Karl Rove and Steve Wynn

[Karak]

Very interesting article on their relationship.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78466.html

Relevant quotes:

Spies and Britt wouldn’t comment on what they discussed or their roles in Wynn’s operation. But lobbying filings show Spies’s firms — first McKenna Long & Aldridge and then Clark Hill — have been paid $375,000 by the publicly traded casino-developing and management company Wynn runs, Wynn Resorts, to lobby Congress on a range of internet gambling issues and international taxation, while Britt has been involved in state government lobbying for Wynn.

Wynn’s outspokenness also has caused tension in his relationship with Reid, whose political committees have reported receiving $64,000 over the years from Wynn and his ex-wife Elaine Wynn.
Wynn called Reid to express frustrations with the Democratic health care overhaul before Reid’s 2010 reelection. Afterwards, the casino mogul teamed with his once-bitter rival Adelson to oppose an effort by Reid to slip language into a tax bill to legalize online gambling. “Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn called members personally to tell them that the bill wasn’t sufficient,” said a senior congressional aide.
Reid ultimately decided not to move ahead with the plan. And Wynn’s aggressiveness on the Hill, as well as his de facto alliance with Adelson, were noted by GOP insiders, who interpreted the moves as signaling a bigger footprint in Republican politics.

[DonkeyQuixote]

One thing does not add up at all, poker-wise .....

if Steve Wynn were opposed to online gambling legislation as such, how did it happen that he then signed an agreement with PStars to prospectively offer online gambling services. Same question for 2012 re announced agreement/talks with Zynga ?

What does the article mean by saying the Reid bill was deemed not "sufficient" ?:

“Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn called members personally to tell them that the bill wasn’t sufficient,”

I certainly can see Wynn and Adelson opposing a Caesars-weighted bill, but don't see much more poker legislation relevance to the story.... maybe they wanted online casinos ?

(OTOH, there may be a shared interest in a Nevada-based, Hispanic, very personable Republican Governor becoming a Romney VP pick .... which would be really GOOD for online gaming legislation advocates:


"Molasky rejected the suggestion that Wynn had become more politically active or more Republican over the years, telling POLITICO “you’re reading much too much into this Republican thing. He votes for the person.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz20WjT1W4y )

[DjSkyy]

I find this story a little disturbing. I have always felt that the wynn properties were some of (if not THE) finest in vegas, and have generally respected Steve Wynn as a person.

Not many people on earth i would consider being less savory to becoming cozy with than Karl Rove. Wasn't that basically the point of the story? Not so much about poker but about Wynn switching teams politically?

Sort of disappointing.

[ScreaminAsian]

well, he was always a right-wing nutjob, he just didn't get mad about it until the democrats actually tried to accomplish something. ON HIS WATCH. he's a billionaire republican so obv it's on his honor to **** with the D's for such a transgression.

but what's weird is that he helped foil the 2010 reid push, then in between that and BF, he partnered with pokerstars...

this guy's harder to read than nixon. for the sake of comedy i hope he swears as much.

[sluggger5x]

Adelson and Wynn don't oppose online gambling. Rather, they oppose online gambling that doesn't benefit them sufficiently. This apparently played a huge part in the 2010 bill failing, along with Jon Kyl.

If both of these men are satisfied with a deal it will get done. (Kyl's confirmed approval could mean Adelson is satisfied but may not.)

Wynn gonna do what is best for Wynn.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by sluggger5x

Adelson and Wynn don't oppose online gambling. Rather, they oppose online gambling that doesn't benefit them sufficiently. This apparently played a huge part in the 2010 bill failing, along with Jon Kyl.

If both of these men are satisfied with a deal it will get done. (Kyl's confirmed approval could mean Adelson is satisfied but may not.)

Wynn gonna do what is best for Wynn.

Actually, i think this story should be read as highly favorable for the prospects of passage of a federal online poker bill, before OR after the end of this session.

If both Adelson and Wynn were major 2012 bankrollers for the Republicans AND the Romney election bid, then their favorable stance toward online gaming will be able to call in a few markers if needed to pass a bill, even in 2013.

Is there is a shot at a Romney-Sandoval ticket ?

[ForcesEqualZero]

Meh. American politics, ladies & gentlemen. :|

[Karak]

for what it's worth, i overall saw this story as a positive sign for online poker legislation

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by Karak

for what it's worth, i overall saw this story as a positive sign for online poker legislation

That's an understatement, any sign that Addelson is in play even slightly is an outstanding sign, not just for the lameduck but if that fails, even more so if Romney were elected.

My interpretation of not being 'sufficient' is that Addelson wants a stone-cold-lead-pipe guarantee that this is going to be poker only, not some stepping stone to putting the entire casino experience online.

No source, just my opinion from listening to all of his comments over the years.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

That's an understatement, any sign that Addelson is in play even slightly is an outstanding sign, not just for the lameduck but if that fails, even more so if Romney were elected.

