I'm sure you're well intentioned, but not much of what you're saying makes any sense.

Essentially your position is:
A) Remove most of the board members because they have a conflicted agenda?

What do you think a PAC is?

B) There's one NY times article (that honestly wasn't that bad), and perhaps there will be others attempting to paint the PPA as being funded by owners who were recently indicted.

The only thing that has changed since the inception of the PPA is these new allegations. This is part of the process. No matter what you do the corporate news is going to find some way to smear and discredit this movement. That's what it does. This is part of the fight. This is where the PPA has to know how to strike first in the media and set the tone and focus the conversation, which isn't about the funding, but about whether poker should be legal in the U.S. And it can do this if we can get poker players to unite and focus together.

Honestly, and I'm not that involved with the PPA, but I feel for it's board members and leaders. It has to educate and unite a lot of young people who likely have little to no understanding of the political process in a short time.

I understand we're all going to have big opinions about this or that thing, and it's great to express and talk about those. But I'd implore you that unless you have a lot of experience in this arena to take a step back and listen to the people who actually do. We need leadership, and all of us united on the same page if we're going to have a serious shot and making legislative change because this is not going to be easy at all.

You think the Times will do an expose on my conservative-libertarian politics? It could be front-page news!

Correct. I think you're mis-interpreting my point. It's not that WTO ruling would be used, but that we have violated our own fair trade treaties, which the WTO verified by ruling against the U.S. position on UIEGA.

Totally agree that the individuals representing 3rd party commercial interest should not constitute the majority, but your next bullets become too stringent. Can you explain to me how you think bullets 2&3 will go over with Stars/FTP please?

PPA: Hey guys, we definitely still want your funding, but uhhh, we can't allow you to have members on the board anymore that would give you a say in where/how the $ is spent. Thanks for the scrilla though, kthxbye!

Haha, I just don't see how Stars/FTP will want to fund an organization that is pushing for legislation that could massively impact them without having seats on the board.

Where do you find this? I don't recall any world court case about poker.

I dont know why you keep including Raymer. Raymer was nothing more than a sponsored pro. The other two are OWNERS of the company indicted in addition to being on the pro team. Raymer is not longer even a sponsored pro at Poker Stars. I think keeping Raymer on board is a good idea no matter how things go.

It was against Antigua and it had to do with online gambling, including poker.

Hey Skall,

Really appreciate this post and the thoughtful discussion here and in other threads.

While you are correct about the two new facts that you cite above, the DOJ's indictment also obviously increases the importance of perception greatly. The illegal gambling portion of the indictment may very well be something that the PPA could successfully argue against and help with; from a cost/benefit analysis I just don't think it is worth it to do so to any large degree because of the perception problem it creates.

As someone mentions in a post above, setting the tone and focusing the conversation will be crucial. I just think it would be a mistake to continue focusing on this case where opponents of the PPA will have a ton of ammo and will be able to easily paint the PPA in a negative light -- in my opinion it will be much more effective to turn attention to potential new legislation.

I take the opposite view. I don't think you could have a better mix of people. I can see the argument for Lederer and Ferguson stepping away. But, this is after all a lobbying organization. I think having a lobbyist and an influential former congressman, who also happens to be a Republican, is best. Just looking at the bios you have a mix people people with diverse backgrounds and political beliefs. Also they all represent poker well in public. You can say the Full Tilt guys don't because of the recent charges but every interview that I've seen with Lederer talking about the legality of poker has been first rate. I think Raymer comes across unbelievably well in interviews.

Oh, thanks. IIRC, that dispute ruled the U.S. had to open markets to racing wager business, not poker sites.

That's not going to be part of the defense either, for reasons others have mentioned earlier in the thread.

So here's one of the main recurring themes ITT. (I know I'm captain obvious)

Is it more important for our fight going forward to have as much funding as possible, or is it more important to clean up the image of the organization fighting for us.

When I first wrote the op, I was really worried about our public perception in light of the new indictments, but the more I think about it, we've always had a tough battle in the public spot light. While these recent actions seem to make that fight even tougher, if it was given a vote right now to determine the PPA's future, I would vote to keep as much funding as possible.

I don't know about winning the fight, but I think we can fight for everything we fought for before the indictments and keep PPA's funding intact, or as much as they can get, I mean certainly you would think donations from the indicted sites will decrease, but who knows the big sites are still operating throughout the world and have much to gain from clearing their name.

As usual when I ask questions I find myself recognizing the logic of the pro PPA people. I am also now convinced from other posters that pursuing intrastate models probably does kill any good future for online poker or players rights, so I disagree with almost the whole op now, which was mine.

