Ridiculous. Sites donate to PPA via the IGC because they want what we want. It makes sense for them, and it makes sense for us players. That is, unless you can think of a way to get players to donate the money needed to wage the right to which you seem to feel entitled.

There are two ways to change the ratio. More players can donate, or PPA can decline some IGC donations. Or, of course, you can organize an advocacy group.

PPA is a 501(c)(4).

The donations were from the IGC. Full tilt and poker stars contributed to the IGC. This is not news unless its 2009 again, this has been discussed and debated ad nauseum in public forums. Not sure why this reporter thinks she found breaking news

This.

PPA mentions it all the time in interviews. It's on the website at http://theppa.org/about/faq.

The IGC membership: http://www.igcouncil.org/index.php

It's because they used those funds to lobby government officials.

ridiculous

Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd.

hehehe.... sometimes all I can do is just laugh at you guys.. man o man.... whew. And it runs in the family. I gotta blame whoever is running that ship, giving the orders.

Describe what you've done to advocate for the game. If you have a better plan, I know I'd love to hear it.

It's not a matter of lobbying them to leave offshore and come to the US. There are plenty of companies not based in the US that still operate here underneath our laws and regulatory atmosphere. Just pick a car company, BWM, Toyota, etc for example.

Where they are based has nothing to do with them being able to operate in the US. But whether or not they are allowed to operate under a our regulatory umbrella does. You are making it sound like the PPA was pushing to get them (FTP/PS) back in the US without being subject to US laws, which was never going to occur. I am trying to point out that PPA lobbied for the regulatory atmosphere to be changed first and foremost, even if that change brought with it detrimental consequences to companies like FTP and PS, such as blackout periods from bad actor clauses. If what you say is true, they would have been ****ting all over any bill that had blackout periods proposed in them to protect FTP/PS interests before they protected our own, and that wasn't the case.

As much as I love how PS has represented themselves in all of this, if they had to sit out for 5 years (a la the NV bill) for us to get ipoker back up and running in the US, I'd wave to PS, blow them a kiss, and promise that I'd deposit the same day their site opened 5 years down the road, then go start grinding on MGM/Ceasars for the time being.

As far as the PPA goes, very few people on 2+2 have any grounds to bitch about what they do. I'm not a fan boy by any means, but I'm well aware of the utter lack of any other organization who even comes close to ostensibly having our best interests at heart, let alone who has done some of the things the PPA has done.

Until you start dropping a few milli of your own money on developing support and lobbying state and federal legislatures to make something good happen for us, or hell, just call your congressman even once to talk to him about poker, shut the **** up and just be happy someone wants to and is trying to do something about it. ChigagoRy made a really good point about just how far 50k realistically takes you. Nowhere, it gets you nowhere.

I'm not saying we should take everything they (the PPA) do for granted, but if you don't engage with them to let them know what you think and how you feel, and you don't do any work of your own reaching out to your elected officials who are, in the end, the ones who will make changes happen for you, how can you possibly think you have any right to judge what the PPA does? Frankly, you don't, and if you have even a modicum of intelligence, you know that you don't. This isn't directed at any one particular individual, it's for any hater out there that bitches but doesn't do anything to fix the things he bitches about.


tl;dr go ppa?

B+ rant

I'd give it an A+ if you called a few people out.

Too much irrelevant nonsense in this thread.

Let's put all of the Haley bashing aside, and let's ignore the pro-PPA versus anti-PPA arguments.

Let's stick to the whole point of this thread.

John Pappas, did you or did you not exchange multiple e-mails with Jeremy Johnson in 2010?

If so, what were these e-mails about?

Did you ever talk on the phone to Jeremy Johnson? If so, when and why?

Did you ever discuss SunFirst with Jeremy Johnson?

If you are proud of your actions in 2010, and have nothing to hide, these should be easy questions to answer directly and succinctly.

And please don't answer with "I only met him one time at a party."

I'm asking about e-mails and phone calls (which are often meeting methods of the 21st century), not necessarily in-person meetings.

yeah.. first you insult me now you ask for my advice.

so are you all saying that hintze's article has 0 credibility?

if so, care to share why she'd take the time to write that? what her motivations are?

i should also note this, found on twitter: Eponymous ‏@EponymousPoker
So is there no discussion on 2+2 about the article by @Haley_Hintze on the PPA because Rich Muny is a 2+2 mod/insider?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Mar 1 Haley Hintze ‏@Haley_Hintze
@EponymousPoker The thought has occurred to me. Why don't you start a thread and report back on what happens?
Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More

My own concerns with the PPA were always quite the opposite, it seemed that the PPA board actually (genuinely) believed that if they could just show politicians or family groups that people lost their money playing poker because of an absence of skill rather than the odds of the game being stacked against them, that they would suddenly drop their opposition to online poker.

