My college roommate was writing a paper for a history class and asked my opinion. He started the paper ?Once upon a time?? Before reading any further I told him to consider rethinking his beginning, but maybe I was too hasty. A similar scenario is playing out in the halls of the U.S. Congress. In July, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit most forms of online gambling ? including poker ? in an effort to weed out, as one member of Congress called it, this ?scourge on our society.? However, this misguided attempt to prohibit online poker playing is a huge folly ? because you can?t turn back the clock on the internet.
Internet poker has taken hold and it is the natural evolution of this great American game. Today, nearly 23 million Americans play online. And, with the popularity of the World Series of Poker and other televised poker tournaments, the number of people turning to the online game will continue to grow. These facts make federal attempts to ban online poker all the more alarming. Congress?s belief that it can and should control the internet (and your behavior) is an affront to civil liberties and the principles upon which this country wass founded.
One has to wonder if those who supported the internet gambling ban (H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) believe that they have taken some positive moralistic position, while completely ignoring true policy arguments of this debate. The Poker Players Alliance is working with leaders in the U.S. Senate to ensure that they don?t ignore the policy implications of an online poker ban if they vote on the bill later this month.
As part of our efforts, we are educating members of Congress, the public, and the media on two major facts: 1) Poker is a skill game and should be evaluated as such, and not lumped into other games of chance or near chance, and 2) Prohibitions do not work. An enlightened approach to internet poker is regulation, not prohibition.
A Game of Skill
Poker is a skill game. In fact, there are few games where skill is so essential to the long-run performance of a competitor. This skill factor is the major reason for the explosion of the sport. Do you think a magazine about lotteries would be successful? Of course not. I often ask people to name the top roulette players in the world, or the top lottery players. Most Bluff readers can name the top 10 poker players; perhaps not in agreement, but with a general consensus. Poker?s widespread appeal does not denigrate the essential nature of the game ? skill.
Currently, games of skill are not considered gambling games in most states. Additionally, the Wire Wager Act, 1961, a federal law which prohibits the use of ?a wire communication? facility (i.e. the telephone) for sports betting, has also been used to challenge the legality of online casino gambling and online sportsbetting. However, the Wire Wager Act 1961 has not been utilized in any attempt to stop skill gaming, a category of gaming that generally includes games like chess, in which the outcome is determined by skill, not luck.
Some detractors have stated that poker is a game of chance, because the cards that are dealt to the players are random (due to the shuffle). But poker players know that this element of poker introduces variance to the game, not chance; because over time, the best players consistently come out on top. This empirical evidence alone is enough to support the ?poker is skill? argument.
Armed with this information, the Poker Players Alliance has been fighting for an exemption or exclusion in the anti-internet gambling legislation, so that poker can be recognized as a skill game and left out of Congress?s net of prohibition.
Carve-Outs
Exceptions and carve-outs are already part of bill H.R. 4411. Currently, the strong horseracing lobby has managed to get an exemption for horseracing; and of course the state lotteries have been excluded from this legislation. A carve-out for poker would be one that is not only derived from the basis of fact (that poker is a skill game), but may also be introduced as a reflection of public opinion.
With 23 million Americans playing poker online, and over 100 million Americans having played poker in general, the opinion of the American public seems clear: Poker is as American as apple pie, and it is not unwanted by the majority of America?s citizens. The solution ? include poker as a carve-out of HR4411.
Regulation vs. Prohibition
?Once upon a time,? Congress passed a prohibition on alcohol. This created nothing but speakeasies, backyard stills, and the rise of the Mafia in the U.S. It was utterly ineffective, and legislation was required to repeal the prohibition; but even this could not restore the damage that was done. The game of poker is not typified by ?fly-by-night-casino.com,? as some in Congress have suggested. Rather, the largest and most-played poker websites are regulated in certain jurisdictions and have high stan-dards of self-regulation. Some of these incorporated and regulated companies are even publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, and many others are awaiting IPOs. Prohibition will only drive this industry underground, with newer, less traceable ways to fund a wager, and the creation of newer ?rogue? sites that can elude detection from the Department of Justice. This is the wrong way to go.
History teaches us that regulation, not prohibition, is the responsible solution for our lawmakers to pursue. Instead of forcing players to find loopholes to legislation, good public policy dictates a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. A system of licensing and regulation would require that internet poker sites maintain objective standards, safeguards for age verification, identity verification, financial solvency, fairness of game, and even measures to help problem gamblers. It would also provide the ability for U.S.-based poker brands to enter the market. It seems blatantly absurd for lawmakers to decry that $12B (the value of the iGaming market) is going overseas, when they penalize U.S. companies from competing for the business of poker players.
Why do lotteries exist? They are allowed because they provide valuable tax revenues for state governments. The PPA had a noted economist analyze the potential revenue for the federal government from the taxation of internet poker. The analysis found that more than $3.3 billion in revenue could be generated annually for the federal government, and another $1 billion for state coffers. Granted, that number is not as nearly as much the contribution of lotteries, but you are not gambling against the government, and the rake in poker is only about 4% rather than the 40% of most lotteries. That being said, $4 billion is a substantial revenue that could be put to work immediately, providing better schools or increasing our protection at our airports.
In addition to the tax dollars that are lost by not regulating online poker, the U.S. economy is also missing out on keeping domestic revenue in the country as well as attracting substantial foreign investment to the NASDAQ or NYSE. Poker companies like Party Poker (listed as PartyGaming) are listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) or the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). Billions of dollars of these stocks are traded each year. While the majority of the players on the sites of the large publicly traded companies are Americans, it is foreign brokers and traders that are earning this revenue. Furthermore, many investors in these stocks are Americans, who are choosing to invest in foreign, rather than domestic stock exchanges.
The Alternative to Prohibition
Prohibition is not the only option Congress is considering for online poker or online gambling generally. Congressman Jon Porter (RNev.) and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (DNev.) have introduced bi-partisan legislation in the House of Representatives, calling for a Congressional Study Commission to evaluate the potential for regulating internet gaming.
Being from Nevada, both Congress members recognize the value of gaming to their economies, and realize that online gaming is the future for their constituent state casinos (e.g., Las Vegas). This approach also affords Congress the time required to gain a better understanding of the detriment (if any) that online gaming will bring, and allow them to assess that detriment against the benefits of online gaming, and incorporate policy that will minimize the potential harm that regulating online gaming may bring. The PPA strongly supports this reasoned approach, and we continue to press this issue in our dealings with Congress.
Nothing New
The regulation of online gaming is not a new concept. Online gaming has been successfully regulated and taxed for many years. First, Caribbean nations embraced online gaming for the revenue potential and jobs it brought their countries, as well as the high-tech internet infrastructure that online gaming companies brought with them. Australia licenses and regulates online gaming operators, as do many countries in Europe, including the British territories of the Isle of Man and Alderney. In fact, these nations have had so much success regulating internet gaming; and providing it, without harm, to their citizens, that the United Kingdom is enacting new gaming legislation to license online gaming from its shores. There are law firms and legislators worldwide already skilled in drafting licensing legislation and tax structures that could allow any of the 50 states to license online gaming, given a concerted effort, within 18-24 months.
A State?s Issue
Traditionally, gaming has been a states? rights issue. The federal government generally only gets involved when there is an interstate provision of gambling. In fact, 48 states have some form of state-licensed or state-sponsored gaming (only Utah and Hawaii don?t). So, if an individual state wanted to provide online gaming within its borders (provided that people in other states were banned from playing), that state could theoretically do so without federal permission.
North Dakota is one state looking at doing just that. They have been looking at licensing online poker for over a year, and have had many of the industry?s top executives in to discuss this possibility. In fact, they determined that if they were to license online poker from North Dakota, the revenue generated would be so substantial that it could eliminate property taxes for all the residents of the state.
