Player-Funded PPA Possible??

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

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.

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

[Doc T River]

Originally Posted by Doc T River

Would it be possible to have a button on the PPA membership page where someone could pay more for their membership if they wished?

Since my question got missed, here it is again.

[Jonaspublius]

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

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.

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.

[ChaosReigns]

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

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.

[JPFisher55]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[ChaosReigns]

Originally Posted by JPFisher55

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

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

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

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)

[ChaosReigns]

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.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by Doc T River

Since my question got missed, here it is again.

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

[Mason Malmuth]

Originally Posted by sajeffe

I have put this here so as not to get an infraction in the original thread.

I agree that the PPA should be player-funded. There should be a minimum membership fee for poor people like me of $10 or $15. Others could pay $25 or whatever.

However, I doubt this will ever happen without, as DQ suggested, hiring professional fundraisers. Players need to be made aware that the PPA needs to become player-funded. If they care about poker, they'll fund it. If they don't care about poker, there isn't much need for the PPA.

What to do if only 8000-9000 people care, though? That's the ballpark of how many signed the White House poker petition. 8000 people at $25 is only $200,000. That probably doesn't even pay for one lobbiest.

So I guess it boils down to how many people care and how much do they care? If only 8000 people care, there really is no need for the PPA or poker legislation.

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

[Will Poker 4 Food]

Was Annie Duke's testimony really that terrible?

[ChaosReigns]

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?

[Mason Malmuth]

Originally Posted by ChaosReigns

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

[Grasshopp3r]

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.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

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

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.