Everyone either did...or should have...understood their purpose after post #12.

It wasn't like they didn't openly admit they were funded by Caesar's/MGM from the get go. And it wasn't like someone dug that info up. They offered it up as soon as someone asked. Trying to call themselves a grassroots campaign was obviously ridiculous, but I'm not sure why you think you are solving some great mystery by pointing out that Caesar's/MGM sent these guys to 2+2. From that everyone should have known that they have Caesar's/MGM interest at heart and not players.

If you admit this...


Then how do comments like the following directed toward an organization representing Caesar's/MGM help our situation? You could have easily made your same point without the personal attacks.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but from the Middle Coast LLC website.

Absolutely brilliant.

Edit: @Gman; I get what you're saying, but this thread will hopefully convince the casinos that it's better to just be straight with us than try to blow smoke up our ass.

Or it will cutoff what little....if any......input or communication we will have with this organization as it moves forward.

all I can say in response to this is that despite my efforts, they suckered you. By the simple expedient of telling a half-truth (that FairPlay USA was given "initial funding" by Caesar's and MGM), they convinced you that they were not what they actually are: Caesar's and MGM.

There is no "FairPlay USA." FairPlay USA is just a name that Caesars/MGM and Middle Coast LLC applied to a public relations effort.

You've fallen for it completely.

everyone with half a brain knows this. the question is why do you care? did you expect a PR firm to actually give legit responses to things they probably know nothing about? these people were paid to put spin on our issue and present it to congressmen and people unfamiliar with ipoker. stop speaking as if they owe you some sort of intellectual rationale. doing so would completely counterfeit their ability to spread +ev rhetoric amongst the masses - and i'm being completely serious. this is politics. you've already accepted that we need the mega-casinos and they've finally shown up to the party, albeit late and presumably drunk on high expectations. get over it, everyone knows what game we are playing.

They weren't seeking our input. If you want to communicate with them you can via their website.

What I'm wrestling with is whether their loving touch on our bums is the best we're going to get.

The problem is that most people don't have half a brain ;P

Mpethy for mod! Oh, wait...

You are good with the feds forcing online poker on states that don't want it? And they ought not complain? That is quite a change from your past stance, iirc.

BTW, since FairPlay was such an epic fail here, and since PPA could use some "seed money"...how about splitting off a new grassroots campaign builder then talk to the casinos to get them on board?

Name the coalition something like USAPlaysFair; get some law enforcement types and parents and teachers for members; educate Congress about how online gambling must be stopped...well except for legal regulated poker because it is special compared to any other gambling and the coalition members all think it's cool; have a website; petition; yada, yada. Win, win.

Let us know if you need help selling this to the PPA BoD.

There's no proposal on the Hill that seeks to force online poker on unwilling states.

Wow! Perma posting with passion ITT.

Let's get loveman on here.

+1

Thank you mpethybridge and the others who kept insisting in clear answers from the PR firm.

The problem with lies, particularly completely unnecessary lies, is that they make it impossible to accept anything else as true, even on a tentative basis.

they aren't presenting anything to congressmen, they said they were not a lobbying organization.

personally, since politics is the only way to get laws passed, I think accepting player penalties for playing on unlicensed sites is a fair compromise to the status quo when we'll be given a regulated environment. it's not ideal, but it's an easy call.

and to the "reid bill was caesars trying to **** us creating an oligarchy":
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...12&postcount=3

and apparently the reason this bill failed was the allowing of offshore companies to be licensed, even in the future. and the blackout period is now unnecessary, the casinos have already extracted their pound of flesh from the post-uigea operators.

If they were up front and open about their funding, it would have been stated in their first post. It wasn't. A poster asked, and thankfully, they answered the question. Let me ask you all a question: If nobody had asked, do you think they would have said it on their own?

As far as looking at their site, I did, and I don't see any mention of funding sources. I asked a question on the first day about where to find funding sources on their website, and it was ignored.

I'm really not trying to be insulting here, but are you in PR/Marketing?
You can't hide your affiliation(s) and "be a legitimate group."

See above. I also disagree that they immediately shared their funding source. Again, immediate would have been in their first post. They admitted it, but someone had to ask. Also, again, I asked day one (IINM) about where on their website we could find out about funding and that question was ignored. I just pulled up their website again, and I see nothing about funding.

I was going to say the following, by mpethybridge said it better:

It bears repeating:

"There is no "FairPlay USA." FairPlay USA is just a name that Caesars/MGM and Middle Coast LLC applied to a public relations effort."

The FairPlayUSA poster(s) aren't a group of like-minded people that got together and decided to help pass online poker regulation, then went to casinos for funding. They're a PR/Marketing firm that was hired to do a job, and so far, at least here, they did it badly.

