This is what I meant in the other thread when I said DQ was seeking to delegitimize the organization, rather than simply seeking to aid us in finding opportunities for improvement.

Good idea. Our members keep emailing me with requests for us to less effective and less active on the Hill. They say that, the less effective we are, the more energized they'll be to help out. /sarcasm

I am all in favor of moving toward total player-funding to the degree our membership will support. We are seeking that, but I see no evidence that our members will be more likely to support us if we become less effective.

We've been passing the hat for five years. It does not come back full, half-full, or even quarter-full. I guess DQ would suggest that this is proof that PPA ought to fold up shop so his friends at the state lotteries can take over, but I would disagree with his logic.

There is a reason there is no Sports Bettors Alliance or Online Craps Players Association. Anyone who thinks there is money there should start up a group and see who donates. It would make for a great reality check.

Many look for excuses not to support efforts like ours. Some find what they see as flaws and pat themselves on the back as they blast our hard work publicly. And, for anyone who thinks it's a PPA problem, these people aren't sending money elsewhere either. I guess some players feel good saying "PPA's a joke" and then doing nothing. For me personally, you'd think I'd be getting the most personal attacks from poker opponents. No so -- I've taken more personal attacks from members of the poker community than from anyone else (and, that's not just poker-related personal attacks...that's for anything I've done in my entire life).

This is just the reality of the effort. We have the support of many when it comes to the daily actions and the letters to Congress, but many don't understand how expensive fights like ours are.

PPA will continue to seek donations from the membership while also seeking to get everyone to upgrade to paid memberships. I hope we will succeed.

IMO, Skall is right about the PPA continuing its present course through 2012. I hope that it has sufficient funding sources to maintain its lobbying efforts through next year.

If no federal legalization bill passes in 2012, then IMO, the PPA should reorganize itself to be more like the NRA with corporate members, hopefully, casino interests and other entities interested in entering the online poker business, and only accept members, individual and corporate, who pay an annual fee. It should be about $20 for individuals and $1000 for corporations. Hopefully, some will make larger contributions.

No, the exact opposite, I don't think we have a real plan or funding beyond 2012 so hope 2012 is the year. Luckily the casinos will still be going at it so something will get passed eventually anyways at some level, just would have been nice to have an effective player advocate when tha happens.

Another wonderfully snarky reply.

Snarky replies, to my dismay if no one else's, do not establish much room for further discussion (to me that is the point of a snarky reply).

But you have a history, LG, of engaging in discussion. If this is a discussion you actually want to have, how about a thorough reply to the question.

What would you suggest the PPA do?

Skallagrim

I generally agree JP, I would only quibble about the details.

And the main reason I would quibble about the details is that I foresee some possible 2012 outcomes that would call for somewhat of a different short term approach.

This, of course, assumes predictions of the world ending in some fashion and being reborn in some fashion in December 2012 do not come true ... one always has to be wary to some degree of all predictions.

Skallagrim

Since my question got missed, here it is again.

I'm not sure about turning away free members. But, I think it should be more like the NRA in this way. The industry(gun and ammo companies) calls the shots there. Almost every action the present-day, strong NRA pursues is against the popular polling of its membership. That fact is something you have to accept along with the big money the casinos can bring to the cause. I think the pricetag should be digits larger, and moving all their igambling lobbying through the PPA. If you pitch it as a domino theory, it could work. Poker is the most palatable, if not the most popular or profitable form of igambling. Get poker in, then they can work on bj, sports, slots, lotto tix, whatever. The truth is, most of the lower-down people who do the daily tweeting and calling for the PPA now are on the edge of moving on to other areas of endeavour in life. If you focus short term, and don't get on your knees to Harrah's and MGM now, then there might not be any activists to show the casinos in Jan 2013.

I really do not care if people play casinos games online and regulating online poker leads to that, but if we publicly indicate that poker is just the first step, we will have the FoF breathing down our necks.

I want to make clear that I do not care because I believe that concerns such as problem gambling and underage gambling can be dealt with.

In regards to the number of activists, the opposite could happen and people could have an ah ha moment like those in the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement and we have a lot more activists.

Well, Skall, if the Mayans are correct, then we won't have to worry about online poker, or bass fishing, my other big hobby.

If we achieve federal legislation in 2010, then we may be too drunk for some time to think about the future. However, even in that event the PPA will be needed to fight the state by state opt-in, opt-out battles; so I would still recommend largely the same approach except it could have free individual members then.

I guess that the PPA could always have free individual members, but it should keep a separate count of paying members.

2010

OK I'll elaborate.

Im not sure there is anything to do.

Are any of these things wrong?

--The PPA is optimistic there is some chance of moving legislation in 2012
--The PPA is less optimistic about our chances in the next Congress.
--IGC is still funding the PPA for this push (90%+ of current funding?)
--90% or more of funding is going towards the push for moving Federal legislation
--Player donations arent picking up
--The PPA, as an organization, doesnt know how to increase player donations.

To me that looks like we're all in on 2012.

My dismay is that Ive seen no progress for years on building a real grass roots movement. If anything, it looks like we're going backwards to me. How many active state directors do we even have at this point? I dont think Ive heard from a state director in years across two states, at least in 2008 in MA we had Randy who was very active and passionate.

Whats to blame for this? Part of that may be PPA strategy, part of it poker player apathy. Whatever is driving it, to me it looks like once the IGC funding is gone there is no real plan B. So maybe we are best off going all in to push for Federal legislation. Unfortunately, I feel our voices are going to be drowned out there by casino interests and we're really going to regret not having a strong state level effort once the opt-out decision process comes (this is on Ceasars as much as anyone, if they were smart and forward thinking they would have been working to organize players for the opt-in/opt-out process years ago)

The PPA organization shot themselves in the foot when they had their own forum, a lot of people were complaining on there about the lack of response when trying to join, and their complaints were generally ignored. Makes people think they do not care.