Playing Our Best Hand
How can you help? The PPA asks that poker players become politically aware and active. Our website has state-of-the-art software under the ?defending the game? section that allows you to directly contact your elected representatives through an email or physical letter. We encourage you to write to your senators today.
Letters, however, are just the start. Joining us as a member of the PPA is just as valuable as your individual actions: You are then counted as part of our unified voice for poker. The PPA is driving the political agenda for thousands of American poker players. And our grassroots efforts must be complimented by sophisticated lobbying. These endeavors cost money. We are a non-profit organization, so your contribution goes directly to fund our activities in DC and throughout the states. We are competing with hundreds of other nonpoker related interest groups to get our voice heard. Politics is about action, and action requires resources; and your funds help to put forth the Poker Players Alliance?s ?best hand? on Capitol Hill.
A lifetime membership to the PPA is $20 ($15 for Bluff online and magazine readers) and it is easy to join. Simply go to our website, http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/, and click on JOIN TODAY. Be sure to enter BLUFF into the Promo Code section to receive your discount. The PPA will send you our T-shirt and membership kit; but even more importantly, you will be counted as part of our growing membership, and effect real change on Capitol Hill.
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:00:00 EDT";s:7:"summary";s:12309:"My college roommate was writing a paper for a history class and asked my opinion. He started the paper ?Once upon a time?? Before reading any further I told him to consider rethinking his beginning, but maybe I was too hasty. A similar scenario is playing out in the halls of the U.S. Congress. In July, the House of Representatives voted to prohibit most forms of online gambling ? including poker ? in an effort to weed out, as one member of Congress called it, this ?scourge on our society.? However, this misguided attempt to prohibit online poker playing is a huge folly ? because you can?t turn back the clock on the internet.
Internet poker has taken hold and it is the natural evolution of this great American game. Today, nearly 23 million Americans play online. And, with the popularity of the World Series of Poker and other televised poker tournaments, the number of people turning to the online game will continue to grow. These facts make federal attempts to ban online poker all the more alarming. Congress?s belief that it can and should control the internet (and your behavior) is an affront to civil liberties and the principles upon which this country wass founded.
One has to wonder if those who supported the internet gambling ban (H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) believe that they have taken some positive moralistic position, while completely ignoring true policy arguments of this debate. The Poker Players Alliance is working with leaders in the U.S. Senate to ensure that they don?t ignore the policy implications of an online poker ban if they vote on the bill later this month.
As part of our efforts, we are educating members of Congress, the public, and the media on two major facts: 1) Poker is a skill game and should be evaluated as such, and not lumped into other games of chance or near chance, and 2) Prohibitions do not work. An enlightened approach to internet poker is regulation, not prohibition.
A Game of Skill
Poker is a skill game. In fact, there are few games where skill is so essential to the long-run performance of a competitor. This skill factor is the major reason for the explosion of the sport. Do you think a magazine about lotteries would be successful? Of course not. I often ask people to name the top roulette players in the world, or the top lottery players. Most Bluff readers can name the top 10 poker players; perhaps not in agreement, but with a general consensus. Poker?s widespread appeal does not denigrate the essential nature of the game ? skill.
Currently, games of skill are not considered gambling games in most states. Additionally, the Wire Wager Act, 1961, a federal law which prohibits the use of ?a wire communication? facility (i.e. the telephone) for sports betting, has also been used to challenge the legality of online casino gambling and online sportsbetting. However, the Wire Wager Act 1961 has not been utilized in any attempt to stop skill gaming, a category of gaming that generally includes games like chess, in which the outcome is determined by skill, not luck.
Some detractors have stated that poker is a game of chance, because the cards that are dealt to the players are random (due to the shuffle). But poker players know that this element of poker introduces variance to the game, not chance; because over time, the best players consistently come out on top. This empirical evidence alone is enough to support the ?poker is skill? argument.
Armed with this information, the Poker Players Alliance has been fighting for an exemption or exclusion in the anti-internet gambling legislation, so that poker can be recognized as a skill game and left out of Congress?s net of prohibition.
Carve-Outs
Exceptions and carve-outs are already part of bill H.R. 4411. Currently, the strong horseracing lobby has managed to get an exemption for horseracing; and of course the state lotteries have been excluded from this legislation. A carve-out for poker would be one that is not only derived from the basis of fact (that poker is a skill game), but may also be introduced as a reflection of public opinion.
With 23 million Americans playing poker online, and over 100 million Americans having played poker in general, the opinion of the American public seems clear: Poker is as American as apple pie, and it is not unwanted by the majority of America?s citizens. The solution ? include poker as a carve-out of HR4411.
Regulation vs. Prohibition
?Once upon a time,? Congress passed a prohibition on alcohol. This created nothing but speakeasies, backyard stills, and the rise of the Mafia in the U.S. It was utterly ineffective, and legislation was required to repeal the prohibition; but even this could not restore the damage that was done. The game of poker is not typified by ?fly-by-night-casino.com,? as some in Congress have suggested. Rather, the largest and most-played poker websites are regulated in certain jurisdictions and have high stan-dards of self-regulation. Some of these incorporated and regulated companies are even publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, and many others are awaiting IPOs. Prohibition will only drive this industry underground, with newer, less traceable ways to fund a wager, and the creation of newer ?rogue? sites that can elude detection from the Department of Justice. This is the wrong way to go.
History teaches us that regulation, not prohibition, is the responsible solution for our lawmakers to pursue. Instead of forcing players to find loopholes to legislation, good public policy dictates a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. A system of licensing and regulation would require that internet poker sites maintain objective standards, safeguards for age verification, identity verification, financial solvency, fairness of game, and even measures to help problem gamblers. It would also provide the ability for U.S.-based poker brands to enter the market. It seems blatantly absurd for lawmakers to decry that $12B (the value of the iGaming market) is going overseas, when they penalize U.S. companies from competing for the business of poker players.
Why do lotteries exist? They are allowed because they provide valuable tax revenues for state governments. The PPA had a noted economist analyze the potential revenue for the federal government from the taxation of internet poker. The analysis found that more than $3.3 billion in revenue could be generated annually for the federal government, and another $1 billion for state coffers. Granted, that number is not as nearly as much the contribution of lotteries, but you are not gambling against the government, and the rake in poker is only about 4% rather than the 40% of most lotteries. That being said, $4 billion is a substantial revenue that could be put to work immediately, providing better schools or increasing our protection at our airports.
In addition to the tax dollars that are lost by not regulating online poker, the U.S. economy is also missing out on keeping domestic revenue in the country as well as attracting substantial foreign investment to the NASDAQ or NYSE. Poker companies like Party Poker (listed as PartyGaming) are listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) or the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). Billions of dollars of these stocks are traded each year. While the majority of the players on the sites of the large publicly traded companies are Americans, it is foreign brokers and traders that are earning this revenue. Furthermore, many investors in these stocks are Americans, who are choosing to invest in foreign, rather than domestic stock exchanges.
The Alternative to Prohibition
Prohibition is not the only option Congress is considering for online poker or online gambling generally. Congressman Jon Porter (RNev.) and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (DNev.) have introduced bi-partisan legislation in the House of Representatives, calling for a Congressional Study Commission to evaluate the potential for regulating internet gaming.
Being from Nevada, both Congress members recognize the value of gaming to their economies, and realize that online gaming is the future for their constituent state casinos (e.g., Las Vegas). This approach also affords Congress the time required to gain a better understanding of the detriment (if any) that online gaming will bring, and allow them to assess that detriment against the benefits of online gaming, and incorporate policy that will minimize the potential harm that regulating online gaming may bring. The PPA strongly supports this reasoned approach, and we continue to press this issue in our dealings with Congress.