Although, I do think that NYT article was pretty sick, but I guess thats part of the fight. And I guess they are pretty good at fighting because I've been worried about everything since Friday, but now I wish my OP said, we need the PPA to get even stronger, we don't need a new one. Man, somehow the DOJ scared me into thinking something so weird, but I think this case is winnable, especially on the counts relating to illegal gambling charges. The standalone bank fraud charge I think is the tricky one, but I don't think its open and close case either.

I don't even think its a great idea to say we are severing all ties with the indicted sites. We don't have to openly embrace them, but we need the PPA to stay funded and especially now if we cut off that funding, so many players have their money tied up and have no way to create more money for the time being so how can we cut down to a players only funded when so many players lost their livlihood?

This is just so complicated, but I now think it makes more sense to fight. And I think the PPA is strong enough to not run from its path and to stay on point about how poker is legal. But on the other hand, this indictment is serious. How do you bridge that gap? Now we have the same bad gambling public perception we had to fight before, and now we have this new counter argument that joe public can say, well obviously online poker is illegal because look at how the big sites got shut down by the goverment. So don't we kind of add fuel to that fire by saying, yes they are toxic, we aren't accepting anything from them anymore? Now to me that seems like giving up and admitting it is illegal, even if we only want to distance ourselves from the bank fraud charges, it seems we either have to fight along with full tilt and pokerstars or completely severe ties with them. I think the latter has greater consequences then I orginally thought about, mainly being, we lose that much funding and by cutting them off we are kind of agreeing that poker might be illegal. One of our main fighting points needs to remain that we believe online poker is a skill game, and as such, is legal.

Amen brother!

Well said Blink20!

Hey guys,

You can't sue the federal government.

That is all.

Because of the asinine law in Washington State explicitly making online poker illegal (a law that passed without the majority of law makers having even read the bill, let alone having studied it's potentially devastating implications), there does appear to be foundation for the DOJ indicting based, at least in part, on the IGB -- they have evidence that sites continued to serve Washington State residents after our felony poker law came into existence.

What a proud time be both an American and a Washington State resident....ugh...

We definitely should not shy away from the legal battle in three ways. First, the talking point that there's no Federal law making online poker illegal still should remain. Second, amicus briefs as have successfully been used in the past. Third, potentially initiating a separate lawsuit regarding the legality of online poker.

I don't really see why that needs to be funded through the PPA though. I also am curious exactly what the IGC would be funding through the PPA at this point.

In the past, our interests were aligned because both players and sites wanted Federal level legislation licensing and regulating online poker. If Stars and Tilt didnt get licensed after regulation passed, so be it. The PPA was fighting for regulation structured with as open a market as possible. If Stars and Tilt wanted to take their shot at a license and it failed, no skin off of our back.

Where do the common interests lie now, at least in terms of a political solution? Sure, players want a place to play poker again ASAP. However, Tilt and Stars getting licensed seems like a complete pipe dream. The fate of billions of dollars, the freedom of the site founders, and perhaps the fate of the sites as a whole rests on legal battles with the DOJ. So what is Harry Reid or Barney Frank or any of our Washington lobbyists going to do for Stars and Tilt now? To the extent we have common interests (i.e. a favorable conclusion to the legal fight), why would that be funded through the PPA, and what benefit would we be getting by that funding going through the PPA that is worth the potential stain to our reputation among ambiguous politicans?

I am proud to have people like Skallagrim and TheEngineer fighting for poker players.

However, I hope someone - PPA member or otherwise - can break down and answer a question for me, these are legitimate concerns for players. Hope they're not redundant for this thread.

How can the PPA be free of outside influence when Lederer and Ferguson are board members? - I am assuming IGC contributions make up a large part of the PPA budget - PPA members itt have alluded to money donated by players not being nearly enough.

Not only is there a huge conflict of interest, it also doesn't look so great when the IGC has members such as

PS and FTP - companies which have maintained they believe what they are doing is legal - they just don't believe it enough to actually follow the law. If what the govt alleges is correct, re: band fraud, then I don't see a good defense for this.

KGC/AP/UB - that's right, the company who stole over 20 million from players. Continent 8 is a Joe Norton/Kahnawake company.

Other blights on online poker such as Frank Catania's company. If ever there was a greedy scumbag, he is it.

Regardless of how things actually work at the PPA, this is a huge perception problem, which can only work against the organization. Not only are these things cause for concern for the players/ppa members/possible future ppa members, they can be fodder for our enemies.

It is hard to say the PPA's direction is not influenced by the sites when there are two prominent FTP "associates" on the board and the largest contributor is a group made up of site owners and law firms/consultants who make a living off of the sites.

That IGC member list doesn't look like a very good list of allies.

This is not meant as an attack on the PPA , but I think it needs thought. I'm not saying I know a better route to take.


