Skall, nothing wrong with the protest, but what happened with the idea to file a new lawsuit against this law in federal court?

Not sure we want to have a ruling that state laws control internet poker offerings extended outside of WA. There's a risk the big sites leave if we lose IMO

POTY

Can anyone please post a link or a quote or point me in a direction telling about whatever they are basing this discussion on?

I spend way too much time on 2+2 as it is and I'm constantly reminded it's never enough because I obviously miss things. I can only imagine the general public or even a recreational poker player.

Greg.

One question.

If you feel that protesting to people who disagree with you is pointless, why did you make this thread?

By your logic it is a pointless thread.

LOL. That must make for some awkward moments in the halls of the capitol. Seriously, the PPA never bothered to investigate what other groups might be holding a rally on the same day?

The current bills in FL, CA, and Iowa are not bills that "don't do enough." THEY ARE BILLS THAT MAKE THINGS WORSE. If you truly don't understand, after reading countless responses from others, that it is BAD to create a state mandated single online poker operation paying high taxes for the privilege of being the only place you can legally play online poker (and only with folks from the same state) then I do not know what else to say.

If that's your idea of a bright future so be it, Poker Voters of America (read EU corporate interests and instate B&M interests) thanks you.

The NJ bill was the one that didn't do enough. But it did not, at least on its face, mandate a worse situation. PPA stayed neutral there (and, quite honestly, was disappointed to see that experiment fail).

The NV bill does do enough. And although the PPA still prefers a Federal solution, if we can't have a true national solution then the PPA would support a NV style law as second best choice.

Skallagrim

As we speak specific PPA members are meeting with their respective legislators in person at the legislators' offices. This part of the action went only to certain players in certain districts (namely, the ones with key legislators for this issue). If you were not one of those specific players you have not been getting the details of what was set up for today.

But that does not mean other players should not make their voices heard. That is the subject of the email you posted Nofx Fan. That email went to virtually all WA state PPA players and simply encourages you to help support the individual lobbying efforts with phone calls and emails to your representatives.

I personally am not aware of other WA actions at the moment.

Skallagrim

LOL yourself.

a) Today was obviously a good day to catch legislators in their offices.

b) Why do you assume that someone who is religious must also oppose poker (and vice verse) ?

Skallagrim

Good. Hopefully the citizens were able to meet with their legislatures and present a convincing case for new legislation.

Religious groups are clearly an opponent of expanded gaming on the internet. Is this really in dispute? Obviously members of a religious faith hold their own views on all sorts of issues, but as a whole the groups they belong to oppose expanded internet gaming.

I don't want to nitpick the PPA because the rally is a positive thing. So hopefully the presence of The Washington Association of Churches did not hinder the lobbying efforts.

Thank you, Skall. Unfortunately that makes me a little more curious now. How was this arranged? Who are the players and what (beyond what you mentioned "namely, the ones with key legislators for this issue") was the criteria for selection?

I think I saw a post by FBGHooper saying he was going to be there and I think that's great. I love his story. As far as others, would it be safe to say it was these types of players or would it have been high profile players? Also, what is the rally? Was this sign waving people out front, or was it the call for action and contact?

Too many questions, sorry. I have more but I'll just forget it. Perhaps I should just be happy that others seem to want to carry the burden and I can sit on my ass, make a phone call or two. That's not sarcastic, there's some truth in that.

I don't know the specific details but I know the general plan. The idea was to pinpoint specific legislators, essentially the ones our lobbying group felt would have the most influence on this issue, and then get specific players from the the districts of those legislators and set up in-person meetings between the two. FBGHooper was part of this group of players and deserves great thanks for his efforts.

If you asked to be part of that effort and heard nothing back it was either because some other players had already been signed up or because your specific representative and senator were not part of the target group.

Drew's email of this morning was a more typical request for everyone to make some noise (and thus support the overall effort and the individual meetings).

Skallagrim

Some, but far from all, religious groups are opponents of "gambling." Some have a real fondness for Bingo, after all. I have no idea whether the WAC takes a position on online poker or not.

Also, today's effort was not a rally. It was more like the "fly-in" we did last summer in DC: individual constituents are selected to meet in-person with their individual representatives and explain to the representative why online poker should be supported. This proved effective in Washington, DC; lets hope it is effective in Washington state too.

Skallagrim

Ahhh, now I got it and that makes me feel a lot better.

Thanks for your time as always.

Maybe a better Q for the other WA thread, but there's no legislative relief being proposed this year at this point I assume?

Most companies seeking to offer gaming services are only too happy to do all they can to close the door behind them. That's why things that seem to get us half way to our goal can actually be dead ends.

Since you realize that CA has not legalized online poker site offerings yet, you have already factored in the good chance that sites could quit their CA operations at any time. Oregon next?

The fact that you have to protest... to get them to do the logically and morally right thing... shows how f'ed up this rotten system is. But everyone is playing the game... another puppet in the shadows, "protesting" within "their" rules, instead of protesting about the actual structure of this circus. A circus where they keep you entertained with their fake smiles and empty promises, where the decisions are made based upon solely financial incentives, often in direct contrast with the moral and just path.