Nothing New
The regulation of online gaming is not a new concept. Online gaming has been successfully regulated and taxed for many years. First, Caribbean nations embraced online gaming for the revenue potential and jobs it brought their countries, as well as the high-tech internet infrastructure that online gaming companies brought with them. Australia licenses and regulates online gaming operators, as do many countries in Europe, including the British territories of the Isle of Man and Alderney. In fact, these nations have had so much success regulating internet gaming; and providing it, without harm, to their citizens, that the United Kingdom is enacting new gaming legislation to license online gaming from its shores. There are law firms and legislators worldwide already skilled in drafting licensing legislation and tax structures that could allow any of the 50 states to license online gaming, given a concerted effort, within 18-24 months.
A State?s Issue
Traditionally, gaming has been a states? rights issue. The federal government generally only gets involved when there is an interstate provision of gambling. In fact, 48 states have some form of state-licensed or state-sponsored gaming (only Utah and Hawaii don?t). So, if an individual state wanted to provide online gaming within its borders (provided that people in other states were banned from playing), that state could theoretically do so without federal permission.
North Dakota is one state looking at doing just that. They have been looking at licensing online poker for over a year, and have had many of the industry?s top executives in to discuss this possibility. In fact, they determined that if they were to license online poker from North Dakota, the revenue generated would be so substantial that it could eliminate property taxes for all the residents of the state.
Playing Our Best Hand
How can you help? The PPA asks that poker players become politically aware and active. Our website has state-of-the-art software under the ?defending the game? section that allows you to directly contact your elected representatives through an email or physical letter. We encourage you to write to your senators today.
Letters, however, are just the start. Joining us as a member of the PPA is just as valuable as your individual actions: You are then counted as part of our unified voice for poker. The PPA is driving the political agenda for thousands of American poker players. And our grassroots efforts must be complimented by sophisticated lobbying. These endeavors cost money. We are a non-profit organization, so your contribution goes directly to fund our activities in DC and throughout the states. We are competing with hundreds of other nonpoker related interest groups to get our voice heard. Politics is about action, and action requires resources; and your funds help to put forth the Poker Players Alliance?s ?best hand? on Capitol Hill.
A lifetime membership to the PPA is $20 ($15 for Bluff online and magazine readers) and it is easy to join. Simply go to our website, http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/, and click on JOIN TODAY. Be sure to enter BLUFF into the Promo Code section to receive your discount. The PPA will send you our T-shirt and membership kit; but even more importantly, you will be counted as part of our growing membership, and effect real change on Capitol Hill.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1159675200;}i:1;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:51:"Poker players battle crackdown on Internet gambling";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=75";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=75";s:11:"description";s:4605:"WASHINGTON - Online poker players are nervously awaiting President Bush's expected signature this week on legislation that would kick them out of their virtual casinos.
The measure, designed to block the financial transactions that have fueled Internet gambling, was quietly attached to a port security bill in a flurry of last-minute activity before Congress adjourned in late September.
The legislation threatens to cripple the $12 billion online gambling industry, cutting off about half of the world's Web-based gaming revenue. It has already forced the suspension of several Internet gambling companies' lucrative U.S. operations and has sent shock waves through the gaming world.
"Who is Congress to tell people what to do in their own home when it doesn't bother anybody else?" asked Mike Sexton, a professional poker player and commentator for the World Poker Tour. "We feel like our rights have been violated."
Most of the 2,300 gambling Web sites currently operating are based outside the United States, often on Caribbean islands or in Central America and Europe, to avoid U.S. law, which prohibits many types of gambling under the Federal Wire Act. Enforcement of the law is difficult, however, and the companies have made billions of dollars annually from American bettors.
The bill that Bush is expected to sign adds considerable enforcement muscle, prohibiting banks and credit card companies from processing online gambling transactions based in the U.S.
Chad Hills, a gambling research analyst for Focus on the Family, a conservative group, applauded the bill's passage, saying the laws in place had been flouted for too long. Online gambling operations, he said, "were making a mockery of our U.S. policy, they were making a mockery of our Congress, they were making a mockery of our ability to enforce this legislation."
But gamblers aren't buying in on the idea. On the gambling Web site Cardplayer.com, poker professional Thor Hansen called the passage "a bad day for poker" and Shannon Shorr, a professional poker player, called the measure "both frustrating and devastating."
Michael Bolcerek, president of Poker Players Alliance, said outlawing online gambling will just push it underground rather than eliminate it. Leading the charge against the legislation, the Poker Players Alliance has begun to focus its efforts on securing legal exemptions for online poker.
Poker, some players argue, is a skill sport and should be afforded an exemption from gambling bans, like those currently given to fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries.
In advance of the bill's signing, major betting firms have taken severe financial hits.
The British online gambling firm World Gaming, which derives as much as 95 percent of its revenue from U.S.-based gambling, asked the London Stock Exchange on Monday to stop trading its stock over fears for the company's future. The value of the company's stock declined by 88 percent last week.
Many publicly traded online gambling companies have also seen their shares crumble in the past week, draining the industry of an estimated $8 billion in market value.
On Tuesday, European online gambling outfits Fairground Gaming and FireOne announced the immediate suspension of their U.S. operations.
London-based Fairground, which derives a large percentage of its profit from the U.S. market, said in a press release that it is "attending urgently to appropriate cost-cutting measures" to offset the significant losses it expects to incur as a result of the legislation. Similarly, Dublin-based FireOne said in a press release that it "has embarked upon a restructuring of its operations and cost base" as its awaits Bush's bill signing.
The world's largest Internet gambling company, Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, which derives about 80 percent of its $1 billion annual revenue from the U.S., said it will end its U.S. operations if the bill is signed.
"This development is a significant setback for our company, our shareholders, our players and our industry," Mitch Garber, chief executive of PartyGaming Ltd., said in a statement.
But not all companies are closing up shop in the U.S.
The gambling Web site Poker.com, based in Brisbane, Australia, said the legislation would have little or no effect on its U.S. operations.
"We will not be stopping U.S.-based players from playing at Poker.com and all player account balances are 100 percent safe and will always be readily accessible," the company said.
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 EDT";s:7:"summary";s:4605:"WASHINGTON - Online poker players are nervously awaiting President Bush's expected signature this week on legislation that would kick them out of their virtual casinos.
The measure, designed to block the financial transactions that have fueled Internet gambling, was quietly attached to a port security bill in a flurry of last-minute activity before Congress adjourned in late September.
The legislation threatens to cripple the $12 billion online gambling industry, cutting off about half of the world's Web-based gaming revenue. It has already forced the suspension of several Internet gambling companies' lucrative U.S. operations and has sent shock waves through the gaming world.
"Who is Congress to tell people what to do in their own home when it doesn't bother anybody else?" asked Mike Sexton, a professional poker player and commentator for the World Poker Tour. "We feel like our rights have been violated."
Most of the 2,300 gambling Web sites currently operating are based outside the United States, often on Caribbean islands or in Central America and Europe, to avoid U.S. law, which prohibits many types of gambling under the Federal Wire Act. Enforcement of the law is difficult, however, and the companies have made billions of dollars annually from American bettors.
The bill that Bush is expected to sign adds considerable enforcement muscle, prohibiting banks and credit card companies from processing online gambling transactions based in the U.S.
Chad Hills, a gambling research analyst for Focus on the Family, a conservative group, applauded the bill's passage, saying the laws in place had been flouted for too long. Online gambling operations, he said, "were making a mockery of our U.S. policy, they were making a mockery of our Congress, they were making a mockery of our ability to enforce this legislation."
But gamblers aren't buying in on the idea. On the gambling Web site Cardplayer.com, poker professional Thor Hansen called the passage "a bad day for poker" and Shannon Shorr, a professional poker player, called the measure "both frustrating and devastating."
