Online Poker Article

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, also, so long as the PPA is tied to the Frank Bill, it will draw fire from the NFL. The NFL is an essential part of the opposition in this endeavor because it sees the "evil" of sportsbetting, clearly it is time to cut ties between the PPA and "perceived threat" of sports betting allowed under the Frank Bill. (The "opt-out" language of the Frank Bill for the NFL likely is not enough to blunt their opposition, so try something else .... like pushing a POKER bill like the Wexler Bill.)

It is less likely to draw NFL fire if it pushed the Wexler Bill, and may even be more likely to get allies among the "skill-game" crowd.

Just my view,

Milton

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is pushing the Wexler bill very strongly. They are also working on the issue with the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to know Engineer, compared to where we were with the PPA 6 months ago, it is an extraordinary improvement.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Good third party article on the players as seen in DC.

It is unclear whether the Greenberg law firm is counsel to the PPA or serves on the Board. However, either way, they have to be cut loose. (I am not knocking their abilities or past service, just stating that their legacy from Abramoff makes them too hot politically to retain.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greenberg Trurig's reputation was not diminished the least because of Jack. In fact the firms reputation was to some degree enhanced due to the fact it fully cooperated with the Feds in their investigations.

Given that the firm employes not only some of the best lobbists in town but also is perhaps the best source of gaming law talent in the world throwing them under the bus would be the equalivant of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As far as I know no one from the firm is on the PPA board.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, also, so long as the PPA is tied to the Frank Bill, it will draw fire from the NFL. The NFL is an essential part of the opposition in this endeavor because it sees the "evil" of sportsbetting, clearly it is time to cut ties between the PPA and "perceived threat" of sports betting allowed under the Frank Bill. (The "opt-out" language of the Frank Bill for the NFL likely is not enough to blunt their opposition, so try something else .... like pushing a POKER bill like the Wexler Bill.)

It is less likely to draw NFL fire if it pushed the Wexler Bill, and may even be more likely to get allies among the "skill-game" crowd.

Just my view,

Milton

[/ QUOTE ]

You're view on the uphill challenge faced by the poker community given the desire of many of the players that could support us to get unrestricted on-line gaming as well as sports betting is indeed a problem.

Given the nature of the PPA vs the AGA in their current form making an enemy of them isn't wise. But we also can not ally ourselves to closely with them for the very reasons you mention. Look at the AGA board and you will find the Managing Director of the Bank of America among its members. This is an ally that could indeed help us but it is doubtful given the size of sports books alone we will ever get or hope for much more than a nominally netural stance.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

Reply posted, we need to own that response section everyone!

obg

[jase]

Thanks broiler, I appreciate you posting that link. While I recognize the distinction between a C4 and C3, I had misread that they were a C3 (and was confused by that given the nature of their lobbying activities).

I had also overlooked the 990 on their site, so I've managed to bat .000 in relation to this.

Thanks

[MiltonFriedman]

"Greenberg Trurig's reputation was not diminished the least because of Jack. "

Maybe you did not pay attention during the Perfect Storm which resulted in the UIGEA. However, Jack Abramoff's name, and his firm identification, were one of the principal reasons the UIGEA made it through.

There is no questioning here of the firm's general abilities, they are undeniably a political liability for THIS issue.

Jack Abramoff and his former law firm would be sticky mud outside the Beltway, D$D. Can't you see why ? The FoF guy basically showed you a card they ARE going to play.

(Whether the firm is "the best source of gaming law talent in the world", is irrelevant. They are tarred with a brush on online gaming issues because one of their partners, who was a principal lobbyist on online gaming issues, came up extremely dirty in a gaming-related financial fraud.)

[Berge20]

Eh, I tend to agree with D$D on this one Milton.

I see your point, but I don't see tangible evidence that the firm is viewed in a negative way.

[MiltonFriedman]

Why wait for "the law firm of Jack Abramof, convicted swindler and lobbyist for online gaming" to hit the press releases ?

The tangible evidence is the FoF ability and likely plan to smear the PPA with the association.

I am not knocking the firm, I know their history in this industry. I am just saying cut them loose from lobbying because this is online gaming.

If the Titanic had turned a little sooner, we would have been spared a really terrible movie.

[Berge20]

That's a fair consideration.

Can the charge be used effectively? I'm skeptical, but it does make for a catchy soundbite.

[TheEngineer]

some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_Traurig

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, I tend to agree with D$D on this one Milton.

I see your point, but I don't see tangible evidence that the firm is viewed in a negative way.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, and this may be old news, but Patton Boggs is apparently also making the rounds on the issue.