Louis Freeh, former FBI director from 1993-2001 writes in the Washington Post:

The Oct. 10 Metro article "For many young men, poker is norm" briefly noted recent fraud charges against online poker companies, but readers may not be aware that current law inhibits law enforcement from shutting down the estimated 1,700 rogue international gambling sites that are accepting approximately $6 billion each year in bets by Americans.

and concludes

Changing the law to provide greater clarity and enhanced law enforcement authority, combined with the use of state-of-the-art technology and strict regulation, can help combat the money-laundering threat and better protect consumers as well as those who choose to play legal online poker.

(will try to find link; the story is on my Bloomberg)

looks like a month ago Louis joined FairPlayUSA.

The coalition was formed in late July and is funded by casino giants Caesars and MGM. Its purpose is to educate policymakers and the public that regulated online poker would protect consumers. The group has not endorsed specific legislation.

Apologies if this has been discussed to death already; I haven't seen it.

I'm for anything that gets poker done in the US. Gogo LF.

Fairplay has been discussed ad nauseam on 2p2. As for Freeh, it doesn't sound like he's too much "for" online poker in the way players are for it.

well he's not technically lobbying, FPUSA doesn't see themselves as a lobbying group and they say they dont do any direct lobbying.

but he is getting positive press out there directed toward our potential opponents, so it's good news indeed.

PPA daily action plans have been spreading info about his support for a bit.

tom ridge, bush's first homeland security director, is also on the board of directors of FPUSA. the below article is about a month old.
http://www.lvrj.com/business/freeh-r...129911423.html

There's a thread about FPUSA, they were dismissive towards a lot of posters that asked questions, particularly regarding what they meant by strengthening the UIGEA.

Their priority is getting legislation passed but I suspect their secondary gain is to shut down any site servicing the US and if that comes before favorable legislation I'm pretty sure they will view that as a victory.

dbledgedsword.gif

^^ merge and everleaf are no threat to caesars/mgm.

getting stronger prohibitions legislated without allowing licensing of ipoker would be a huge loss for caesars/mgm too.

they're fighting for the same end game we are, just taking a different route.

I'm not so sure of that but I'm not going to get into it again, I wasted too much time on the FPUSA thread.

Edit
I will say that I hope you're right but those FP people gave me the creeps.

well it seems like hr2366 has the best chance of passing specifically because it includes prohibitions against broader igambling. a standalone ipoker licensing bill would be practically impossible to pass. caesars/mgm lobbying to give up all their leverage to get into the ipoker market, just to shut down merge, is absurd.

Nope, you're not gonna get me started, have a nice night

Strengthening UIGEA is about more than just shutting down offshore poker sites. It is about shutting off all igambling in the US except that which is expressly legal, licensed and regulated under federal or state laws. I believe that MGM & Ceasars are just as much for this as they are for a federal bill for i-poker, and would be happy with UIGEA strengthening alone if they can't get i-poker. All the igambling in the US is, after all, competition for their casinos.

any positive news is good news in this climate, anyone that demands even the smallest amount of attention and has the credentials to back it up being on our side is a good thing

so you think an online poker licensing&regulation bill can pass congress just as easily on its own if a UIGEA-strengthening measure is already passed?

Don't know how you got that from what I wrote. "Just as easily" - lol. Nothing easy about it.

I'm just saying that I disagree with your earlier statement itt:

IMO, stronger prohibition would be seen as a gain by Ceasars & MGM even if they didn't get ipoker licensing at the same time. They are after both simultaneously obv, but would take them on as separate battles if the politics necessitated it.

wiping out the offshore iGambling market serving the US is hardly comparable to owning a licensed online poker site when it comes to Caesars/mgm's bottom line. "giving up" UIGEA strengthening will be a loss for them in terms of political capital to finally get an ipoker site on their balance sheet.

we both know the offshore gaming sites have **** traffic and are of no real threat to Vegas, which is transitioning to a vacation destination and not just a place to give compulsive gamblers their blackjack fix anymore.

why would any UIGEA supporter in congress vote for a standalone ipoker regulation bill if UIGEA was already strengthened the previous congressional session. they wouldn't, that's the whole point of the compromise. Caesars lobbying to give up important leverage toward their goal of attaining a US ipoker license is ludicrous and I don't know why you think they'd be so foolish about such a negotiation when management has repeatedly and emphatically explained the importance of and their desire to attain an ipoker license.

Are casinos really making a justifiable increase in revenue from poker in the U.S. post black friday?

Harrahs (now Ceasars) supported passage of the UIGEA in the first place. They aren't compromising anything by pushing legislation for both i-poker and UIGEA-strengthening. Those are both on their platform and they want them passed hand-in-hand.

It is us players that bring a compromise to the table - our public support for a UIGEA-strengthening bill in exchange for the i-poker we want.

Good question. You also need to ask if there would be a justifiable increase in casino revenue if the government shut down all the online sports and online casino gambling in the US. Post-BF, that's what UIGEA-strengthening is largely about.

man i like you, but i know you know uigea strengthening is in HR 2366 and in reid's last push to broaden the base of support for the measure to license online poker.

strengthening uigea will benefit caesars very little.

having a licensed ipoker site would benefit caesars a lot.

uigea supporters are much less likely to support ipoker licensing without uigea strengthening, especially if they already got that uigea strengthening the last session.

why would they lobby to lose future votes on an ipoker bill?

We don't disagree, except on one point: Ceasars will benefit by the UIGEA strengthening since it tightens the noose against anything other than whatever Ceasars get licensed for, and it eliminates elements of competition to their b&m operations. So I'm saying that if they can't get both now, they'll take them one at a time.

They aren't lobbying to lose future votes. They are lobbying now for everything they want in one package. Hopefully they'll get it that way.