Time for a Separate HR4411 FAQ/status Sticky?

[Eric Stoner]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the input guys.

I really didn't feel the FAQ was too difficult to navigate, contained too much information or was missing significant items. If you disagree, please feel free.

Maybe people aren't going there? I'll give the FAQ title gig an upgrade and see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they are going to the FAQ first before posting questions. If I encounter someone in another forum about the legislation, I direct them here, but warn them to read before posting anything...

However, I'd venture most people don't do this - it's akin to reading the instruction manual before operating any tech device. I mean, who has the time? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PPA President]

How exactly do you come to any prediction? I have lobbyists that work for me, and I am on the hill when the Senate is in session, and I cannot give you a prediction. I know that Kyl has hotline the bill for Senate floortime. I know there are holds currently, but Kyl is working actively to remove these holds so that he can obtain floor-time. Does it really matter what the percentage is? If it is 25% do you not contact your Senator? If it is 75% do you contact your Senator? The fact is that Poker Players need to be active and voice their opposition. This is not a poker hand. The fact is that if this does not pass prior to the elections in the Senate, it could be attached to another bill in lame duck. If it doesn't pass in 2006, it will likely be back in 2007, with a 2 year session versus a 10 month horizon.
Regards,
Michael Bolcerek
President
Poker Players Alliance

[Mr.K]

Thanks for joining the conversation. A few quick reactions to your remarks:

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do you come to any prediction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in part with what you're saying here, and have posted routinely arguing that coming up with odds of passage is a difficult and maybe even impossible task. Pressed to put it down to a number, I've put my faith in the predictive markets, which may not be spot on, but present a number that is hard to argue with too much given what I know about how the Senate works, and what the procedural and scheduling pressures on that body will be the remainder of the year. On the whole, though, I agree that 2+2ers have become far too fixated about the likelyhood of passage, and much too disengaged on the process of what drives those odds (e.g. the contacting their Senators, writing letters, and other grassroots action). For an organization like yours, this is a real problem, because 2+2 members are likely to be among the most active and aware poker players, as well as those most likely to be negatively affected by the proposed legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
I have lobbyists that work for me, and I am on the hill when the Senate is in session, and I cannot give you a prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

[ QUOTE ]
I know that Kyl has hotline the bill for Senate floortime. I know there are holds currently, but Kyl is working actively to remove these holds so that he can obtain floor-time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing about those things is great, and it seems to me that it is very important for your organization to inform players on the grassroots level about how things are developing. That said, the things you mention are hardly revelations to anybody following this issue, even less so to those with solid connections in the Senate. While the move to hotline the bill is relevant, as are the existing holds and efforts to eliminate them, none of these items say anything about what YOU are doing, Mr. Bolcerek. You've indicated that you don't want to telegraph your lobbying strategy, which is fine, but in the absence of any indication of a strategy for success, "trust me" isn't going to engender a lot of support. See also the War in Iraq, if you want a more prominent example.


[ QUOTE ]
Does it really matter what the percentage is? If it is 25% do you not contact your Senator? If it is 75% do you contact your Senator? The fact is that Poker Players need to be active and voice their opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and one you need to be making in forums like this one more forcefully. Even if the odds against passage are 3:1, there's always the possibility of a suckout, and poker players will understand and internalize that point if you offer it up. The only difference between beating this bill and beating an opponent holding a 11 outer is that poker players can steal a few "outs" from their opponents before the last card is dealt. More importantly, the billion dollar poker sites, who have amassed their riches on the backs of the players, have the resources to have an even greater impact. And yet there is scant evidence that Dikshit and Co. are spending even a tiny slice of their fortunes to do so. Why the hell don't you have more full page ads running in Roll Call and The Hill? Why aren't you advertising in CQ, National Journal, and the Weekly Standard? Why has there been no exploration of a poker carve-out in the bill? I could go on, but I won't.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a poker hand. The fact is that if this does not pass prior to the elections in the Senate, it could be attached to another bill in lame duck. If it doesn't pass in 2006, it will likely be back in 2007, with a 2 year session versus a 10 month horizon.

