I guess if you twist the tiger's tail often enough and long enough, you eventually elicit a reaction.

I have just received an unsigned private message from FairPlay USA in which the writer states that FairPlay USA is a 501(c)(3) organization.

I note that the writer avoided use of the word corporation, company, or other word suggesting the existence of a legal entity organized under the laws of a state.

I have responded by asking for a copy of the organizational documents of the legal entity, a copy of the certificate of incorporation (or authority to transact business) and a copy of the non-profit determination letter from the IRS.

If these documents are produced as requested, I will update the thread.

So i did a quick search at the IRS' website, and all I found for "FairPlay" is



Of those, FairPlay Foundation, Inc. looks like the only contender to be our alter-ego of Middle Coast LLC. A quick google search of Fairplay Foundation, Inc. gives me these folks:



Which claims to be an organization involved in "youth services."

Waiting to see if I get a reply from FairPlay USA.

Have already clarified this by pm, but figured I'd do it here as well since it was my typo. FairPlayUSA is a 501(c)(4) organization.

Edit: This is Marisa

Thanks for the clarification here and via PM.

For the thread, the relevant differences between a (c)(3) and a (c)(4) tax exempt organization are that (c)(4) organizations:

1. ARE permitted to engage in lobbying for legislation and advocacy with regard to elections (with restrictions); and

2. Need not publicly disclose their donors.

Fairplay/Marisa,

Thank you for returning to the board and for attempting to engage with the poker playing community.

I still have multiple questions, but will start with a fairly simple one.

How were your ten principles determined? Who determined them? Were members from each portion of your coalition represented when writing the organization's principles?

Thanks

THANK GOD. I AM 100% ELATED TO SEE THAT IS YOUR FOCUS, BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US REFUTE THESE DISINGENUOUS RESPONSES TO POKER LEGISLATION.

It is infuriating to see the most common response to poker legislation stand unrefuted, and worst of all, it is a disingenuous response. The response that I am talking about is, "There is nothing to stop an impressionable young 7-year-old from taking their parents' credit cards and playing online."

Instead of responding intelligently, our community has been too disorganized, and therefore powerless to stop it. Thank you.

Examples of why that's a totally disingenuous argument:

• Find me the 7-year-old that has done this. I don't believe that set of facts exists.
• That same hypothetical child could use the stolen credit card to buy out Toys R Us online, or spend money on Amazon. Yet online commerce is not illegal, and it would be absurd to try to make it illegal.
• If your children are stealing people's credit cards and spending large amounts of money, and you don't realize it, you probably should not have custody of your child because you are hopelessly negligent. After all, they are committing fraud, and fraud is a felony.

I am also tired of the "this could be used as a tool to support terrorism."( ie as a money laundering tool) That has never been proven on the record, despite the fact that many Congressmen like to use that one. (Rick Renzi frequently used that one for example. Ironically, he is being prosecuted by the DOJ for abuse of office -- proposing legislation to in exchange for relief of a $1 million personal debt.)

If our community's best (people like Mr. Raymer) could argue this debate on the merits, we would easily defeat childish responses like these. But we have largely been unable to do so. I hope your group can help our community resolve this problem that has made our lobby look bush league.

Over the next year or two, I would love to see our community convince the world about how illogical these straw man arguments are. It has frustrated me endlessly that we are not using such tactics ourselves!

Why are we not taking out ads to paint our fiercest opponents as revenue/job killers? Why are we not painting the Bachuses of the world as opponents of the middle class? Where is the PR campaign? Where are the speeches, pseudopress conferences with celebs and media invites, photo ops and stunts?

(People do this against BP with success, both major parties do it to each other, the Family Research Council does it every day with smashing success. Why aren't we? These tactics are not new, and they prevent issues from getting drowned out in such a contentious environment.)

The lobby that I support has billions of dollars, yet our lobby is acting like we are a penniless chimneysweep out of a Dickens novel. It is absurd, ridiculous, and it is time for us to graduate to the big leagues. It looks like your organization will help get us there. Thank you!

If I remember correctly, donations to 501 (c)(4) organizations are not tax deductible. I made a donation to the PPA last year, which I could not write down on my taxes, and I believe that the PPA is designated (c)(4) because of significant lobbying activities.

So...FairPlay is (c)(4) but says that they will not engage in lobbying? That seems a little odd.

These are good questions to get this Fairplay 2p2 relationship back on track.

Thanks for posting again. I hope your answers are more direct than last time.

We look forward to being treated like an adult this time around. Don't disappoint us.

Thanks for this. The questions were not that difficult.

I think they said they wouldn't be lobbying Congress. Maybe they're lobbying law enforcement and moms.

The principles were put together with input from initial me, the Advisory Board members, and the seed funders.

Yes, all members of the coalition were/are represented in the principles and had the opportunity to provide input.

Are you really concerned as to whether law enforcement officials and consumer safety advocates were given a voice? fair enough if you are, but I get the feeling what you're really trying to ask is:

1. Did FairPlayUSA really take any input from players?
2. Were the seed funders the only people who had input on the principles?

The answers to those two questions are yes and no, respectively.

Just from my perspective, so you guys get some input on what it's like to be on the other side of the dynamic at work here, as much as you think you're always asking direct questions that are easily answered...it's not really experienced that way when one is on the receiving end of it.

A couple of reasons why:

1. Many of you say something like "I just have one simple question" and then proceed to list multiple questions (see quote above) that, particularly on our first day, required Erin to get input from others or approval from me. When she wasn't able to get answers quick enough, and even though she tried to make it clear she was working on getting answers, the dynamic got negative very quickly.

2. Too many questions designed to catch us doing something wrong, rather than questions asked with the intention of finding common ground or clarifying any differences we might have. I'm willing to work through the differences to find common ground. I'm not going to answer questions that have no other intended purpose than to try to prove or expose that FairPlayUSA is the enemy.

3. Name-calling and personal attacks. Whether they come from a member of the forum or from Mason himself-- totally unacceptable behavior from my perspective.

I hope this helps clear some things up. I'm happy to answer questions about anything I've written here.

-Marisa

Marisa

1) I did not see the quoted question as being multiple questions, but rather multiple parts of the same question.

2) So you know how people intended their questions? What I am trying to say is that you may view questions one way which is not what the intent behind the questions were.

3) Just remember that member of the forum includes you.

My question is two part. What do you mean by each of the principles and how do you see them being implemented?

My biggest issues are that there is no privacy statement on your website and we have no idea if you are going to advocate for player criminalization. If the latter is pushed by you, I cannot and will not support you and I think I speak for a lot of players.