Michael Bolcerek, president of Poker Players Alliance, said outlawing online gambling will just push it underground rather than eliminate it. Leading the charge against the legislation, the Poker Players Alliance has begun to focus its efforts on securing legal exemptions for online poker.
Poker, some players argue, is a skill sport and should be afforded an exemption from gambling bans, like those currently given to fantasy sports, horse racing and state lotteries.
In advance of the bill's signing, major betting firms have taken severe financial hits.
The British online gambling firm World Gaming, which derives as much as 95 percent of its revenue from U.S.-based gambling, asked the London Stock Exchange on Monday to stop trading its stock over fears for the company's future. The value of the company's stock declined by 88 percent last week.
Many publicly traded online gambling companies have also seen their shares crumble in the past week, draining the industry of an estimated $8 billion in market value.
On Tuesday, European online gambling outfits Fairground Gaming and FireOne announced the immediate suspension of their U.S. operations.
London-based Fairground, which derives a large percentage of its profit from the U.S. market, said in a press release that it is "attending urgently to appropriate cost-cutting measures" to offset the significant losses it expects to incur as a result of the legislation. Similarly, Dublin-based FireOne said in a press release that it "has embarked upon a restructuring of its operations and cost base" as its awaits Bush's bill signing.
The world's largest Internet gambling company, Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, which derives about 80 percent of its $1 billion annual revenue from the U.S., said it will end its U.S. operations if the bill is signed.
"This development is a significant setback for our company, our shareholders, our players and our industry," Mitch Garber, chief executive of PartyGaming Ltd., said in a statement.
But not all companies are closing up shop in the U.S.
The gambling Web site Poker.com, based in Brisbane, Australia, said the legislation would have little or no effect on its U.S. operations.
"We will not be stopping U.S.-based players from playing at Poker.com and all player account balances are 100 percent safe and will always be readily accessible," the company said.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1160539200;}i:2;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:34:"President Bush Bans Internet Poker";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=66";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=66";s:11:"description";s:2781:"
Michael Bolcerek, the President of the Poker Player?s Alliance, has visited the living rooms of hundreds of thousands of people in October, thanks to a media blitz by the PPAthat was necessitedby the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in September.
The PPA sent releases to media outlets everywhere that Bolcerek, Mike Sexton, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer were making themselves available for interviews to talk about online poker and the Act, and many organizations took the PPA up onit. Bolcerek'sdisgust was on display in the interviews.
?We?re obviously dismayed and angered that the bill went through,? Bolcerek told Card Player. ?This is an egregious increase in the Federal government's involvement in your life.?
Bolcerek has appeared on Fox, CNN, CNBC, as well as more than 60 local stations around the country, to get these messages out: Poker is a game of skill, the government is unfairly impeding in its residents? lives, the best public policy is to tax and regulate poker, and poker players shouldcontinue to fight.
The hypocrisy of the whole thing seems to be what the main stream media have constantly mentioned.
?They?restarting to pick up on the fact that it exempts certain online wagering like lottery and horseracing,? Bolcerek. ?I think what you see is a trickle effect throughout the general media saying, ?What?s going on in Congress???
The media blitz was a response to the passing ? and eventually signing into law? of the UIGE Act, and it?s still going on. Each day Bolcerek fulfills a few interview requests, ranging from magazines focusing on the poker industry, like Card Player, to papers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which ran a feature story on the UIGE Act today.
Grassroots
The nonprofit PPAconsiders itselfa grassroots organization, and like other organizations in the past, it has used guerrilla-like tactics to share information. For example, the PPA?s marketing director came up with the idea to use the popular video sharing site YouTube.com as a resource.
The PPA has posted 22 videos of interviews and commentary concerning the UIGE Act, videos that would most likely be missed in this day and age of media saturation. For example, the PPA posted Congresswoman Shelley Berkley?s (D-NV) fiery speech criticizing the attempts of conservatives to attach the UIGE Act to a vital defense bill. (Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist succeeded in attaching the UIGE Act to an unrelated act to strengthen port safety later in the week.)
The short video has been viewed more than 800 times since being posted three weeks ago. Berkley gave her speech in front of a nearly empty House chambers. The video was originally broadcast by C-SPAN.
Those interested in seeing the interviews Sexton, Bolcerek, and Duke did during the last few weeks, go to YouTube.com and type ?pokerplayersalliance? into the search box. It?s also interesting to see what the mainstream cable news guys like Wolf Blitzer said about the passing of the act.
The media blitz also helped bring in about 5,000 new members to the PPA in October. In less than a year, the PPA has grown to more than 120,000 members. Bolcerek looks at the Sierra Club and notes that with half a million members, it?s an organization that is able to influence policy.
Bolcerek of course encourages all poker players to join the PPA, but to also become politically active. He wants players to visit the PPA?s website and see which Congress members from the House voted to send what became the UIGE Act to the Senate. And then vote against them.
To visit CardPlayer.com?s online archive of legislative stories, click here.
Michael Bolcerek, the President of the Poker Player?s Alliance, has visited the living rooms of hundreds of thousands of people in October, thanks to a media blitz by the PPAthat was necessitedby the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in September.
The PPA sent releases to media outlets everywhere that Bolcerek, Mike Sexton, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer were making themselves available for interviews to talk about online poker and the Act, and many organizations took the PPA up onit. Bolcerek'sdisgust was on display in the interviews.
?We?re obviously dismayed and angered that the bill went through,? Bolcerek told Card Player. ?This is an egregious increase in the Federal government's involvement in your life.?
Bolcerek has appeared on Fox, CNN, CNBC, as well as more than 60 local stations around the country, to get these messages out: Poker is a game of skill, the government is unfairly impeding in its residents? lives, the best public policy is to tax and regulate poker, and poker players shouldcontinue to fight.
The hypocrisy of the whole thing seems to be what the main stream media have constantly mentioned.
?They?restarting to pick up on the fact that it exempts certain online wagering like lottery and horseracing,? Bolcerek. ?I think what you see is a trickle effect throughout the general media saying, ?What?s going on in Congress???
The media blitz was a response to the passing ? and eventually signing into law? of the UIGE Act, and it?s still going on. Each day Bolcerek fulfills a few interview requests, ranging from magazines focusing on the poker industry, like Card Player, to papers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which ran a feature story on the UIGE Act today.
Grassroots
The nonprofit PPAconsiders itselfa grassroots organization, and like other organizations in the past, it has used guerrilla-like tactics to share information. For example, the PPA?s marketing director came up with the idea to use the popular video sharing site YouTube.com as a resource.
The PPA has posted 22 videos of interviews and commentary concerning the UIGE Act, videos that would most likely be missed in this day and age of media saturation. For example, the PPA posted Congresswoman Shelley Berkley?s (D-NV) fiery speech criticizing the attempts of conservatives to attach the UIGE Act to a vital defense bill. (Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist succeeded in attaching the UIGE Act to an unrelated act to strengthen port safety later in the week.)
The short video has been viewed more than 800 times since being posted three weeks ago. Berkley gave her speech in front of a nearly empty House chambers. The video was originally broadcast by C-SPAN.
Those interested in seeing the interviews Sexton, Bolcerek, and Duke did during the last few weeks, go to YouTube.com and type ?pokerplayersalliance? into the search box. It?s also interesting to see what the mainstream cable news guys like Wolf Blitzer said about the passing of the act.
The media blitz also helped bring in about 5,000 new members to the PPA in October. In less than a year, the PPA has grown to more than 120,000 members. Bolcerek looks at the Sierra Club and notes that with half a million members, it?s an organization that is able to influence policy.
Bolcerek of course encourages all poker players to join the PPA, but to also become politically active. He wants players to visit the PPA?s website and see which Congress members from the House voted to send what became the UIGE Act to the Senate. And then vote against them.
To visit CardPlayer.com?s online archive of legislative stories, click here.