I believe it was rooted in the misconception that 'fantasy sports got a skill game carve-out' so poker should also, but if someone wanted to run a poker site that conformed to the restrictions set on fantasy sports (length of contest, prizes not determined by entry fee) they could probably legally do so in more than half the States.

When that strategy was ever questioned, the response was always along the lines of 'if golf isn't gambling then neither is poker', but golf can be gambled on just like anything else if you set the term of the contest short enough, hole in one rewards during golf tournaments follow sweepstakes laws (no entry fee) in most States to avoid requiring a gambling license.

PokerStars and FTP weren't interested in just running poker sites, they wanted to run poker sites where players were free to gamble - the kind of sites players like to play on, which is fine, but it shouldn't have taken the PPA 7 years to figure out that in order to do that on a large scale, including running advertisements 24/7 on TV and processing millions of dollars in daily transactions, they were going to need to be licensed in the States from which they accepted players.

IMHO, it was the PPA who was promoting the idea that there were shortcuts available for getting poker made 'legal', so it seems counter intuitive for the PPA to now be the one's saying 'no one expected it to be easy' when it was yourselves that raised those expectations within the poker community.

There's obviously plenty of discussion here. Nothing's been moderated out or blocked.

even if the attacks on the PPA are unfounded and petty, this kind of crap you throw back at people is just a terrible way to respond to the very people you claim to represent.

If he is wrong, so be it. Convince him, if you can, ignore him if you can't. But this, this is just . . . . If you were a congressman talking to a constituent like this, it would be career ending.

This is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the PPA, the defensiveness is palpable. It's so unnecessary.

Curt,

Our rights are under attack. We should be sticking together and standing up for ourselves. Frankly, I think it's disgusting that some people not only do nothing, but they go out of their way to attack those who are.

I'm used to it. I've been personally attacked in some form at least once per day every single day for the past six years. It's not what I thought we'd have when I started trying to rally the players after UIGEA passed, but it is what it is.

That's actually why I push back hard sometimes. If I don't, others pick up on the attacks, buy into them, and then the unfounded opinion becomes the community zeitgeist.

I'm saying there's no "there" there at all.

She's personally upset with both Pappas and me. She posted this on some site called PokerFraudAlert, where she promised retribution for perceived personal slights:

I think it's a personal vendetta.

I agree, but saying "look at all we've done, what have you done? Form your own organization and see if you can do better" is no way to respond to criticism

All the more reason you should be able to take criticism without lashing out. A fairly large section of the poker playing population do not think the PPA is being effective, far more than are actually saying it out loud on the forums. Rather than being defensive you should be open minded, and working to allay those concerns.

It's not effective, believe me. It makes it worse

Maybe you'd get attacked less if you weren't such a blowhard.

You can't really say stuff like "Our rights are under attack!" if you support a federal ban on online gambling as long as it has your own carve out in it.

Thanks for sharing.

PPA would never support a ban on online gaming. PPA is neutral on the online gaming issue. We're a poker advocacy group.

If legislation is good for online casino gaming and and online poker, like in NJ, we're there pushing such bills hard. OTOH, if the pro-casino gaming advocates are not doing their part and there's no push for inclusion for online casino gaming, then we're pushing for poker alone.

I think this all comes down to one thing.

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[35] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[36]

The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[37][38] Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[39][40]
Wikipedia link

Seems like a deliberate effort was made to be secretive. Why set the PPA up like that? I don't expect you would know, but perhaps someone else does..

Because everyone of those questions has been answered in this thread at least twice already, there is a seriously serious legit question incoming:

Are you ******ed?

Just want to point out that this isn't necessarily true (about politicians). Christie has become quite noted for speaking his mind, and it's appreciated. I wish more politicians would be like 'yeah, you are an idiot, educate yourself on the issue first'. There is something to be said for bluntness and honesty. You get to know where someone stands and can go forward from there. I personally see no need to smooth the feathers of people blatantly antagonistic. If they don't want to be convinced, they won't be, so why make an effort to do so?