorism (e.g., wire-tapping); and (b) the Reps have done a really good job making "regulation" and "taxation" dirty words for the Dems -- so much so that the Reps themselves obviously favored banning the activity altogether over regulating it. He said that these points were among the reasons Dems wouldn't oppose the legislation.

3. PPA had virtually no allies in its fight. The poker sites weren't much help since they aren't US companies. The banking industry did no real lobbying -- the Community Bankers Ass'n sent that one letter that was posted here, but other than that, nothing. And the AGA wasn't any help either. He said he didn't know -- and couldn't fathom -- why the AGA wouldn't lobby to legalize on-line gaming since they seem to have so much to gain (by getting into the game) and so much to lose (most of the 8800 players in the WSOP ME won their seats on-line and wouldn't have gone to Vegas at all if it weren't for on-line poker; general increase in B&M traffic due to poker popularity; Nevada tourism, etc.). He said that the biggest push in favor of the legislation came from the NFL and some of the other pro sports leagues.

4. He said that PPA was in fact extremely active on the hill over the past year, and in particular in the month leading up to the legislation passing. He said that it was particularly frustrating work because Frist tried to attach the bill to virtually every piece of legislation around, so PPA's lobbyists had to keep re-focusing on new committees and new politicians every time Frist gave up on one bill and moved to the next.

5. Even Republican lobbyists were thoroughly disgusted with the way the bill was passed (no debate, tacked on to an unrelated bill, etc.). he said that there was an element of this being a perfect political storm, in that the Reps. were trying to pass legislation appealing to their base before elections; Frist was trying to pass legislation appealing to the Reps' base before they lost power, in large part because he thought it might help him raise funds for his Presidential run; and the Abramoff issue. He added that, other than the few main sponsors of the legislation who seemed to have downed the Cool-Aid, he doubted than any of the co-sponsors or supporters acutally believed in the legislation as a matter of principle. Pure politics.

5. I mentioned the many nice press pieces opposing the legislation we've all seen in the past 6 months (60 Minutes, WSJ, NY Times, Wash Post, George Will's article, etc.) He said that many were not accidental, and were due in part to the work of PPA's PR people.

<u>NEXT STEPS</u>

He said that one of the main things that PPA was going to try to do was to change general sentiment about on-line poker. He acknowledged this would be a long-term project. Although poker has become very mainstream, he said that combatting the general reluctance of almost every Member and Senator to come out in favor of a form of gambling was almost impossible. To this end, we discussed more press, more polls, and more active PPA membership.

He also said -- and we already know this -- that in the immediate term PPA was going to focus on distinguishing poker from other forms of gambling. I told him that I thought this was a long-shot. He didn't seem to disagree necessarily, but at the same time seemed to think there might be something there. We didn't talk too much about this point though

I discussed with him the fact that PPA has relatively little credibility in the poker community, in large part because we couldn't see either that they were actually doing anything or the results. He seemed to understand the need for more transparency. I suggested that PPA should find more ways for those of us who are particularly interested to contribute to the cause -- beyond just having our names listed on a petition. He mentioned that they were considering more local (state) associations that might be headed by one or more in-state players.

BOTTOM-LINE: PPA seems to be trying hard, and doing some good things. It does sound like many of the problems they face are systemic and will take some time to change. Hopefully they'll start to give us more information about what they're doing and get more of us involved. They are a very new organization and obviously need to grow and mature. I told them that one place they should turn to help do that was this forum; that they could gain a lot of credibility and support if they just explained what they were doing and how we could be more involved.

If you have any specific questions about the conversation feel free to ask. Like I said, it lasted for an hour and we talked about a lot more than I've mentioned here.

[JPFisher55]

Litigation in US courts and WTO are the only real means to attack this legislation.

[WLC4Ever]

Thanks alot for this, it's really great information. I think I'm gonna try and get in touch with them about more state-oriented volunteer work. Good Job man, Bravo!

[S0meGuy]

Thanks for the post Hock...very informative...It was good to hear the PPA was doing something substantive. Hope they work on getting their public relations issues ironed out with the poker community.

S0meGuy

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the post Hock...very informative...

[/ QUOTE ]

[jmillerdls]

sounds like he did a lot of complaining.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like he did a lot of complaining.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not at all. Just explaining. I asked lots of questions and he was very professional and showed a good understanding of the issues, our concerns, and the available options. His negativity -- if you want to call it that -- was mostly just an appropriate way of explaining to me why certain approaches might not be as successful as one might have hoped.

[redbeard]

great post as usual hock_. keep up the good work and post more it always educates me. thanks.

[NoSoup4U]

If this is his best analysis of the situation, I'm not that impressed. I'm not the best connected guy in the world, but I can call BS on at least two pieces of this:

[ QUOTE ]
The banking industry did no real lobbying -- the Community Bankers Ass'n sent that one letter that was posted here, but other than that, nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, the banking industry lobbied very effectively. They were behind early holds on the bill and they secured the main thing that they sought -- an out that lets them not do anything if it isn't reasonably easy to do. They were particularly aggrivated about the possibility of having to code checks and intercept them by account.

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned the many nice press pieces opposing the legislation we've all seen in the past 6 months (60 Minutes, WSJ, NY Times, Wash Post, George Will's article, etc.) He said that many were not accidental, and were due in part to the work of PPA's PR people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is mostly silly.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the banking industry lobbied very effectively. They were behind early holds on the bill and they secured the main thing that they sought -- an out that lets them not do anything if it isn't reasonably easy to do. They were particularly aggrivated about the possibility of having to code checks and intercept them by account.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should recognize that lobbying to get that exception is very different from lobbying to oppose the legislation altogether.