Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[Tuff_Fish]

Some thoughts:

The good folks in New England need to do as was just done in DC. Get a bunch of people together in Boston, get good press, get into the state pols' offices and offer great help to anyone seeming friendly and offer great opposition to those who are against us.

One tactic to consider is to offer lots of help (in volunteers and money, BUT YOU GOTTA DELIVER) to supporters of the bill IF they will slip in a provision that explicitly allows online poker, INCLUDING HOSTING, while explicitly prohibiting other online gambling. Use the same arguments as are being used for the Wexler bill.

Money talks, volunteers talk louder, and BS walks in these kinds of things. (I learned a tidbit while I was DC [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img])

There are x number of serious and semi serious online poker players in your region. If they all gave $10 to 10 favorable candidates, and pledged 10 volunteer hours manning telephones, ringing doorbells, posting literature, etc, on "our" candidate's behalf, we would soon have sanctioned online poker in MA with the participation of other states where "not prohibited by law".

Sweeten the deal for the pols a bit with a 1% rake surcharge on every pot, and it would happen! The 1% rake would generate money coming from out of state into state....YES!! (So thinks the politician. It was ever thus)

This is an opportunity folks. There is a pro casino, pro gambling bill made to order as a vehicle for shoe horning a pro online poker provision onto.

BUT IT WON'T COME FREE!

Now get to work.

Tuff

[catlover]

Reading the proposed law, it looks like this criminalizes fantasy sports as well as online poker. I have to imagine that we can get some support from that community. Who are the major players there? How do we find them?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
One tactic to consider is to offer lots of help (in volunteers and money, BUT YOU GOTTA DELIVER) to supporters of the bill IF they will slip in a provision that explicitly allows online poker, INCLUDING HOSTING, while explicitly prohibiting other online gambling. Use the same arguments as are being used for the Wexler bill.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you go about it so it doesn't seem like you are buying them off or is that ok to make a "contingent" donation. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NewGuy]

Bottom line: As others has confirmed, the clause in question DOES make online poker a felony, and this IS intentional.

I believe I've found the 3 most efficient avenues for getting poker players concerns heard:

1) Fill in this email form for the Governor's office.
http://mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilitie...ov3_contact_us
Possible subject header: "Proposed casino legislation should NOT make online poker illegal in MA" (they read & track EVERY submission, this makes it easy for them)

2) Call the Governor Constituent Service Office to express opinion
617-725-4005

3) Contact your local rep by phone or email (link to find them is in thread)

For #2, I spoke at length to Mary Kate , made it clear there is a large constituency of poker players who will not be pleased with Deval if the ban is left in the bill. I asked her to share any studies the governor's office had related to online gambling (and specifically poker) to justify the ban. She said she would get back to me if there was any.

My strong impressions
1) As expected, online gambling is banned to control/funnel gambling/revenue to Mass licensed locatons
2) Online poker / other skill-based online games weren't even thought of or studied for one instant and were blanketed in blindly

[Skallagrim]

Tuff's idea of a licensed in-state room is a good one (and he is the man to ask for advice on how and whether it can be done thanks to his work on his CA initiative - except if you like multi-tabling [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). It may be pushing for too much, however, and could backfire if it becomes a "MA site or illegal to play" revision.

But pushing to get online poker specifically exempted is the possible silver lining here. A bill than bans online slots and sports betting while specifically allowing skill games, to include poker, is a state law that clearly puts MA online poker players OUTSIDE OF ANY UIGEA CONCERNS. In other words, it would become unquestionably lawful for a site to accept MA players, for banks to fund MA player's accounts, and for players to fund their accounts by any means including Credit Cards - hell, you could even argue with Party to get them to let you play there again!

Good luck, we in other states stand ready to do what we can to help.

Skallagrim

[downrange]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line: As others has confirmed, the clause in question DOES make online poker a felony, and this IS intentional.
.
.
.

My strong impressions
1) As expected, online gambling is banned to control/funnel gambling/revenue to Mass licensed locatons
2) Online poker / other skill-based online games weren't even thought of or studied for one instant and were blanketed in blindly

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt your impressions but it makes me ask, which way are we going? Are we trying to stop this or have it amended? Is there time to do both? Your two impressions (which I share) argues not for calls to complain about not including online poker but calls to allies that can help kill this.

If we want it amended for online poker then by definition that drags in the entire online gambling debate - all the other online gambling interests certainly aren't going to sit idly by while only online poker gets added. What motivation do the proposal's backers have to open that can of worms for something the state will never see a nickel from?

IMO it might be argued that some intra-state online gambling could be set up, etc., so that the greedy state can get their cut but my impression so far is that the state has already demonstrated they have 0 interest in discussing that. It would so broadly expand the casino initiative that IMM it jeopardizes their entire goal of getting casinos at all - I can see Jane Citizen saying "maybe a casino with ID checks and security guards isn't so bad but you can forget anything that lets my little Johnny gamble from his computer while I'm at work." That sort of person will need to be convinced and I just don't think the proposal's backers have any interest in making their job so much harder.

So 1) intentionally expanding the debate for 2) something the state won't profit from sounds like two reasons trying to get this amended is a waste of time. I'm not a political type so that's just my opinion and am happy to have someone point out my errors. But if we waste time trying to get it amended that's all the more time/effort we lost in trying to kill it.

Am I wrong in thinking this is an "either or"? I would really love explicitly legalized online poker but this whole thing is so scary I worry that there isn't time to try for amending then a fallback of trying to kill it.

[downrange]

My post was already too long but I wanted to add that I wish the ppa and ppa reps and engineer would spell out the political landscape and what is or isn't feasible - for you ppa people is that sort of assessment coming?

[Skallagrim]

"what is or isnt feasible" - you will never know until you try.

Its your (our) position that should be either/or: an either/or ultimatum - exempt online poker (and other skill based, non-house games) from this proposal or we will support the efforts of your opponents to kill it in its entirety. Other gaming interests that might help will also fall in the skill based, non-house category or they will be covered federally (horse racing can already get a separate exemption, fantasy sports fall in the skill based camp, and sports betting is illegal as a matter of federal law). There really is no online slots constituency, so dont worry about that, indeed, thats the bone to give him and the gambling is evil/addictive folks.

My best read of the situation is that casino gambling is a close call in MA, politically. If the Gov. really wants his casinos he cant afford to offend a significant segment of the population that would otherwise support his proposal.

All you really have to do is show him that you are, in fact, a significant segment of the population.

Oh, and I know that the PPA is already making plans to help here, but dont just sit back and expect them to do the work for you.

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

I think the next step is to bring the issue to the attention of the Boston Globe and Boston Herald and try to get some coverage there. What is the best tact to take there? Are there any big poker playing names who live in Mass.? The whole WorldWinner angle could be interesting as well.

[LetsGambool]

Has anyone from Barney Frank's district spoken with him about the legislation yet? I am sending him a letter, but he will not respond since I am from a different district. Given his stance on online gaming it can't hurt to make him aware of the issue and, as we try and get press attention, he's never been one to shy away from public quotes.