If there is one lesson to be learned from the French situation, it is that if you don't take a stand early enough, you end up with a futile protest at extremely negative laws by such actions as writing letters and organizing player strikes. Whilst impressive in one sense, these actions are not going to achieve any change to the legislation any time soon. There was very little organized action whilst the laws were in the pipeline, which they were for a year or more.

The US players, or those who have supported the PPA, have been very smart, and should continue to be.

Skeptical of this in the short term. Going from Barney Frank to Spencer Bachus in exchange for some freshman who may support us seems like a tough sell.

My point is that the more Tea Party candidates are elected, then the more religious extremists like Rep. Bachus and Sen. Kyl will be marginalized. Tea Party candidates are attempting to dominate the GOP and make it much more libertarian. IMO, Rep. Frank will not provide legalized online poker. However, he, and many Dems, may support it if Tea Party GOP congressmen lead the way as a matter of individual freedom.

IMO, the online poker issue is just a small part of the battle for freedom and liberty in the US. IMO, the Tea Party movement is the best hope for renewed freedom in the US.

I agree. The PPA has prevented the US from completely prohibiting all online gambling.

What do you see in the Tea Party movement and in the individual candidates themselves that even remotely says we can expect a nationwide, explicitly legal online poker landscape if they get voted in? All I see is fragmentation of the market because they, at the very least, all hold Bod Goodlatte's view on this issue which is 'we believe in states rights' and therefore any expansion of gambling should be legislated at the state and not federal level. This view coming to fruition--should states partake in it--will only result in intrastate poker and not interstate poker.

You also have to worry and come to the realization that high profile people in the movement Like Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio in addition to holding the states' rights view are also totally against gambling expansion because of their moral beliefs. Rubio blocked gambling expansion before in the Florida legislature and Palin, c'mon, she's pro family in the nanny state sense and will come down with FoF on this issue.

It also doesn't help that this movement has fringe and outright batshyt crazy people in it like Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and Ron Paul whose views are so radical and divisive that they have and will exert zero political clout in trying to move and pass legislation favorable to us. It took a financial nuclear bomb going off to get congress to finally agree with Paul on one of his views (e.g. Federal Reserve Audit); Armageddon type situations are about the only time Paul can garner any support for any of his views because they're considered so extreme.

Our best hope for a nationwide online poker scene is to continue working with Rep. Frank and other Dems, work hard at getting Harry Reid's support to the level of Rep. Frank and continue to lobby sensible Repubs like Pete King to our side. And of course, in the meantime, continue fighting against intrastate models and state and federal legislation attempting to criminalize internet poker playing.

The Tea Party candidates and supporters are like Ron Paul, not Goodlatte, Bachus and Kyl. They understand the meaning of the words liberty, freedom and personal resposibility. Politicians like Frank, Reid, Obama, Goodlatte, Bachus and Kyl do not understand the meaning of those words. IMO, the only way to openly legal online poker is through the courts or through the ascendancy of politicians like Ron Paul and the Tea Party candidates and their supporters.

Most TP candidates and supporters hold the "states' rights" view which is what Goddlatte, Bachus and Kyl also hold. And via Goodlatte we know how this view plays out in practice with respect to expanding gambling in the USA.

Also, it doesn't bode well for your hopes that your're counting on Ron Paul, a guy that has no political clout and has non-existent leadership and bipartisan garnering skills. Paul has been in the House how many years? And how many pieces of legislation can we say he helped craft, helped move, helped in acquiring support for and helped pass (besides Audit the Fed, which took a near financial Armageddon)? I like using Paul as a medium to reach and market to the internet crowd, but that's about all he's good for--he's good at making bizarro internet headlines in the blog world.

And you still haven't addressed the problems with the TP's two biggest stars--that is Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. These two are assuredly against expanded gambling, even at the state level because of moral beliefs. Nor have you address the problems that people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul and all the baggage they bring, assuredly making them ineffective members of congress for championing and building consensus for any type of change.

But I think we can agree one one thing, and that is staying hopeful the federal courts provide clarity on this issue in the near future.

Successful businesses care about their customers, and that helps them to make their money too.

Stars and FT don't obey US law anyway.

It might take 10 years, it might take a 100 years. Big difference and no one has any clue how long it will take.

FT is not obeying the Italian law, and has only applied for a French permit, while existing French players can still play on FT.

Is there any other comparable industry where customers ask for businesses to ignore the laws and regulation that apply to those businesses?

I don't think French, Italian or US law applies to Stars or FT. These companies are not based in any of those countries. If these companies operate according to these laws, they do so voluntarily.

drug selling, alcohol prohibition period could be also an example.

If I am correct the USA was sued and lost in world court by two or three countries in order to open up the market to the rest of the world.

Yes, Antigua won their case. But AFAIK the US has simply ignored the ruling.