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...

Oh good grief. Whether they were an organization provided funding by Caesars/MGM or were a PR firm hired by Caesars/MGM after post #12 myself and probably most of the people on here equated them as "being" Caesars/MGM from that point on. Regardless, my main point from the get go which you have either chosen to ignore or have complete missed is that you could have asked the EXACT same questions and made the EXACT same points you did WITHOUT being a troll about it.

...and to continue...

First a quick note about the PPA. The PPA does both what I described as an "astroturf #1" (getting individuals to participate in coordinated citizen lobbying efforts) as well as direct lobbying by paid lobbyists. However, the PPA also involves and encourages activities that originate by its members, accepts input from members in setting its agenda and has a board and staff that adjusts its agenda (although not its mission) to serve the interests of its members when warranted. These are the things that distinguishes it from an astroturf and make it a grassroots organization, in the traditional sense.

My later interactions with FPU, besides the Q&A in this thread, were a phone call yesterday morning with Marisa (initiated by Marisa) followed by an e-mail exchange with her to help her understand the backlash from members here. I don't think she ever fully did, just as the members here haven't fully understood (until now, hopefully) why she doesn't think FPU was being at all deceptive.

But make no mistake - FPU does not take what happened here to be a failure by any means. Their goal was to introduce FPU to the 2+2 community and get numbers of supporters (people who sign their petition and/or sign up for their mailing list). They accomplished both. The rest Marisa takes simply as typical Internet forum trolling or dissension, and unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Not knowing who is who on this forum, Marisa did not realize that the dissension was largely coming from long-time opinion leaders rather than mostly trolls.

Does this make a difference for them? Not in their overall scheme. They are what they are - an astroturf type #1, which exists to help get online poker legislation, a la Ceasars, passed.

Is that good or bad for poker players? We know that this coming legislation is to the benefit of the large US casino corporations, and is the most likely legislation to make it. I think it is a positive that poker players are being asked to participate in their "coalition", including as part of their Advisory Board. Although the Principles of FPU are oriented to the benefit of the casinos, I take it as a good sign that #8 (fair and honest games) and #10 (players' deposits maintained in escrow accounts) are specifically to the benefit of players.

Although these could be seen as just some bones thrown to poker players which don't harm the interests of casinos, it also shows an awareness of the issues important to poker players. In regards to online poker legislation, most of what is good for casinos is also good for players. And we cannot improve our situation by excluding ourselves from the process.

I can't wholeheartedly endorse FPU, but neither do I consider them an enemy. I think the casino legislation that will eventually be introduced likely won't contain any deal-breakers for players and will be supportable, even if not ideal. In the same way, I think FPU is supportable, at least until proven otherwise should it come down to legislation that isn't actually supportable. Just take FPU at face value - an astroturf type #1, which is a PR vehicle for getting the casino online poker legislation supported by a variety of special interest groups. I think we should participate as one of those special interest groups, but maintain our vigilance against the possibility of a bad bill.

TY for the write-up. It was very informative.

They said it in post 12 and it was in the second paragraph on the article in The Hill. I literally don't know how much more up front you want them to be. Their introduction was pretty short so it wasn't unreasonable to leave out Harrah's.

So what did you think when you looked at their website and saw that "consultant" Tom Ridge slapped his name on this organization? Did you think it was a bunch of random poker players coming up with the funds to get an advisory board and set up a platform that mirrors the goals of Kyl/ Reid. I just went on the mediamatters.org site for the first time to prove this. George Soros' name isn't mentioned anywhere. They call themselves "a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Everyone gets that its a mouthpiece for Soros, but I'm not outraged that they don't advertise that.

As I have said before, FairPlay USA did not claim to be a grassroots organization. We called them that and I was one calling them a grassroots organization. They are trying to organize grassroots support. But they did a pretty bad job lining up support here.

My big issue was, and is, they did not tell us how they would achieve their points. They did not even tell us what the points really meant.

But why do they feel the need to organize law enforcement, parents, and poker players. We may be on a poker site supporting an organization with poker in its title (PPA), but we are also police, parents, etc.

We just need to emphasize that we are more than poker players.

Regarding player penalties, when regulated poker comes to the US I will probably not play on an unregulated site, but I cannot support any law or any group that would make it a crime for the player to play on an unregulated site. I consider it hypocritical of the goverment to say I can play poker in my area casinos, but not on the internet so it would be just as hypocritical of me if I said people can play on regulated sites, but not unregulated ones.

Time to fly. More later.

You conveniently left out this part of my statement (in bold), without any indication you had done so when you quoted me:

nvm