Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
Let me tell you a little about my interactions with FairPlayUSA and my take on them.
First off, there is no question in my mind that they are an astroturf organization. Amazingly enough, I believe that Marisa and the rest of the FPU staff believe their own claims that they are a grassroots organization and not an astroturf. The explanation for this will follow.
My interactions with FPU began last week, starting with a phone call I received from Greg Raymer. He told me of his involvement as a member of their Advisory Board, and wanted to find out if I'd be interested in doing work for them in a similar manner to what TE does for the PPA. I said I could be interested but had a lot of questions (which would have largely revolved around whether or not FPU would be truly grassroots, i.e. input from players would matter). The next step according to Greg was supposed to be a phone call from David Satz of Ceasars (Vice President of Government Relations and Development), but that call never came.
As I found out later, what actually happened after my discussion with Greg was an e-mail from Greg to Marisa about me, including a suggestion that I receive compensation (pay) for my work (something Greg & I discussed). This, according to Marisa, "sparked an internal conversation about having a paid person from the PPA/2+2", and it didn't go any further. (Note: Means "paid person" for FPU, not that I am paid by PPA or 2+2 - I am just a volunteer for both.)
So here is my take on this part of it (speculation): David Satz, a senior lobbyist for Ceasars, came up with the idea of funding a new organization to muster public advocacy support from interests groups that could be aligned with Ceasers federal online poker legislation goals. The money was put up by Ceasars and MGM to start (others have been approached, according to Greg) and Middle Coast LLC was selected to staff it.
The intent was to develop a "grassroots campaign", which in the political advocacy industry has a very specific definition which differs greatly from the common definition. To them, "grassroots" means that it involves garnering the support of individuals of special interest groups who will express support for their political agenda when called upon through e-mails, phone calls, petitions, etc. to Congresscritters. This is distinct from "lobbying", which is a process of one-on-one meetings with Congresscritters by paid lobbyists.
To us, this specialized definition of "grassroots" is nearly identical to the definition of "astroturf". To them, this definition of "grassroots" is just a common definition within their industry, and incredibly enough is not equitable in their mind to "astroturf". To Marisa, their use of "grassroots campaign" was truly not a lie, and they do not believe that they are an astroturf organization.
What is the difference in their mind? I think that within their industry there is distinct definition for "astroturf" just as there is for "grassroots". In my communications with Marisa (more on that later), she knows of and considers Poker Voters of America to be an "astroturf". To them, an "astroturf" must be an organization that purports to do what FPU is doing, but doesn't actually.
So really you have two types of astroturf: 1) an organization with a set political agenda that reaches out to individuals of special interest groups that agree with the agenda, in order to get these individuals to participate in coordinated citizen lobbying efforts (as opposed to lobbying by paid lobbyists); and 2) an organization with a set political agenda that purports to do #1 but in reality uses that as a cover to do their own direct lobbying by paid lobbyists under the guise of representing the wishes of citizens. FairPlayUSA is type #1. PVOA is type #2. Marisa and her staff do not consider type #1 to be an "astroturf" but rather the very definition of "grassroots" - hence all the back and forth in this thread.
More to follow...
Thank you for both of your posts (only one quoted here.) This clears up a lot of the confusion that quite a few of us in this thread have been having.
Totally different definitions for the same term, resulting in confusion and charges of lying. I learned all about the hazards of such things while studying philosophy way back when while in college. Here, though, the blame can be fairly (it seems to me) placed on FairPlayUSA because they should have known that they were using the term "grassroots" in the opposite manner of the general public.
Why can't they just use the same definition of "grassroots" as the general public? I know, a rhetorical question....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan)
tldr warning.
First, let me apologize for not posting in this thread since the start. I am currently on vacation with my family. I took off some time from that Tuesday morning to make my initial post, and was trading a whole bunch of emails with Erin and Marisa early Tuesday (east coast time) to help them with some of your initial questions and concerns. And I warned them that you would be a tough group with lots of hard questions. ;-) Since then, I have been busy with my wife and daughter and visiting relatives until today.
I would like to make it clear that I have been paid nothing by FPUSA, nor by Caesars, MGM, or anybody else in exchange for my involvement on the Board of Advisors. There is also no promise of future payments, endorsement deals, or anything else of even marginal value. The only promise involving money is that if I travel or otherwise spend money on behalf of FPUSA, that I will be reimbursed. So, no matter what, I will break even financially with respect to my involvement here. Zero profit potential.
On a related note, PX wrote in post #543 his involvement with FPUSA, mentioning me. He also mentioned himself getting paid. I had told FPUSA that they could use somebody like The Engineer, who would spend lots of time on the forums, and could point them to relevant threads and answer questions on their behalf, and do it so well. I recommended that they talk to PX, but only after I spoke to him about it. PX is the one who asked if this were going to be a paid position, and I told him that was between him and FPUSA, but that I would support the idea of him being paid, just as I supported it when the PPA decided to hire Rich Muny in a paid position to continue his efforts here on 2+2 and elsewhere. I was not trying to buy off or bribe PX, nor was FPUSA IMO.
Anything I post is my opinion only, and not necessarily the official position of FPUSA. Anything posted by the FPUSA account IS their official position, whether the person actually typing the post is Erin, Marisa, or anybody else (not that I know of anybody else who might be posting thereunder). So not really sure why this has been such a big deal to so many of you.
