He didn't ask if you guys refused help, he asked if you sought out help. There's a difference.

Regarding FairPlayUSA, did it come about due to your efforts of seeking help from CE or did it spring up by itself? That's what he's asking.

We've asked everyone for donations. Again, if these companies typically gave donations to independent organizations, any number of players could have started their own groups and received these donations.

FPUSA is perfectly aligned with the agenda of Caesars and MGM, as one would expect. I'm not saying that's a problem. In fact, we need a coalition to win this and I'm glad they are in it. Rather, I'm saying that is what these companies will fund, and that's not us. We're an independent group with some crossover and some shared goals, but not with 100% alignment.

In regards to seeking greater funding by players, what forms have those efforts taken?

Off the top of my head, we've sent out numerous email requests. I've many many personal requests via my weekly member update as well (emailed, featured on the PPA website, and posted on 2+2). PPA has a banner ad in rotation here on 2+2 as well.

We also have a new deal, where memberships are $15 rather than $20. I've mentioned this several times on my webcast, QJs, the PokerCast, my weekly interview on Short Stacked radio, and other places.

www.theppa.org/donate and http://members.theppa.org/2012-join/

Where do you get this from ?

I started this topic as an issue because I thought player funding is a requirement for the PPA to become a truly player representative organization. Sajeffe moved my post here to develop the discussion.

Just to be clear for your better reading comprehension, I will repeat my post content in this thread just two days ago in BOLD:

I think that, after last week, every US poker player should donate to the PPA with a message to play DEFENSE on Capitol Hill, against the inevitable FoF type of assault on the DOJ's restated Wire Act view.

I expect prospective licensees to seek draconian application of the Wire Act to "unlicensed poker". The PPA should resist that call and push for States to act, not the federal government.

I tend to disagree on the level of seeking help.

I don't like it, and I know you don't, but the PPA has to accept being a junior partner in any effort. You simply lack the money, the organization, and the relationships. Make a public, in the press offer to act with the casinos to move this forward. Hell, stage a public tourney in Vegas at MGM or Caesar's with half the entries going to the PPA, and donations coming from the casinos, and put it on tv. The sort of thing that generates publicity. Give them board seats.

As it is, you're shut out from whatever goes forward this year. You might be politely asked some questions or told something, but the PPA will not in any substantive way affect ipoker legislation that has a chance to move this year. MGM and Caesars and Harrahs will.

The bottom line is it is my opinion that the PPA is set on staying the course with their current model, their current staff, and current funders. I believe it is not in the best interest of the player world, but I'm powerless to do much besides voice that opinion in the correct places, and that is what I felt I have done. And, I still see the PPA as being the tool of the IGC, and determined not to help other entities gain the market they lost, based on the evidence of the shape current efforts are taking.

I agree with Mason there is a more urgent need than ever for the PPA, or something like it. How it will be paid for is the big question, but what it is now is woefully inadequate and almost at a dead end.

Most of us all here have different politics. You seem to be living in this libertarian nirvana world outside pragmatic possibilities and reality. The FoF has very little say in how this goes forward. It has morphed from a social issue into a business issue. You're bogged down in a 2006 world that doesn't exist at present.

You're acting like the PPA is a powerful lobbying interest, or that players alone
can do anything. Wake up, dude. Read a real newspaper, not the Ron Paul Survival Report. Everyone would love for justice to come to pass and be allowed poker in our homes, as is our constitutional right. Ain't gonna happen.
States that need revenue aren't going ot embrace poker players and sing cum bah ya either.

I'm sorry if your offended, and you feel attacked, but you seem to lack any insight on politics or reality. And, every time I relent on my resolution to not read what you write, you seem to be in an endless feud with Skall over minutiae.

He's certainly allowed to have his opinion. You also need to remember that we at Two Plus Two have not always been happy with the PPA and we still have questions about their top leadership.

However, our view is that at this point in time the PPA is needed, and that TheEngineer is a significant asset. But your post, in my opinion, is certainly out of line, and as a moderator my recommendation to you is to delete it since it's our policy on Two Plus Two not to have insults.

Mason

I agree. If the PPA was fully player funded then it would be a 100 percent player representative organization. But you and me both know that's not going to happen because there won't be enough players to donate. So the question is: Are the current goals of the players and the IGC close enough for the PPA to represent both?

Best wishes,
Mason

So you expect a large Las Vegas Casino to give up lots of their floor space, plus the paying of their staff, to get this done. And how much money will it really make. Suppose you get 200 entries at $100 each, If half goes to the PPA, that's $10,000 which is nowhere close to what the PPA needs to do their job.

Perhaps that's true. But that doesn't mean the PPA is not doing its job.

As stated in another post of mine, I think this is the real question. Are the goals of the players and the IGC via THE PPA currently close enough that they can both work together? It's my opinion that the answer at this point in time is yes, but that can always change in the future.

I still see The PPA playing an important role. But I do believe that it has made decisions, such as the poker is a skill game and therefore it is not gambling argument, that are damaging to its current credibility. However, in the recent dust-up with I. Nelson Rose, the PPA did show that it can play a constructive and influential role.

So what the PPA needs to do, and this may not be as simple as it sounds, is to make the right decisions and arguments in the future, and use the best people to speak on their behalf. If that happens, their credibility should grow.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks Mason. I appreciate that.