Washington, D.C. (November 8, 2006) ? The Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots advocacy group of more than 125,000 U.S. poker enthusiasts, greeted the change in congressional leadership with optimism for the future of Internet freedoms.
?We believe this will be a more favorable environment moving forward,? said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance. ?A fresh perspective is needed and we are hopeful that the new congressional leadership will objectively consider the skill game of poker for an exemption from internet gambling prohibitions passed this year and create good public policy by licensing, regulating, and taxing Internet poker in the U.S.?
?The PPA looks forward to continuing our dialogue with all Members of Congress, and we will make every effort to educate new Representatives and Senators in the upcoming session.?
Bolcerek added that he was pleased to hear from many poker players who went to the polls this year, motivated by the federal ban on their freedom to play the game they love on the Internet. ?The ?poker vote? truly showed up in this election and it made a difference in many close races. As our organization continues to grow in numbers, our influence in Washington DC and throughout the states will grow, as well.?
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:00:00 EST";s:7:"summary";s:1326:"Washington, D.C. (November 8, 2006) ? The Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots advocacy group of more than 125,000 U.S. poker enthusiasts, greeted the change in congressional leadership with optimism for the future of Internet freedoms.
?We believe this will be a more favorable environment moving forward,? said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance. ?A fresh perspective is needed and we are hopeful that the new congressional leadership will objectively consider the skill game of poker for an exemption from internet gambling prohibitions passed this year and create good public policy by licensing, regulating, and taxing Internet poker in the U.S.?
?The PPA looks forward to continuing our dialogue with all Members of Congress, and we will make every effort to educate new Representatives and Senators in the upcoming session.?
Bolcerek added that he was pleased to hear from many poker players who went to the polls this year, motivated by the federal ban on their freedom to play the game they love on the Internet. ?The ?poker vote? truly showed up in this election and it made a difference in many close races. As our organization continues to grow in numbers, our influence in Washington DC and throughout the states will grow, as well.?
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1162962000;}i:6;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:33:"Gamblers take aim at Internet ban";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=73";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=73";s:11:"description";s:4992:"MGM Mirage chief executive Terry Lanni said Wednesday that the measure is "ridiculous" because it was signed into law Oct. 13 as part of a larger port security bill ? and because it exempted horse races and lotteries, and online bets placed while on American Indian land.
"It makes no sense whatsoever," Lanni told gambling industry officials attending the Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas. "Prohibition didn't work, this isn't going to work."
Later, Lanni said he hoped Congress would commission a study into the effect of online gambling.
"We're looking even in the lame-duck session to reintroduce this bill with some of our compatriots in the House and Senate to study (Internet) gaming," said Lanni, who directs the world's second-largest casino company.
"We think it can be taxed, we think it can be regulated, we think it can be licensed," Lanni said. "With the new leadership, with the Democrats winning the House and the Senate, we think we're going to have a much better opportunity to do that."
Lanni hinted that the promotion of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to majority leader might help the industry's cause, but Reid said Wednesday that he opposed Internet gambling.
"I have said on many occasions that I don't believe in Internet gambling," Reid said in a meeting with reporters, adding he'd be open to looking at the results of a study on it.
"I know that people say it can be controlled, I just have extreme doubts that it can be. But I'll be happy to look at the study. I'm not going to turn my head and say never, never."
The Internet gambling ban prohibits banks from processing fund transfers from players to settle their online wagers. The Federal Reserve and other bank regulators were tasked with coming up with practical measures to enforce the law by July 2007.
Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, according to industry figures, most of it through sites run by companies outside the U.S.
Several London-listed gaming groups closed or sold their U.S. business after Congress added to an unrelated bill a provision that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to settle payments for online gambling sites.
President Bush signed the law Oct. 14. Consolidation within the online gambling industry has been widely expected among company executives and investors after a sharp sell-off in the sector.
The online poker lobby group, Poker Players Alliance, claimed Wednesday that anger over the ban helped sink the re-election bid of 30-year House legislator Rep. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who helped write the bill.
The alliance released the results of an automated telephone survey of 1,033 voters in Leach's congressional district conducted Monday and Tuesday by RT Strategies.
While one in 10 cited Leach's stand against Internet gambling as a strong influence in their vote for him, a greater proportion, nearly one in seven, cited it as a strong reason to vote for his opponent, Democrat Dave Loebsack, a political science professor.
"This was an awful close race," said pollster Thomas Riehle of RT Strategies. "It looks like on balance, Leach's position on Internet gambling hurt him more than it helped him."
Michael Bolcerek, president of the 120,000-member poker alliance, said the election results emboldened the group.
"Our members and other poker players went to the polls. They influenced the federal election," he said. "In the next 12 months we're confident that we'll get a study commission bill. We think an exemption is in order, as well."
Legal experts at the expo harshly criticized the Internet gambling law, saying it was confusing and contradictory, particularly a section that appeared to sanction Internet betting conducted within a state.
"It's a public embarrassment. ... it's a mess," said professor I. Nelson Rose of the Whittier Law School. "Eventually I think they'll get Congress to change the law to do for Internet poker exactly what they did for Internet horse racing. It's an exemption but (based on) states' rights."
David Stewart, a lawyer with Washington-based Ropes & Gray LLP, predicted lawmakers would let the courts work out the law's weak points.
"Whenever they legislate on something, they don't come back to it for a while," he said. "They want to see, did they really screw it up or can people work their way around it?"
MGM Mirage chief executive Terry Lanni said Wednesday that the measure is "ridiculous" because it was signed into law Oct. 13 as part of a larger port security bill ? and because it exempted horse races and lotteries, and online bets placed while on American Indian land.
"It makes no sense whatsoever," Lanni told gambling industry officials attending the Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas. "Prohibition didn't work, this isn't going to work."
Later, Lanni said he hoped Congress would commission a study into the effect of online gambling.
"We're looking even in the lame-duck session to reintroduce this bill with some of our compatriots in the House and Senate to study (Internet) gaming," said Lanni, who directs the world's second-largest casino company.
"We think it can be taxed, we think it can be regulated, we think it can be licensed," Lanni said. "With the new leadership, with the Democrats winning the House and the Senate, we think we're going to have a much better opportunity to do that."
Lanni hinted that the promotion of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to majority leader might help the industry's cause, but Reid said Wednesday that he opposed Internet gambling.
"I have said on many occasions that I don't believe in Internet gambling," Reid said in a meeting with reporters, adding he'd be open to looking at the results of a study on it.
"I know that people say it can be controlled, I just have extreme doubts that it can be. But I'll be happy to look at the study. I'm not going to turn my head and say never, never."
The Internet gambling ban prohibits banks from processing fund transfers from players to settle their online wagers. The Federal Reserve and other bank regulators were tasked with coming up with practical measures to enforce the law by July 2007.
Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, according to industry figures, most of it through sites run by companies outside the U.S.
Several London-listed gaming groups closed or sold their U.S. business after Congress added to an unrelated bill a provision that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to settle payments for online gambling sites.
President Bush signed the law Oct. 14. Consolidation within the online gambling industry has been widely expected among company executives and investors after a sharp sell-off in the sector.
The online poker lobby group, Poker Players Alliance, claimed Wednesday that anger over the ban helped sink the re-election bid of 30-year House legislator Rep. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who helped write the bill.
The alliance released the results of an automated telephone survey of 1,033 voters in Leach's congressional district conducted Monday and Tuesday by RT Strategies.
While one in 10 cited Leach's stand against Internet gambling as a strong influence in their vote for him, a greater proportion, nearly one in seven, cited it as a strong reason to vote for his opponent, Democrat Dave Loebsack, a political science professor.
"This was an awful close race," said pollster Thomas Riehle of RT Strategies. "It looks like on balance, Leach's position on Internet gambling hurt him more than it helped him."
