Harrah's and AGA lobbyng efforts

[mhcmarty]

According to the AP, AGA spent $900,000 and Harrah's spent $100,000 in the 1st half of 2007 to "lobby on online gambling, tax legislation affecting casinos and other matters"

Is it safe to assume these efforts are to move towards regulating the industry? Does anybody have any knowledge of what they would be trying to accomplish?

[Legislurker]

Cash transaction reporting in casinos is a bitch, and costs them a lot of money. I would think the lion's share went there. That's not huge money for them, but who knows where its going. The study bill maybe. Submarining WTO compromise?
You need more information on who was lobbied and where the checks went.

[oldbookguy]

The money has born fruit already, somewhere there was a story, is Regulation Coming and it centered on new cash / other transaction reporting rules that favor B&M and online as well were online regulated.

Sorry, I forget who had the story but the regulation was posted on the www.regulations.gov site a month + ago.

obg

[hollaballa]

MGM and the AGA has said many times they want a study bill. In fact, i know a study bill is part of the plan for MGM (meaning that's what they want).

They want a study bill partly so they'll have time to prepare to enter the market.

Remember, you can google the head of the AGA who's made several statements like "no chance in hell" and "poker players are sadly mistaken", etc regarding Frank's bill and the thought that the ban is just going to get over turned.

The guy was the head of the republican national convention for like 15 years.....I think he knows politics.

I've posted it several times the last week. The study bill is the only think the big casinos are interested in.

There are many reasons, with one being... if a study bill passes, then the study comes back good for online gaming....then regulations have to be written. The big casinos certainly want to have a BIG influence on those regulations....they want to make sure its a "highly regulated" business.....which means tough barrier to entry....which means no competition......

I've seen one comment from the big B&M's that said basically they don't think anyone who doesn't already have a gaming license should be able to get one just for internet gaming. I doubt that will happen, but we'll see.

All this relates back to why the AGA says "no chance in hell" in regards to frank's bill, etc.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I've posted it several times the last week. The study bill is the only think the big casinos are interested in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many threads are you planning to hijack with this? Sorry, but we won't give up just because you keep trying to get us to. We don't give a rat's ass what the head of the AGA thinks. You know, we have a lot of smart people here as well.

This is about a movement for freedom and liberty, not a quick fix. We'll live if IGREA doesn't pass this year, you know. We'll still have the status quo, which we've helped to preserve with our advocacy. Sorry, but we're not particularly impressed with the fact that you read someone else's opinion on the Internet. Thanks for sharing, though.

[MiltonFriedman]

I agree with hollaballa.

You are referring to Frank Farhenkopf (sp?). I recall speaking to him a couple of years ago. He kept saying that the then-Goodlatte effort to ban online gaming was a cooperative one between the religious Right and the Democratic Left. Yeah, right Frank.

Well, I have a lot of respect for what Frank and the AGA may say, but keep in mind they have their own agenda and will readily portray matters to their own advantage, such as whether a particular bill has "a chance in Hell".

Regulatory Efforts of the AGA CAN help online poker:

As for the Brick & Mortar lobbying, the effort to change cash transaction reporting rules WAS beneficial to the likelihood that regulations under UIGE Act can be lightened. The key to the relaxed "cash reporting rules" was that the "cash" originated under the already 'know-your-customer" regulated banking system. This point was seized upon in crtiquing the UIGEA by Barney Frank, it can go a long way toward justifying loose UIGE Act regs, thanks to the AGA efforts on their own behalf ......

Why does this not regiater on the PPA radar ?

BUT does the PPA think this is important ? No, perhaps because it does not "build membership" or put money in lobbyists pockets perhaps ?

Milton

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[MiltonFriedman]

No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should support THAT bill.

I agree with his assesment rather of what the politics of the AGA are.

In his post above he does NOT advocate his usual conclusion, of roll over and play dead. Rather he offers only information as to what a part of the political landscape feels. I agree that his description is largely accurate.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should support THAT bill.

I agree with his assesment rather of what the politics of the AGA are.

In his post above he does NOT advocate his usual conclusion, of roll over and play dead. Rather he offers only information as to what a part of the political landscape feels. I agree that his description is largely accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pretty sure you weren't agreeing that we should only support the study bill.

I still think we should all focus on our political position. Congress just needs to know we support the right to play poker online. They aren't differentiating our positions on various bills, to be honest. If we blast away in support of our rights, we'll be better off than we were in the past, when we were surprisingly quiet.

I prefer SGPA as well, but I think we're better off both for that bill and for keeping the status quo to blast away in favor of that plus IGREA.

Again, the specifics hardly matter. If you're writing in favor of SGPA, you're doing as much as the next person writing for both IGREA and SGPA. And, supporting either of these helps the study bill, as it shows the American people (at least some of us) are demanding this.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should spare no effort to support THAT bill.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are poker players. My understanding of Wexler's bill is that it grants poker the same standing as any other contest of skill. meaning that anywhere you can play any skill game, you can play poker.

This is what we poker players should be striving to get into law.

Tuff