Poker Coverage: Poker Legislation Poker Tournaments U.S. Poker Markets

The PPA, D'Amato, and Other Gossip

Good News on the Way?

Print-icon
 
As I am on the board of the Poker Players Alliance, I have a fiduciary responsibility to keep what I learn confidential. That means that although I would have loved to tell you that we are excited to be in negotiations with former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, it was a matter of confidentiality and I was not permitted to disclose such information. The fact of the matter is that PPA president Michael Bolceric has now publicly stated that we are in such negotiations. Just as in every other walk of life, some people needed to violate confidentiality and "leak" our negotiations, which hopefully does not hurt the cause of the PPA or make our negotiations more difficult.

The PPA has over 140,000 members in the USA, but we need a million. The PPA's primary goal for 2007 is to get online poker exempted from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) that was signed into law in October 2006. Many, many organizations and sites in the poker community agree that it is necessary to have a cohesive group with one lone strong and powerful voice. The PPA is that group.

If and when former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato does, in fact, sign a contract with the PPA, Card Player has been granted an exclusive interview!

On another front, it appears that Doyle's room has temporarily left the US market, allowing its players to have their funds transferred to Full Tilt.

Full Tilt Poker is among the leaders trying to save online poker. To that extent, they offer their members deposit bonuses if they sign up for the Poker Player's Alliance. They say: "Although many legal scholars would argue that online poker should not be affected by the UIGEA, we believe the law's lack of clarity can only harm the game unless an express exemption is granted under the UIGEA. You should be outraged that, in a rush to passage, poker did not receive the objective review it deserves, and did not already get this express exemption while lotteries, horse racing, and fantasy sports were all given free passes. We demand that Congress address this grievous oversight now."

Please click here to learn about and take advantage of offers by the PPA and Full Tilt. Click here to take advantage of a deposit bonus at Full Tilt offered through CardPlayer.com.

Hopefully, by next week we will have more compelling intormation to disclose about the PPA's negotiations with New York's former senator.
 
 
Tags: poker law
 
 

Comments

mtcards
over 11 years ago

Why the hell does a Senator need to sign a contract? THAT is the main reason that crap like the bill got signed in the first place. Lobbyists paying Senators!! They should represent the people of their district, NOT how THEY feel or how the lobbyists feel.

The only argument for it is, if you cant beat em, join em. SO I guess the PPA will participate in shenanigans in government too rather than arguing the premise that poker should be allowed.

 
Reply
 

polkaface
over 11 years ago

Danny - He is a FORMER senator and it seems as though he will be employed by the PPA as a lobbyist.

 
Reply
 

pacmanii
over 11 years ago

A quick question.How do we (PPA) argue for the legality of internet poker and poker room sites based on the skill factor alone when these same sites offer blackjack,sports betting and other casino games?Is there another point that will be argued,ie 1st ammendment?

 
Reply
 

lctom
over 11 years ago

your comment,s are biased your families magazine makes all there income from online sites lets be honest here these sites do nothing for the american people just rake them to death and line the pockets for a few poker players and magazines like your husband and son run so tell the truth your just a shill acting like a lawyer

 
Reply
 

wolffund
over 11 years ago

There are many simple (innovative) ways for the internet poker community to operate such that the current legislation does not affect them. NONE of them appear to be interested in spending the time and money to structure a safe solution for them and their players.

The fact that Netteller etc arrogantly ignored the previous warnings (arrests of internet gambling website executives) UNTIL one of their own was arrested and THEN pulled out of the USA market lends little credibility to those who are honestly trying to change a draconian piece of legislation.

However, Ms Shulman, you and your group have a LARGE VESTED interest in enticing people to stay in the online poker world as a fair chunk of the "Cardplayer" revenues come from the likes of Full Tilt etc. From my viewpoint, it would be nice if a truly independent legal counsel were to provide commentary on your pages such that the enormous number of online professional, semi pro and rank amateur players KNOW they will be safe sending money to the few remaining online sites.

Having been affected in my own businesses (hedge funds) by previous BUSH administration statutes that were supposedly set up to catch terrorists but in actuality screwed only hard working honest people I can see little progress in your efforts UNLESS the online poker world with its huge cash reserves spends some of that money by lobbbying the USA politicians by playing their game (ie spend a truck load of money on professional lobbyists and by making huge donations to those in real power). NOW there is a practical American solution.

 
Reply
 

gleneste
over 11 years ago

What am I reading here? Motivations of those trying to overturn this backroom piece of legislation are called into question? So what if someone has a LARGE VESTED interest in online poker. I didn't see the motivations of those that attached UIGEA on totally unrelated larger piece of legislation questioned. Was Gary suggesting that anyone making money from online poker has views that are any less valid? The fact is this legislation is wrong in theory and reality. In theory, we can allow some forms gambling that are purely games of chance to be state sponsored but ban other forms of gambling, including skill games. It's really that simple, I can go down the block and spend every dime I have and play anything from scratch off games to mega-lotteries but I can't, IN THE PRIVACY OF MY OWN HOME play online poker. Despite this being the "land of the free", American citizens are the only people of the world that is restricted from playing online poker thanks to OUR governments actions. Now some may think this is simple reasoning but I think it is important to remember especially after reading Gary's post. I don't care if someone making money uses their money to help get this wrong corrected. If it is the PPA, former ....yes former Senator D'Amato, Full Tilt, the Schulmans or anyone short of the devil can help get this overturned then I say come aboard.

 
Reply
 

detroitjunkie
11 years ago

"Short of the devil" - well lets hope it doesn't come to that - although you sometimes have to fight fire with fire.
As far as I am concerned the websites are doing everything they can to help us play - as far as "spending the time and money to structure a safe solution for them and their players" - I do not see it as being unsafe at this point in time...I have not lost any money, and it seems secure to me...the only thing we have lost as poker players is time...and that does not seem to be bringing the numbers down...at least not at the BIG 3 - Pokerstars, UB and Full Tilt.

 
Reply
 

banunes
11 years ago

apparantly, Danny doesn't know how things work in this country. Business people sometimes need contracts and he is not a senator, he is a former senator. What better individual to try to get something accomplished within our structure than someone who knows how it works? The reason this is a problem is that senators were more than likely paid by the horse racing and lottery industries to keep on line gambling out because it would take from the money they feel is theirs. I like our chances to get something done with an "insider" working for us.

 
Reply
 

RiPoker
11 years ago

anyone know why UB Fulltilt and Pokerstars went offline at the sametime this am?

 
Reply