There is an appetite for revenue. However, I doubt there is a natural appetite, as you put it, on the Hill for ANY gaming. That has been the biggest drawback to trying to advance a poker agenda there. Gaming is a traditional State-level regulatory and revenue matter, not federal.

There never will be an appetite for a Swedish, national gaming model unless someone makes a case for that structure. If the Swedish model is the best one for poker players, then the PPA should promote it, there likely would be allies for the effort and vehement opposition from current casino interests, UNLESS they were allowed also to compete.

There would be plenty of opposition of course to the federal government either getting into the gaming business, period or getting into competition with private companies in the gaming business, or getting into copmetition with State lotteries if it did get into the gaming business.

The reason that the State-level is easier ground to plow for passing poker legislation is that the ground has been tilled already for lotteries, horse-racing, b&m casinos. States are not gaming virgins.

The PPA has to balance players interests and what's passable to some extent. It seems like there are two groups of supporters on the Hill. The first is the Frank led group in the House that wants to tax and regulate all gaming. They see poker as no different than gaming and are motivated primarily by revenue and secondarily by the fact that trying to ban people from gaming online is stupid. The second group is Harry Reid (and a couple of others) that want a poker carve-out. He is quite obviously writing a bill for Ceasars.

I dont see the natural constituency for a Swedish model.

I can also see the PPA pushing for a Federal bill that is written for Ceasars' if they think its a better outcome for players than state-by-state legislation Its not as good as the Swedish model, but the status quo is squeezed and we dont have time to wait for a perfect bill.

Reasonable minds can of course differ on the approach (and throw suing that poker is currently legal in as another option), but I dont think its as simple as arguing for what is best for players in a vacuum. You are the biggest advocate on here for directing resources towards a state by state approach and I doubt that you'd argue that players would be better off than they would be if we passed a Federal bill.

Good, you get the gist of the problem .... Meaningful discussions of legislation cannot be held in a vacuum.

First, where can a bill be passed, at the State or Federal level ? Do not underestimate the importance of being first to market.

Second, what might such a bill look like, at either level ? (This is where the PPA stands to give the greatest help to poker players, at least at the State level.)

The main reason I think that a State-level approach should be a priority is simple, it is the most feasible way to get a poker legalization bill passed, anywhere in the US. I think that is clear from the progress to date in NJ, despite vehement opposition by Harrahs/Caesars to the NJ bill. If a bill will pass first in some State, the PPA needs to be backing that winner and making the case for a "player-friendly" bill. Time spent picking feuds with the largest cardroom in the United States is less productive than trying to influence the outcome of possible State bills.

There will be numerous State-level activities, simply because of tradition and the interest of lottery providers in fighting on that front, their natural terrain. Other States, where there are "local" B&M casinos and horseracinos, may be supportive of a State model which does NOT shut those operators out of the "Federal pie" that Harrahs wants to gorge on.

On the other hand, if as we have been told by the PPA, a Federal bill necessarily would involve a ban on any play for 15 months, 18 months or whatever indefinite period it turns out to be, then I would say refuse to endorse that gift to Harrahs and find other allies or stand on principle FOR players.

If players are the coveted "prize", why give your principles up and accept a ban, just so you can say you are "taken seriously" on the Hill. There is a dfference between being taken seriously and being seriously taken.

Whatever or wherever a bill passes, there is thereafter a role a PPA can take for itself in the regulatory realm. If the PPA truly represents players, then it can be a force in a legalized regulated market realm much more than it can on the Hill, but that requires a very different mind-set* than the current PPA Board exhibits.

(*In Chicago political syntax, if the PPA endorses a legislated federal playing ban for 15 months or whatever, it will have cut its own testicles off and will get no real respect once a ban bill passes. If it refuses to be castrated, then it can fight in the regulatory context with some hope of influence BECAUSE it will have the players in its corner.

If on the other hand, it gets a player friendly bill passed in State A, it is a hero, as State A players can freely play AND the likelihood of multiState pooling is undeniable.

If State A is as big as New Jersey, then it would be big enough to support a critical mass of players to attract recreational gamers, like the Swedish national site.)

Greed and a lack of focus impacts each and every discussion over player pools.
While the "Status Quo" lobby refuses to address intra-state poker there are schools of companies lining up to serve those player bases. Just today I spoke on the phone with two online gaming companies ready and willing to service the state of Kentucky from within its borders. They are actually lobbying as I write this. From the other direction Facebook and Zynga have sucked up every super fish on the internet with a credit card so the old pre-UIGEA days are gone forever.
We are under attack from the front and the rear. The center will not hold.

Yes, state lotteries are a real opponent to federal legislation.

Once a single state bill is passed, it's unlikely any federal legislation beyond a bill authorizing interstate compacts will go anywhere. The reason? It's because that's the day this issue becomes a state issue. For example, imagine trying to pass a federal lottery bill today.

These state models are okay, perhaps, for people residing in states likely to pass online poker legislation, but what of the rest of us? Many of us are in states that will may NEVER license and regulate online poker. These states may opt into a federal system for free money, but will they license and regulate online poker themselves?

IMO, federal legislation provides all of us with the best chance at access to the game in the years ahead. That's why, while we do support state bills, federal legislation has been the primary legislative focus of the PPA.

I understand the reluctance over the blackout in the Reid bill, but surely you see the impact of the payment processor seizures and the reduced likelihood of passing poker legislation through a GOP House. At this rate, we'll get a blackout imposed on us once the DoJ crackdown achieves its goals -- but there will be no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.