Michael Bolcerek, president of the 120,000-member poker alliance, said the election results emboldened the group.
"Our members and other poker players went to the polls. They influenced the federal election," he said. "In the next 12 months we're confident that we'll get a study commission bill. We think an exemption is in order, as well."
Legal experts at the expo harshly criticized the Internet gambling law, saying it was confusing and contradictory, particularly a section that appeared to sanction Internet betting conducted within a state.
"It's a public embarrassment. ... it's a mess," said professor I. Nelson Rose of the Whittier Law School. "Eventually I think they'll get Congress to change the law to do for Internet poker exactly what they did for Internet horse racing. It's an exemption but (based on) states' rights."
David Stewart, a lawyer with Washington-based Ropes & Gray LLP, predicted lawmakers would let the courts work out the law's weak points.
"Whenever they legislate on something, they don't come back to it for a while," he said. "They want to see, did they really screw it up or can people work their way around it?"
The House of Representatives wastes no sympathy on defeated members. So at the beginning of this week, Jim Leach of Iowa sat in an office almost devoid of furniture, the walls stripped bare of the mementos of his 30 years of service -- with just a few hours remaining before the painters moved in to prepare his domain for its new occupant.
Leach, who once was chairman of the Banking and Financial Services Committee, would have been in line to head the Committee on International Relations in the next Congress, had Republicans maintained their majority and had he been reelected.
But he lost, 51 percent to 48 percent, to college professor David Loebsack, as Democrats won top-to-bottom victories in Iowa this month.
Leach, noted for his independence, was the only Iowa legislator to oppose going to war in Iraq. That kind of record helped him prevail in past races despite his heavily Democratic district, which gave a higher percentage of its presidential vote to John Kerry than any other district held by a Republican.
But this year two special factors helped tip the balance against him. First, he became a target for crafting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which passed Congress as part of a larger bill in October and was signed into law just before the election.
The Poker Players Alliance, which had fought the measure banning banks and credit card companies from servicing Internet gambling firms, targeted Leach and other sponsors with e-mails to its members and publicity in poker magazines. A post-election survey paid for by the gambling group found a net 5-point swing against Leach attributable to that issue.
John Pappas, the spokesman for the alliance, said it is putting together a presentation for the new members of Congress using Leach's experience to show that "this issue is not a winner for them; in fact, the main proponent was hurt by it." The alliance wants poker exempted from the Internet gambling ban or the ban lifted in favor of government regulation and taxation.
In addition, the Christian Coalition criticized Leach for his support of embryonic stem cell research and for his insistence that the national GOP drop a planned mailing attacking Loebsack on the issue of gay marriage.
"But the big force," Leach said in a conversation in his nearly empty office, "was the accountability thing -- the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress."
Because he can understand and even sympathize a bit with that feeling, Leach said, "I am probably the least disappointed defeated member" of the vanished Republican majority.
On the other hand, the man who was known as "the conscience of Congress" because of his personal high standards -- no PAC money or out-of-state contributions -- said he regrets not being part of the policymaking at "a really critical moment for the United States in its relations with a changing world."
And he worries about the political dynamics of a Congress that is more and more polarized -- and therefore less and less representative of the American mainstream.
Leach was one of eight members of the dwindling tribe of Republican moderates who lost their seats this election, unable to separate themselves from the public rejection of a conservative-dominated White House and Congress.
In Leach's view, while presidential races tend to pull candidates to the center, in Congress the abundance of "safe" seats, gerrymandered to guarantee victory to one party or the other, makes party primaries the critical elections. And in those low-turnout primaries, it is the activists -- usually no more than "one-quarter of one-third" of the electorate -- whose views prevail.
"The Republicans have been governing from within" their party base, rather than reaching out to the other party, he said, and now that Democrats have the majority, they will be tempted by electoral dynamics to do the same thing.
It is possible, Leach said, that a new president could change the pattern, and he is rather hopeful that his early picks for the nominations -- Mitt Romney and Barack Obama -- might do that.
Meanwhile, he is weighing academic offers from his alma mater, Princeton, and other schools and a possible diplomatic post from the State Department.
But given what he has seen on Capitol Hill in his 30 years, it is possible to believe Leach when he says, "I feel kind of relieved" to be moving on.
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 EST";s:7:"summary";s:5437:"The House of Representatives wastes no sympathy on defeated members. So at the beginning of this week, Jim Leach of Iowa sat in an office almost devoid of furniture, the walls stripped bare of the mementos of his 30 years of service -- with just a few hours remaining before the painters moved in to prepare his domain for its new occupant.
Leach, who once was chairman of the Banking and Financial Services Committee, would have been in line to head the Committee on International Relations in the next Congress, had Republicans maintained their majority and had he been reelected.
But he lost, 51 percent to 48 percent, to college professor David Loebsack, as Democrats won top-to-bottom victories in Iowa this month.
Leach, noted for his independence, was the only Iowa legislator to oppose going to war in Iraq. That kind of record helped him prevail in past races despite his heavily Democratic district, which gave a higher percentage of its presidential vote to John Kerry than any other district held by a Republican.
But this year two special factors helped tip the balance against him. First, he became a target for crafting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which passed Congress as part of a larger bill in October and was signed into law just before the election.
The Poker Players Alliance, which had fought the measure banning banks and credit card companies from servicing Internet gambling firms, targeted Leach and other sponsors with e-mails to its members and publicity in poker magazines. A post-election survey paid for by the gambling group found a net 5-point swing against Leach attributable to that issue.
John Pappas, the spokesman for the alliance, said it is putting together a presentation for the new members of Congress using Leach's experience to show that "this issue is not a winner for them; in fact, the main proponent was hurt by it." The alliance wants poker exempted from the Internet gambling ban or the ban lifted in favor of government regulation and taxation.
In addition, the Christian Coalition criticized Leach for his support of embryonic stem cell research and for his insistence that the national GOP drop a planned mailing attacking Loebsack on the issue of gay marriage.
"But the big force," Leach said in a conversation in his nearly empty office, "was the accountability thing -- the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress."
Because he can understand and even sympathize a bit with that feeling, Leach said, "I am probably the least disappointed defeated member" of the vanished Republican majority.
On the other hand, the man who was known as "the conscience of Congress" because of his personal high standards -- no PAC money or out-of-state contributions -- said he regrets not being part of the policymaking at "a really critical moment for the United States in its relations with a changing world."
And he worries about the political dynamics of a Congress that is more and more polarized -- and therefore less and less representative of the American mainstream.
Leach was one of eight members of the dwindling tribe of Republican moderates who lost their seats this election, unable to separate themselves from the public rejection of a conservative-dominated White House and Congress.
In Leach's view, while presidential races tend to pull candidates to the center, in Congress the abundance of "safe" seats, gerrymandered to guarantee victory to one party or the other, makes party primaries the critical elections. And in those low-turnout primaries, it is the activists -- usually no more than "one-quarter of one-third" of the electorate -- whose views prevail.
"The Republicans have been governing from within" their party base, rather than reaching out to the other party, he said, and now that Democrats have the majority, they will be tempted by electoral dynamics to do the same thing.
It is possible, Leach said, that a new president could change the pattern, and he is rather hopeful that his early picks for the nominations -- Mitt Romney and Barack Obama -- might do that.
Meanwhile, he is weighing academic offers from his alma mater, Princeton, and other schools and a possible diplomatic post from the State Department.
But given what he has seen on Capitol Hill in his 30 years, it is possible to believe Leach when he says, "I feel kind of relieved" to be moving on.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1164862800;}i:9;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:46:"Group of SC poker players get Internet support";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=70";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=70";s:11:"description";s:1175:"MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. - A group of South Carolina poker players that want to challenge the state's 200-year-old gambling law have been become celebrities of a sort.