You can donate at https://ppa.secure.force.com/pmtx/cm...AP&PayPalBtn=1 or via check to:

Poker Players Alliance
1325 G Street NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

Hi Everyone:

It's my opinion that a player funded PPA will not work. There just won't be enough donations. However, as long as the goals of the funders and that of the players match up pretty well, it should be okay.

However, in the past, I now question if this has always been the case. Bringing TheEngineer into the organization was certainly a plus with the players and with 2+2, but having Duke testify in front of Congress, which is something a true player's organization would have never done, was a terrible error which we are all suffering from today.

Also, the PPA needs to be able to operate independently from the organization that provides the money. I can't say for sure, but in the past I now question if the role of Full Tilt Poker was too intertwined with the PPA. Anyone who would have looked at the PPA website on Black Friday and seen all the pictures featuring Full Tilt Management would have asked this question.

On the other hand, it's my opinion that the PPA is needed more than ever, but I do question some of their top leadership. Unfortunately, my knowledge of lobbying is insignificant, so I can't say if they are doing a good job here or not. But when things such as their incorrect skill game argument, and the Duke testimony (which by the way came after both D'Amato and Pappas assured 2+2 management that she would never be used again) are taken in consideration, it does raise questions which are probably healthy to be addressed here.

Best wishes,
Mason

Was Annie Duke's testimony really that terrible?

Mason,

Since you bring up Full Tilt, do you regret your decision to not end your relationship with them prior to the expiration of the advertising contract?

No.

MM

How to start the grassroots? Start by making it a priority. Take the largest state organization and figure out why they have been successful. Move those ideas around.

If state directors are not working, change the org. Set up directors by NFL teams, which happens to be correlated with population centers. Do them both.

When it comes time for fundraising, you need to have active, connected groups that understand why you are raising money, how you are spending it and what the goals are. Simply stating that it is to be spent on lobbying is waste. All politics is local; the immediate goals of each locale should be foremost.

Also, it is the express strategy of the FoF to eliminate all forms of gaming. They oppose everything and view poker as a camel under the tent issue that could broaden support for other forms of gaming.

Thanks for posting your thoughts and for the kind words and support regarding my contributions to the effort. I do my best for all of us, which is all I can do.

You make a great point about PPA donations. It is my hope that we can get more financial support from the community, of course. I think it's best for the movement to have as much player support as possible. That being said, as you noted there is an upper limit on what the community will contribute to any effort like this. It is important for everyone here to recognize the environment, so we optimize our decisions accordingly.

I appreciate the other comments as well, of course. Thanks.

What is your opinion of the desirability/feasibility of an alliance between pro-regulation casinos and the PPA? I know it is a stretch, but I see no alternative that combines popular support in numbers with insider clout+money. Will players get a great deal? Probably not. But, the current landscape is so bleak, do we have a choice? PPA decisions have played out to leave "players" no where to turn, but to the casinos.

You point to the Duke testimony, I point to the hiring of lobbyists and ignoring
of popular organizing. Were affiliate farmers, site operators, and the player base fooled by professional lobbyists looking for a paycheck? Probably. But, the past is done.

You say we need the PPA now more than ever, I agree. But where do we turn for funding? Most of the ideas I toss around in my head seem too crazy to even write, except for turning to the casinos that want this. Someone should remind them some sites were PROFITING seven figures a day.........and ask why they can't walk to shareholders or tycoons and stake a few paltry, tax deductible millions on +EV lobbying.

The one thing the PPA has done is to show lawmakers there is popular, albeit lukewarm, acceptance of poker as non-nefarious. All we need is a steady, organized, coherent voice. It takes money.

One thing that might help in getting more people to pony up money for a membership is to demonstrate that the PPA organization has state level leaders. The PPA may, or may not, have such leaders but you cannot tell by looking at the PPA website.

I'm not sure why it would make sense to marginalize your membership number. It is very valuable if for marketing purposes.

Mason, I know it's Christmas and other holidays, but with the DoJ letter snuck in on the lowest watched news cycle of the year, I think the issue just catapulted in importance. You're handling of the PPA "endorsement" to try and ensure it was for player interests was much appreciated, at least by me, and I would like to hear your opinion on how the PPA can acquire the kind of money/backing it needs going forward with this new development. The window on opportunity may be narrow.

After BF, I did make a donation to the PPA. For months, I tried to get a password to log on to their site as a member, but was not successful. I kept getting emails, apologising and even offering ball caps and T-shirts. The last was in August:

"I will get a hat mailed out to you with the next batch on Friday. I have also sent an inquiry to our IT people as to why you have not been given access to the site. Regardless I will set it up so you have access by 5PM tonight, because this never should have happened. I sincerely apologize for the delay. Did you ever receive our membership packet with the PPA chip protector? If not please contact me directly at Dave@theppa.org and I will get one sent out this afternoon. Thank you for your patience and have a great day."

They still have my email address, because I get emails from them all the time.

Anyway I finally just gave up. Even though I played a lot, I was never better than a break even player and overall have been a loser at poker. I just like to play.

But it is the publishers, the pro players, the coaches, and the sites themselves...in other words the people that are making a living from poker that need to carry the load on this as far as I am concerned.

I just hope that everyone realizes that the plight of online poker players isn't very high on the national agenda right now. At least 95% of the people in this country just don't care.