I hope that makes sense and I believe these are valid concerns.

Your concerns have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.

Not that it matters, but here's my take. PPA has done very well with the balancing act.
Many people (including myself) signed up to the PPA through one of the sites. I don't think I have ever given any money to the PPA, and I imagine most have not. A lot of people are saying "I won't send money to the PPA until..." which is fine.. but I'm glad PS and Full Tilt never said that. If everyone approached it this way, PPA would have a $0 bankroll and any DOJ defense would be a non-issue at this point.

I imagine MADD (mothers against Drunk Driving) would still advocate for someone who was hit by a drunk driver even if the victim was going a few mph over the speed limit, and if PPA feels that they can best represent our interests by getting involved in this thing even if PS and FT were a bit shady, then great. Perhaps people should recuse themselves from the board, or at least this specific decision.... but I don't think we should act like it's been wrong of them to be there til Friday.

Working together is our best shot. PPA might not be perfect, but at this juncture disunity would be counterproductive, as would trying to dismantle the PPA and starting a group with donations from people who have no money because the DOJ has it all.

I support the PPA whatever they decide. I thank them for their time and effort thus far.
African American Friday has everyone shook up, but PPA shouldn't be the punching bag.

PAC: Political Action Committee. A PAC, as I understand it, is a form of political corruption that has legal status and widespread acceptance in the US.

Or to look at it another way, it is a collective sharing a common interest which attempts, through lobbying and funding of politicians and parties, to obtain advantage to its common interest by the actions of those politicians and parties.

How'm I doin'?

You will note that PACs have common interests, and act on those common interests.

Now lets talk about "conflict".

There are actually two type of conflicts that I referred to.

One was a conflict between the general interests of the alleged representatives and those they claim to represent. The interests of poker sites, poker publishers, and other commercial interests will not always be coincident with the interests of players. Examples: amount of rake to be paid, ability of a site to confiscate player's funds, competitive marketplace...

PPA claims to be a representative organization. How representative is it if, on matters such as these, the "representatives" as a whole hold a view considerably different from that of the rank and file? And if that difference of views is obvious to an outsider, how much credibility will the organization have when it claims to speak on behalf of players?

To use a far-fetched PAC example, its kind like having a bunch of pork producers running a chicken producer's PAC when the big issue is "White meat vs. Red". You're fine right now, but just as soon as that issue goes away the likelyhood is that having the pork guys in charge isn't looking too good for the poultry people.

The second use of 'conflict' is a more particular type. Do you know what the legal concept of "conflict of interest" is? I won't wait for your answer. It is when a person with decision-making power in an organization or group (like a PAC or the PPA) stands to gain personally (or avoid loss personally) from a decision in a way that is not in common with the expected gains of the members as a whole. If Mr Ferguson and Mr. Lederer have an ownership interest in FT, then they have a conflict of interest with respect to any decision the PPA makes about challenging or supporting the DOJ case. In some places it is illegal to participate in a decision when one has a conflict of interest. In most places it is highly unwise, if you care about the organizations's credibility.

So I am suggesting two things:
Make a majority of your decision-makers people who have interests in common with the people claimed to be represented.
Suspend the decision making power of those who are in a conflict of interest position.

I don't see why you think these measures do not make sense.


We are having this discussion in a thread in which somebody who ought to be a prime candidate to sign on and help the PPA is suggesting instead that we should start another organization, one that will really represent poker players. That indicates a serious problem getting in the way of us uniting and focussing together. I'm sugesting the problem doesn't lie just with OP. I'm suggesting ways the PPA should act to address the problem, because I believe that if they do, they will stand to improve their effectiveness considerably.

OK. I hate to out myself like this, but I will say that I probably have more experience in this sort of thing than any member of the Board except Sen. D'Amato. The fact that I talked about this sort of problem 3.5 years ago should lend some credence to this claim.

I think this postion is perfectly understandable, and is a prime illustration of why I'm making the recomendations I have in this thread.

Really? I didn't see 1 post discussing the fact that the IGC member list reads like a who's who of Cereus cohorts.

If you could point me to those I would be indebted to you.

I'd rather you made the front page in connection with a story about a court case or legislation that clearly established that internet poker was legal in the US.

Fair questions.

First, I'd like to point out that bullet three is just a mechanism to achieve the goal of bullet one (which you agree with).

In bullet two, you will note that I said 'suspend', not 'remove'. They don't lose their seats, they just can't exercise any power in them while the cases are outstanding. I expect that PS and FT, being businesses operated and regulated in territories ruled by British law would perfectly understand the conflict of interest involved and see this as necessary and a matter of course. If not, I am sure their corporate counsel would explan it to them.