The story of the so-called "Mount Pleasant 18," who were arrested last April for playing Texas Hold'em, has been mentioned on various Web sites and other gamblers are offering support.
"A $20 game of poker shouldn't be a crime," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, pledging his support.
No trial date has been set, but the group's spokesman, Robert Chimento, said they expect to be found guilty. The group will then challenge the state law through the appeals process.
Last April police raided a poker game that had been advertised on a Web site, handing out citations, seizing nearly $6,000 in cash and a small quantity of drugs. Four of those arrested paid a $100 fine.
The remaining 18 pleaded not guilty, wanting to challenge the state's gambling law.
The law bans games with cards or dice. Chimento said that makes everything from bridge to games like "Monopoly" illegal in South Carolina.
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST";s:7:"summary";s:1175:"MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. - A group of South Carolina poker players that want to challenge the state's 200-year-old gambling law have been become celebrities of a sort.
The story of the so-called "Mount Pleasant 18," who were arrested last April for playing Texas Hold'em, has been mentioned on various Web sites and other gamblers are offering support.
"A $20 game of poker shouldn't be a crime," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, pledging his support.
No trial date has been set, but the group's spokesman, Robert Chimento, said they expect to be found guilty. The group will then challenge the state law through the appeals process.
Last April police raided a poker game that had been advertised on a Web site, handing out citations, seizing nearly $6,000 in cash and a small quantity of drugs. Four of those arrested paid a $100 fine.
The remaining 18 pleaded not guilty, wanting to challenge the state's gambling law.
The law bans games with cards or dice. Chimento said that makes everything from bridge to games like "Monopoly" illegal in South Carolina.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1164949200;}i:10;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:37:"The Poker Players Alliance Goes Local";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=89";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=89";s:11:"description";s:3681:"The Poker Players Alliance, the national organization that represents the concerns of poker players everywhere, is about to go local.
Sometime this week, the PPA will send out letters to all its members letting them know that it's looking for regional representatives who are willing to take the fight for poker legality into the nooks and crannies of the country.
The PPA is asking people who are interested in local politics and who have the ability to speak to the local media and would be able to organize visits to offices of area Congress members, and possibly trips to Capitol Hill in D.C., to volunteer to fight for poker.
Michael Bolcerek, the president of the PPA, says many of its members have already shown themselves to be motivated and interested in getting involved. The PPA constantly receives emails from members asking what they can do to help and Bolcerek says this is a way to do it.
Politics are run at a local level, and politicians who don't listen to their constituents usually are shown the door, as in the case of Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa. Leach lost his seat in November after serving in the House of Representatives for nearly 30 years, and it was speculated that his leadership role in drafting portions of the UIGE Act and also speaking out against online gambling had something to do with it.
The PPA wanted to verify that this was the case, so it conducted a poll in Leach's voting district. The pool showed that Leach's role in banning online gambling could've been the deciding factor that determined the race.
The PPA phoned more than 1,000 households and asked them if Leach's position concerning the UIGE Act "strongly influenced" their decision to either vote for or against Leach.
Of those polled, 15 percent said they were "strongly influenced" to vote against Leach because of his role, while 10 percent said his role to ban online gambling influenced them to vote for him.
Leach found himself in a very tight race with Democrat Dave Loebsack, who wound up beating Leach by only 3 percentage points. Leach lost the race despite being one of the most liberal Republicans when he was in office. He even voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and favored abortion rights, and his moderate stance helped him stay in office for three decades. Because of these facts, Bolcerek believes that the Republican discontent that swept many of them out of office across the country had little to do with Leach's defeat.
The 5 percentage points from those who were "strongly influenced" by Leach's stance on online gambling could've decided this election. This victory by the "Velvet Revolution" (a label local media in Iowa and beyond created to describe those who took offense at the UIGE Act and voted accordingly) was reported in newspapers across the country, including the Washington Post last week, and the PPA was mentioned in all of them.
"It wasn't surprising. Our members have been very vocal and have certainly evaluated how people voted on H.R. 4411," Bolcerek said. "We felt they were taking it to the polls and this showed evidence that they did."
Bolcerek hopes plenty of interested people will step forward everywhere prepared to help fight for the rights of poker players. The race between Leach and Loebsack showed that poker players (or any determined group) could influence politics by being well organized, passionate, and vocal, goals that the PPA's new local representative program has a chance to achieve.
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST";s:7:"summary";s:3681:"The Poker Players Alliance, the national organization that represents the concerns of poker players everywhere, is about to go local.
Sometime this week, the PPA will send out letters to all its members letting them know that it's looking for regional representatives who are willing to take the fight for poker legality into the nooks and crannies of the country.
The PPA is asking people who are interested in local politics and who have the ability to speak to the local media and would be able to organize visits to offices of area Congress members, and possibly trips to Capitol Hill in D.C., to volunteer to fight for poker.
Michael Bolcerek, the president of the PPA, says many of its members have already shown themselves to be motivated and interested in getting involved. The PPA constantly receives emails from members asking what they can do to help and Bolcerek says this is a way to do it.
Politics are run at a local level, and politicians who don't listen to their constituents usually are shown the door, as in the case of Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa. Leach lost his seat in November after serving in the House of Representatives for nearly 30 years, and it was speculated that his leadership role in drafting portions of the UIGE Act and also speaking out against online gambling had something to do with it.
The PPA wanted to verify that this was the case, so it conducted a poll in Leach's voting district. The pool showed that Leach's role in banning online gambling could've been the deciding factor that determined the race.
The PPA phoned more than 1,000 households and asked them if Leach's position concerning the UIGE Act "strongly influenced" their decision to either vote for or against Leach.
Of those polled, 15 percent said they were "strongly influenced" to vote against Leach because of his role, while 10 percent said his role to ban online gambling influenced them to vote for him.
Leach found himself in a very tight race with Democrat Dave Loebsack, who wound up beating Leach by only 3 percentage points. Leach lost the race despite being one of the most liberal Republicans when he was in office. He even voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and favored abortion rights, and his moderate stance helped him stay in office for three decades. Because of these facts, Bolcerek believes that the Republican discontent that swept many of them out of office across the country had little to do with Leach's defeat.
The 5 percentage points from those who were "strongly influenced" by Leach's stance on online gambling could've decided this election. This victory by the "Velvet Revolution" (a label local media in Iowa and beyond created to describe those who took offense at the UIGE Act and voted accordingly) was reported in newspapers across the country, including the Washington Post last week, and the PPA was mentioned in all of them.
"It wasn't surprising. Our members have been very vocal and have certainly evaluated how people voted on H.R. 4411," Bolcerek said. "We felt they were taking it to the polls and this showed evidence that they did."
Bolcerek hopes plenty of interested people will step forward everywhere prepared to help fight for the rights of poker players. The race between Leach and Loebsack showed that poker players (or any determined group) could influence politics by being well organized, passionate, and vocal, goals that the PPA's new local representative program has a chance to achieve.
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1165294800;}i:11;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:47:"New anti-Internet gaming law shakes up industry";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=68";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=68";s:11:"description";s:4457:"WASHINGTON ? A new law aimed at curtailing online gambling in the United States has rattled major publicly traded Internet gambling companies but has done little to keep Americans from wagering online, industry experts say.
The changes have been a boon to smaller, privately held companies that may not adhere to the same level of standards public companies must meet, the experts say.
And while the rules may be keeping some casual gamblers from placing bets, those who really want to wager online have found ways to do so.
Ethan Ruby, who lives in New York City, is one such online gambler. While the new law signed by President Bush on Oct. 13 has made it a little tougher for him to play poker online, he says he continues to do so.?It's not going to stop people from playing poker,? he said. ?They're just going to go around it.?
Ruby, who uses a wheelchair, said Internet gambling leveled the playing field for him after an accident stripped him of his ability to walk.