[/ QUOTE ]

10 month horizon? What?

But yes, you have a strong point here, and one I've tried to address a few times by arguing that flat opposition to the bill is not a tenable long-term position. Internet gambling WILL be banned in the United States eventually (perhaps in the 110th Congress, perhaps later even than that), and the only question is whether poker gets swept into the ban or not. There is a rigid consensus among Democrats and Republicans in Washington that online sports betting and casino-style gambling is a problem that must be addressed, and there is no will whatsoever to use any approach other than prohibition as a remedy. Poker, however, has the potential to be viewed and legally treated differently. My analogy has been the fact that most legislators and staff members have probably gathered around the kitchen table for "poker night" at some point in their lives, and few if any Senators would say they want to ban "dime and quarter ante" poker (whether online or otherwise) if you asked them. It isn't much of a stretch from there to get most or all online poker exempted from the bill. Could be you have to compromise and place deposit or bet limits, but the point is there is a winnable battle here, and I don't see any evidence that it is being fought.

Best of luck, and please know that the comments above are only intended to be encouraging. If my tone appears negative, it truly is not meant to be. I raise some of those issues only because I feel they need to be aired, and you are in a position at the head of an organization that (by your own numbers), nearly one hundred thousand poker players are relying on to get it right.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do you come to any prediction? I have lobbyists that work for me, and I am on the hill when the Senate is in session, and I cannot give you a prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael, I am very happy and grateful that you are on these forums, I am much more confident in PPA than previously to read some substantive posts from you.

Are you saying you are clueless as to how things are unraveling? I would hope you know what is working successfully and what obstacles you must overcome and the significance of each.

It would be pretty scary if you are doing A,B, and C and not have any idea of their impacts. It would be pretty scary if you had huge land mines in your path and were oblivious to them and their power.

I completely understand the reluctance on a couple levels of placing one number on things. POLITICS IS NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND, and this may appear to belittle how things work in Washington. Second, it may provide a false sense of security to some. Every letter, phone call, etc. is necessary in this fight.

Washington involves a lot of "inside baseball" and if we are all in the dark about everything that is not a good thing.

[Berge20]

Made some updates and changes to the FAQ, including title modification and a brief note before the FAQ details on the status of the legislation.

[PPA President]

We clearly know what is going on regarding this bill, although as I stated previously this changes day-by-day, and I am not prepared to go into an "inside baseball" type of discussion. I understand that it would be informative to readers of this forum, however it would be detrimental to our efforts and will not do this. The PPA informs our members as to what is the best time, or optimal way to have the best impact with your Senators. This is what you should be focused upon in my opinion, and the PPA work the inside the beltway strategy. A breakdown of the ins and outs of the Capitol Hill would be interesting, but I would rather write about it after we get internet poker legalized in the US, and this poker ban dispatched. If you really want to help our efforts, join the 100,000+ that have already stood up to be counted. If we had 500,000 or 1M members the vote in July would have been quite different.
Regards,
Michael

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
We clearly know what is going on regarding this bill, although as I stated previously this changes day-by-day, and I am not prepared to go into an "inside baseball" type of discussion. I understand that it would be informative to readers of this forum, however it would be detrimental to our efforts and will not do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is expecting "inside baseball" type of information to be disclosed. But the fact is that most people around here consider the PPA to be virtually invisible. I am certain that the PPA could do a better job communicating with its membership, without sacrificing any effectiveness in its behind-the-scenes activities.

[antneye]

I think everybody needs to cut the PPA some slack. They are the only group working to assist us here. I welcome the dialgoe that Michael has provided us with. If you are not happy with their performance, don't contribute, but lets not criticize them for trying.

We all know what we need to do. Lets make some noise with our Senators and welcome any info Michael can provide us as this thing plays itself out.

[PPA President]

I have posted more information on PPA lobbying activities on other topics. Hopefully this would be sufficient as to demonstrate our involvement directly in Congress.
Thanks.
Michael