My interpretation of not being 'sufficient' is that Addelson wants a stone-cold-lead-pipe guarantee that this is going to be poker only, not some stepping stone to putting the entire casino experience online.

No source, just my opinion from listening to all of his comments over the years.

I read a little more into the 2010 "not sufficient" comment from Adelson. I would guess he is looking for:

1. Exclusion of interstate licensing of non-US-casino companies (foreign sites, US non-casino companies like Zynga and Yahoo, lotteries, race tracks and tribes who don't run B&M casinos) as site operators, at least to the best extent he can get.

2. An equal-playing-field entry into the market by the US casinos (simultaneous start date, including a long enough delay that he can get his ducks in a row to compete).

3. Sufficient enforcement mechanisms against unlicensed sites.

4. And maybe, just maybe, his concern about sufficient protections for minors is genuine. No one can argue that past history shows that there were many under-21s playing online poker, including many under-18s.

But, I'm just speculating.

[tamiller866]

^^^
1,2 Wasn't most of that covered in 2010 with the blackout period and requirement of partnership with US casino?

3. Thought they strengthened UIGEA to cover that...

4. Have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's been briefed by Reid, Frank Fahrenkopf and likely others on the age verification technology, sure a hacker could probably get in, but not an 'innocent' minor.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

^^^
1,2 Wasn't most of that covered in 2010 with the blackout period and requirement of partnership with US casino?

3. Thought they strengthened UIGEA to cover that...

4. Have to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's been briefed by Reid, Frank Fahrenkopf and likely others on the age verification technology, sure a hacker could probably get in, but not an 'innocent' minor.

First, I don't see any reason to assume that they have said a word to him. They are kind of on opposite sites of the fence.

Secondly, anyone who is legitimately concerned about underage play and is beyond being totally retarded wouldn't give a flying bleep about what Reid or Fahrenkopf said. They are both biased to begin with, and neither one of them really has a clue about internet security issues. If it is a concern, talk to people who know what they are doing.

[tamiller866]

I don't know, he said in an interview that they had talked about it, that he and Harry are friendly but 'nobody was going to change his mind', which makes me believe that isn't the real reason.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

I read a little more into the 2010 "not sufficient" comment from Adelson. I would guess he is looking for:

1. Exclusion of interstate licensing of non-US-casino companies (foreign sites, US non-casino companies like Zynga and Yahoo, lotteries, race tracks and tribes who don't run B&M casinos) as site operators, at least to the best extent he can get.

2. An equal-playing-field entry into the market by the US casinos (simultaneous start date, including a long enough delay that he can get his ducks in a row to compete).

3. Sufficient enforcement mechanisms against unlicensed sites.

4. And maybe, just maybe, his concern about sufficient protections for minors is genuine. No one can argue that past history shows that there were many under-21s playing online poker, including many under-18s.

But, I'm just speculating.

A bit of historic background is in order on the "poker only v. casino also" split among Nevada operators re online legislation. Basically, the split festered between Caesars and MGM, stawlarts of the AGA for years, because Caesars was willing to go with its newly acquired flagship WSOP branding while MGM wanted a broader legalization rather than ceding a branding advantage to the WSOP.

There are folks on this forum who, if they speak candidly without spin, should not have to speculate on the demise of the 2010 lame duck session;

(1) Did 2010 really come to a "coin flip", or

(2) were there substantive material insufficiencies in the Reid 2010 Lame Duck bill to garner ley operator support, such as that of Adelson and Wynn ?

If, Adelson, who with Wynn reportedly shot down the 2010 Lame Duck, has the ear of Eric Cantor, has the new 2012 proposal been sufficiently re-worked to enable its passage by the House in this 2012 Lame Duck session ?

In this last regard, Representative Barton's reported evolving comments are interesting. At the WSOP Town Hall, he carefully qualified his comments about passage to the extent they held "if the matter comes to a vote". Since Eric Cantor effectively controls "whether" a matter will come to a House vote during the 2012 Lame Duck, that qualification mattered.

Interestingly, Rep. Barton's more recent reported quote that the bill WILL come to a vote may signal a positive shift has occurred in the prospects of passage during the lame duck. LG might want to take down his posted odds.

(Finally, when Berge posts, read what he says as accurate.)

[ChicagoRy]

4. And maybe, just maybe, his concern about sufficient protections for minors is genuine. No one can argue that past history shows that there were many under-21s playing online poker, including many under-18s.

A lot of this stuff was "played under my dad's name, I was a winner and he let me cashout into his bank account" type stuff that I think is into the territory of trying to police a father giving his son a beer in their own house.

Not that I support 17 year old kids playing online poker, but if their parents are letting them use CCs and open accounts in their names, it's tough to call the problem lack of controls on the gaming side.

As for gambling under 18 without any parental permission, you usually need a way to get ID and other documents in order to cashout, at least in recent years. I think it's much more difficult for a kid to play poker online under 18 if the parents are the least bit attentive to credit card statements, personal documents and what their kids generally do with their time.