They might help you... they probably will, if you annoy them just enough and make them a reasonable offer. They will throw you a bone, a little something to wet your lips, and then kick you out the door cause they have more important things to do. Nothing to do with the wellness and progress of mankind or any of that silly stuff.... They keep it simple, they keep it real. It's all about money and power for them and their friends.

When did I ever say that I feel that protesting against people who disagree with you is pointless? I never said that.

I am saying that Washington's State Government doesnt care and WILL NOT care about a protest. And therefore other channels need to be taken.

So my question to you would be, why did you ask me a passive aggressive question? Or are you just generalizing things about me when you know nothing about me?

OP, I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by your post other than to belittle the people that are trying to get involved with this issue. You say that you appreciate the efforts and resolve, if that is true why make the post? Unless that was sarcasm and I did not get it. You say that you are not going to sit here and wait for them to do something they won't do. Yet you are criticizing the ones that are willing to put in the time and effort. Yes it will not happen any time soon, but it has to start somewhere. The more people come together and organize, this is the start. I know it is a lot more complicated than that, but once again it has to start somewhere. I do not play poker for a living so I can not sympathize with what you have to go through. I think that for a professional moving out of state is the best thing right now, but why complain about the process here when you are leaving anyway? I am just a recreational player that has a lot of passion for the game. If I would of known about this in time, I would of been there and will be at any future events. I have never been involved in any politics because I have always thought that nothing I would do could make any kind of difference. Sometime down the line I hope I can prove myself wrong on that. It might never change but I can at least give it a try. What is the worst that can happen, I waste some gas money and time? It's not like I could be playing online poker for money instead.

I think I see the problem. IMO, your conclusions on the motivations of the WA state government are flawed and incorrect. You seem to think WA reps have always believed WA residents want online poker and that they are intentionally acting contrary to that. I assure you that's absolutely not the case.

When I first started meeting with federal lawmakers, the FIRST thing I learned was that many had no idea that we had any support at all. Why would they??? There is no U.S. based online gaming industry, no U.S. tax revenue base and, back then, not even any positive U.S. media coverage on our issue. To the contrary....there were many organized groups fighting against us. In fact, I was treated like a proponent of a fringe issue during those early days.

We corrected this by sending LOTS and LOTS of letters to the Hill, while getting positive media coverage for our efforts. When combined with a lot of lobbying, the Hill started getting the message that there really are people who care about this issue.

That's why we're doing what we're doing in WA state.

Gotta love politicians and their ability to use simple logic. Why would there be any need to make anything illegal if there weren't people wanting to do that thing? Why make murder illegal if no one ever wanted to murder anyone? It's so blatantly simple. Whatever the law is against there will always be people who are upset about it or else it was a worthless law.

please gave us an update as to how thing went, would of loved to been there.

This is a great post and should be stickied or something. It, alone, effectively owns OP's assertion.

I would like to add, it is almost always much harder to get a law passed than it is to get a proposed law stopped. The more grief WA politicians get over this issue, the harder it will be for politicians, in other states, to pass a similar law. Politicians don't like to create issues that will leave a long-term lingering bad taste in the mouth of a group of voters. Will any of us ever forget some of these idiots who passed this law in WA? Most voters that don't care much about the WA law will forget about it, poker players never will.

So, in particular, for a pro player moving to Ca, WA protests are hardly pointless.

So I find this thread humorous, as I was one of about 40 players who showed up to help the PPA lobby the Washington state legislature yesterday. The day was very successful. Here is the short version:

The original law was passed because most of the legislators did not know what they were voting on. The original bill had a generic title that brought Washington's policies on electronic funds transfers in line with the federal government. No one realized that online gaming was being impacted until the law was passed. My district representative voted for it not knowing, and knocked his own father offline from playing. He is willing to sponsor a bill de-criminalizing online poker - partly because he feels guilty. Many others do as well. Several legislators attended our reception because they themselves are players.

The next step - state regulation and control of online gaming - is far more complicated and most in Olympia are unwilling to tackle it. Yes, the tribal casinos play into this. But in reality they are waiting for the federal government to regulate it, so they don't have to take a risky political position. Jim McDermott, (D) Washington, is sponsoring federal legislation, as is Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, (D) Nevada. The PPA believes this effort is gaining traction.

There was no 'protest'. This was Washington state residents meeting with their legislators and expressing their strong concerns. It was a lobbying effort that was well-organized and professional. In my sessions, I had poker pros Jan Fisher (a Washington native) and Andy Bloch with me, as well as the PPA's Drew Lesofski. But I did most of the talking, because I was the constituent. And my people actually listened. I had my own skepticism going in but this effort seemed like the best way to make inroads with the state legislature. Carrying around signs and looking foolish might get you on TV, but it won't influence policy. We we did was far more effective.

There is a clear opportunity to get the Class C Felony nonsense off the books. No one we spoke with thinks that is right. Whether or not this convinces PokerStars or FullTilt to open up in Washington state remains to be seen. But this step has to be first. Once we are out of the 'most regressive state in the union' category, we can get the issue resolved at the federal level (Where it belongs, since it is interstate commerce) and Washington state will follow along with everyone else.

These opinions are my own and don't necessarily reflect those of the PPA. But if they ask me to participate in the future, I will do so gladly. So will most of the others who lobbyed on Thursday.