Let's start with the Daily Actions. If we, the people most committed to this, can all do these each day, we can start the process that will cause this to grow more and more. It's up to each of us. Let's all go to the Daily Action Thread, take two or three minutes to do the actions, bookmark the thread, and repeat each day.

If you say so, boss. Post deleted.

Leave it up, it doesn't bother me. I have an ego, but I don't let it get in the way of trying to say and accomplish things. I have never, ever reported a post on any message board, complained about an insult to a floor, or reported one in chat at a poker table. I wanted some attention to the malaise at the PPA in moving on from IGC, and I got it. I'm an *******, I expect things like that.

No one has countered the argument that funding will dry up......and inactivity at the top is related to professional ethics(I wouldn't want my high dollar lobbyists assisting companies that ****ed mine) and industry competition. Most of my ideas are that, just ideas. But it seems we are at a crux. The PPA is going broke and slightly rudderless at the time most likely to see legislation and enforcement policy radically change. If we aren't willing to get desperate, we will be on the sidelines.

I don't think it is impossible to pitch to a casino CEO that you have hundreds of grinders WANTING direction on how to move regulation forward. I'm not a gaming consultant, but I do think there is money to be made, and piles of it for integrating B&M play with online play. How much $ do these companies drop on advertizing with "pros"? How much for commercial spots, or ads in gambling magazine rags? If some of that fat can be repurposed into assisting players get what they want, AND you have a good product lined up to offer, you can see your way to bankrolling this. Even a poorly run ipoker room can make millions in a year. If nothing else the PPA mailing list is worth it to casinos to promote thru.

It doesn't have to be a tourney, why not just theme the table talk of a poker show to the PPA one night? Make it clear to folks we are this effing close to starting a snowball, but it will take players working with US casinos to make it happen. Networks still air poker shows, why is no one in their ear that a behind-the-scenes nudge and mention here and there worth skyrocketing their ratings again in the future? Poker always has another boom coming, it is a great game, but it will never get the reach it had before the UIGEA without the internet returning to being the center of the poker world.

Why don't some of the people who got even richer than they would have without the internet step up? Poker always feeds up the chain, and even a modest investment of time, money, and voice will pay dividends to them in the future. No one is going to be Team MGM with the money that Stars or FTP doled out without them being on the net, too. It is time for some goddamn giving back from those who made the most.

I'm very new to this conversation (very constructive). Just want add a lobbyist point of view as an interested observer. Money is always important but ultimately, what's talked about in Vegas stays and is not always heard here in DC. Generally speaking, money raised for a cause is ultimately used to communicate here (to Members, staff etc.). Not just at Congressional hearings. While my sense is there is gaining momentum for the Burton bill, I don't get the sense that the effort is socialized on Capitol Hill. You have two great government relations assets - the game and the players. Bring them here (more often). Your 1% Tourneys generate more local buzz than anything in Vegas. It's a lot cheaper to effectively deliver your message directly to Members and staff around a poker table than buying time on a cable channel.

It is Barton, not Burton.

Dude just got here, didn't want it to seem like you were being abrasive.

There is no one to pay for or organize either. Nothing would be better than name recognized players associating with Capitol Hill people in a charity event and daring the secret service to arrest them. Poker Immortality, but we live in an age of cowards, selfish self-promoters, and total disinterested ****s. *shrug*

Hell, it would make a great "reality tv" setting. As good as storage wars or swamp people or real virgins.

You sort of hit the nail on the head. First, there's nothing illegal about running a tounament for charity, inviting Members of Congress and staff, winner gets a seat at WSOP. PPA has done it in the past, so have others. No different than a charity golf tournament.

Look, I live in DC. Love poker. Lots of folks here do - tons of friendly home games. But it's a real poker wasteland. The online poker issue suffers from an image problem. With the exception of home games, poker is played somewhere else. It's on TV.

The best way to advocate for anything bringing the stakeholders together with the decision makers. Here! Around a poker table. Not in Vegas. As a lobbyist, nothing beats an hour of face time with Congressman shooting the s***. Why do you think golf is so popular here?

200 people playing poker for a few hours certainly beats 75 people at a "rally" outside the Capitol.

Was not my intention, but frequently I am abrasive.

Not at all. You'd think I got paid to know the names of Congressmen.

That just isn't a PPA priority. IGC interests predominate players and the game.

Wrong.

First of all, the post you quote notes that the PPA has sponsored charity poker tournaments in DC. I have attended a couple and spoke with the members of Congress that attended.

Second, that "75 person rally" was had in conjunction with the PPA fly-in, an event where poker players from around the country met directly with their representatives (or their staff) to urge support for online poker legislation. It was the second Fly-in and both were notable successes at increasing support.

And the money to pay for that? Mostly IGC, of course.

There are no IGC interests that predominate over that of players. None.

If you think I am wrong, simply list the areas where the PPA has taken a position that favors the interests of the IGC over the interests of players. I do not think you can list even one.

On the other hand, I can list a number of areas where the PPA took stands on specific legislation that were not in the best interest of the IGC members.

There is no conflict of interest and never has been.

But, of course, the actual facts seem irrelevant to those who simply believe that it is impossible for poker business owners and poker players to have similar interests and be able to work together.

Skallagrim