Here is my understanding of why FPUSA exists, and why I agreed to be on their Board of Advisors and lend my support. Without a doubt, FPUSA has been funded by Caesars/MGM (hereinafter C/M), and they are behind its creation. Obviously I do not expect FPUSA to ever take a position or make efforts that are contrary to the best interests of C/M. But FPUSA is not equal to C/M. With respect to lobbying and otherwise working to get legislation passed, there are things that C/M can do. But there are things that are not easy for them to do directly, but which an organization like FPUSA can do. IMO, the main purpose of FPUSA is not to try and get any specific legislation passed, nor to advocate for any detailed issue, such as low rake, high rake, who does or does not get a license, etc. The purpose of FPUSA is to build public support as broadly as possible for the general concept that online poker should be legal, licensed, and regulated.
We know that all poker players are behind this concept. But amongst the bulk of the population who don't play poker at all, or very infrequently, how many of them are behind this concept? Many of these people are indifferent to our concerns, and many are actively opposed (because they think all gambling is evil and dangerous or whatever). The purpose of FPUSA is to enlighten as many of this latter group as possible, and get them to support the cause of online poker. And that is it.
It is not the goal of FPUSA to get a bill passed that creates a duopoly for C/M. C/M can make that push on their own if they choose, but won't be using FPUSA to make that push for them. If they did such a thing through FPUSA, I would be stepping down immediately. If they used FPUSA to advocate any clearly anti-player positions, I would step down immediately.
I decided to help FPUSA, for free, because I felt that helping them would help me and all poker players obtain the licensed and regulated online poker that we all want. But I do not think that FPUSA is going to help, or hurt, when the fight becomes about more than just getting online poker, but getting it with all the details just the way we would like them. But until we get licensed and regulated online poker at all, there is no point in all of us engaging in in-fighting about the details of how it is licensed and regulated.
Now none of this means that questions about how legislation is worded, and all those details, aren't important at this time. They are legitimate issues that we should worry about now AND later. But the purpose of FPUSA, as I understand it, is not about any of those details. It is just about building a broader coalition of support for the generic idea of promoting licensed and regulated online poker in some form. All of us as individuals, as well as our other groups like the PPA, and organizations like C/M as well as other interests, will work on the details as they also try to get online poker licensed and regulated.
So, IMO, if you want to see online poker in the US, you should support FPUSA. If you care about the details, which pretty much all of us do, then you also support the PPA and make a lot of personal effort with your representatives, to make sure that the details are as favorable as possible to the players.
So, even though a lot of tough, and appropriate, questions have been asked of FPUSA, and even though many of you did not like the answers given, I think you need to consider what FPUSA is, and why it is, and in doing so I believe you will find that supporting FPUSA is in your interests.
I will continue to be on vacation with my family all this week at least through the weekend, but I will try to come back to this thread as often as possible. And if I'm not responding as fast as I should, I apologize. Try using twitter to get my attention (@FossilMan) if its really important, or using the contact button on my website, as my webmaster will forward that to me (www.FossilManPoker.com). While I try to visit 2+2 about once a day most of the time, there are times like this where I can't really do so. And thanks to you who DM'd me here about the thread. I was aware of it obv, but just hadn't been able to be more involved at this time, as already discussed. And big thanks to those who said nice things about me in this thread. I truly appreciate it.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thank you for writing this, Greg. I only wish that Erin and Marisa had said the same things at the start of this thread that you and PokerXanadu are now saying some 550+ posts into it. A lot of hard feelings and misunderstandings would have been avoided, it seems to me!
What a shame that lobbyists can't just be straightforward and openly honest - in the same, honorable, sense that the 2 of you are, not by their own twisted definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote
Greg,
No apology is necessary. Thanks for your insight.
Unfortunately the bolded portion of your post above, combined with the underlined portion that follows explain precisely why FPUSA had to present itself as a "coaltion", a "non-profit campaign", et cetera and "disavow any C/M direction of its mission".
Precisely because, as you point out, FPUSA will NEVER , "ever take a position or make efforts that are contrary to the best interests of C/M" it is dishonest for Middle Coast LLC to pretend it is anything more than a front FOR Casears/MGM.
We get that Caesars/MGM cannot directly post for itself and pretend it is a "grassroots" coalition, that would be implausible deniabilityI guess. So, ..... C/M hires a PR firm to front for it, tasked with building support for a specific agenda which Caesars created and controls in its own best interest.
Good luck with FPUSA, just remember to cut the cards twice before every hand you play with them.
Yes, cut the cards and "trust but verify". But I am more in agreement with Greg on this one. Caesars and MGM can only control to a limited degree.
Taking what FairPlayUSA is saying at face value (risky, but probably correct here, given their total lack of support for any specific bill and their refusal to lobby congress themselves) then they are looking to educate the public as to the advantages of fully legalizing, regulating, and taxing on-line poker.
This is something that we should all applaud. And the end result doesn't have to be tailor made for Caesars and MGM to benefit. They'll end up benefitting from ANY bill that legalizes poker and lets them participate.
As I noted above, it is a shame that FairPlayUSA didn't say at the start of this discussion the same things that Greg and PokerXanadu are now saying.
Maybe (please take this hint to heart, Marisa) their website could be updated to include Greg's quote in particular? In full - or perhaps slightly rewritten by him for the purpose? That would help a lot, I would think!!
Lee
Last edited by Lovesantiques; 07-29-2011 at 11:38 AM.
Reason: added a word