?It's a hobby for me,? said Ruby, 32. ?This law is actually discriminatory to disabled people.?
The new law effectively bars online betting in the United States by making it illegal for U.S. banks and credit card companies to process payments to gambling Web sites. But gamblers can still place wagers by going through third-party sites such as Netteller.com that facilitate transactions.
The online gambling industry generated about $7 billion to $10 billion worldwide in 2004, with Americans making up at least half the market, according to the American Gaming Association.
It's unclear how dramatically those figures have changed since the new law has been in effect.
But industry watchers say traffic to the publicly traded companies, which are no longer accepting U.S. customers, has slumped while traffic to privately held companies, which continue to cater to Americans, have gotten a boost.
PartyGaming, for example, has seen its share of daily players drop from about 16,000 before Congress approved the ban to about 6,200 the day after Bush signed it into law, according to Casino City, a magazine and Web site that follows the gaming industry.
On the other hand, the privately held Full Tilt Poker, has increased its number of daily players to more than 5,000 in late October from just more than 3,000 in late September.
Some major publicly traded companies like PartyGaming and 888 have seen their stock values slump in the past two months. The two companies are reportedly considering a merger to stay afloat.
?The largest, most financially transparent sites have left the market,? said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, which lobbied heavily against the legislation. ?You still have some private companies that are well known. But you're seeing new sites pop up who don't have the public interest at heart. They're in unregulated areas.?
Bolcerek argues the measure infringes on Americans' personal freedoms by requiring banks and credit card companies to monitor their customers' online transactions.
He and others who support online gaming hope that the new Democratic majority in Congress may be more open to overturning the new law.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has said he does not support Internet gambling. But he said he would be open to a congressional study on the issue.
The law's full impact likely won't be felt until next summer when the new regulations actually go into effect.
So it's still too early to tell whether the new law has been successful at curbing online gaming, said Greg Wierzynski, a spokesman for Rep. Jim Leach, who sponsored the bill in the House. Leach, R-Iowa, was voted out of office in November.
Meanwhile, the United States faces complaints from the island nation of Antigua, which argues U.S. gambling laws violate American free trade obligations. Antigua has challenged the American laws through the World Trade Organization. A decision is expected next year.
No matter what happens, Americans who want to bet online will find new ways to place their wagers on the Internet, said Lou Krieger, who has written several books on poker and gambling.
?Every time a new threshold is created, the least dedicated players will say it's not worth it for them,? he said. ?But there's a million ways to do this.?
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST";s:7:"summary";s:4457:"WASHINGTON ? A new law aimed at curtailing online gambling in the United States has rattled major publicly traded Internet gambling companies but has done little to keep Americans from wagering online, industry experts say.
The changes have been a boon to smaller, privately held companies that may not adhere to the same level of standards public companies must meet, the experts say.
And while the rules may be keeping some casual gamblers from placing bets, those who really want to wager online have found ways to do so.
Ethan Ruby, who lives in New York City, is one such online gambler. While the new law signed by President Bush on Oct. 13 has made it a little tougher for him to play poker online, he says he continues to do so.?It's not going to stop people from playing poker,? he said. ?They're just going to go around it.?
Ruby, who uses a wheelchair, said Internet gambling leveled the playing field for him after an accident stripped him of his ability to walk.
?It's a hobby for me,? said Ruby, 32. ?This law is actually discriminatory to disabled people.?
The new law effectively bars online betting in the United States by making it illegal for U.S. banks and credit card companies to process payments to gambling Web sites. But gamblers can still place wagers by going through third-party sites such as Netteller.com that facilitate transactions.
The online gambling industry generated about $7 billion to $10 billion worldwide in 2004, with Americans making up at least half the market, according to the American Gaming Association.
It's unclear how dramatically those figures have changed since the new law has been in effect.
But industry watchers say traffic to the publicly traded companies, which are no longer accepting U.S. customers, has slumped while traffic to privately held companies, which continue to cater to Americans, have gotten a boost.
PartyGaming, for example, has seen its share of daily players drop from about 16,000 before Congress approved the ban to about 6,200 the day after Bush signed it into law, according to Casino City, a magazine and Web site that follows the gaming industry.
On the other hand, the privately held Full Tilt Poker, has increased its number of daily players to more than 5,000 in late October from just more than 3,000 in late September.
Some major publicly traded companies like PartyGaming and 888 have seen their stock values slump in the past two months. The two companies are reportedly considering a merger to stay afloat.
?The largest, most financially transparent sites have left the market,? said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, which lobbied heavily against the legislation. ?You still have some private companies that are well known. But you're seeing new sites pop up who don't have the public interest at heart. They're in unregulated areas.?
Bolcerek argues the measure infringes on Americans' personal freedoms by requiring banks and credit card companies to monitor their customers' online transactions.
He and others who support online gaming hope that the new Democratic majority in Congress may be more open to overturning the new law.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has said he does not support Internet gambling. But he said he would be open to a congressional study on the issue.
The law's full impact likely won't be felt until next summer when the new regulations actually go into effect.
So it's still too early to tell whether the new law has been successful at curbing online gaming, said Greg Wierzynski, a spokesman for Rep. Jim Leach, who sponsored the bill in the House. Leach, R-Iowa, was voted out of office in November.
Meanwhile, the United States faces complaints from the island nation of Antigua, which argues U.S. gambling laws violate American free trade obligations. Antigua has challenged the American laws through the World Trade Organization. A decision is expected next year.
No matter what happens, Americans who want to bet online will find new ways to place their wagers on the Internet, said Lou Krieger, who has written several books on poker and gambling.
?Every time a new threshold is created, the least dedicated players will say it's not worth it for them,? he said. ?But there's a million ways to do this.?
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1165899600;}i:12;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:93:"Poker Players Alliance Renews Objection to Internet Gambling Ban, Points to Survey as Support";s:4:"guid";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=86";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=86";s:11:"description";s:6357:"Poker Players Alliance Renews Objection to Internet Gambling Ban, Points to Survey as Support
Poll Finds Nearly 75% of the Public Opposes Federal Ban
Washington D.C. (April 4, 2006) - At a roundtable panel discussion today, The Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots organization of more than 20,000 American poker players, renewed its objection to online gambling prohibition, highlighting a new survey by ICR market research that finds nearly 75 percent of Americans oppose moves by Congress to ban Internet poker. A more detailed breakdown of poll results follows this release.
"The new poll results are a clear illustration of the public's feelings on this issue. Simply put, people don't want their member of Congress telling them what they can and cannot do in their own home-especially when it comes to a game that's as all-American as jazz or basketball," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance.
Three of the biggest names in poker-Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson and Greg Raymer-and Radley Balko of the Cato Institute joined Bolcerek on the panel, each explaining why efforts to ban online gambling are misguided.
"We are here today to speak about the growing threat to poker as it relates to the online game," said Bolcerek. "We are here to defend the game and express our opposition to Congress' efforts to kill the sport and restrict our civil liberties."
The Poker Players Alliance opposes any effort to limit the rights of poker players to enjoy the game as they do today whether it is online, at a poker club or in the privacy of their own homes.
The Poker Players Alliance www.pokerplayersalliance.org is a non-profit organizations advocating on behalf of American poker players.
#####
The following survey was conducted on March 29, 2006 by ICR, an independent market research supplier located in Media, PA. The results reflect a randomly selected group of 964 adults. Those selected were read a series of questions and asked to respond with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." The results of the survey are listed below.
Question #1: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 5% | 90% | 4.5% | 0.4% |
| 49 | 868 | 43 | 4 |
Question #2: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Las Vegas?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 5.5% | 90.7% | 3.3% | 0.5% |
| 53 | 874 | 32 | 5 |
Question #3: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Casinos on Indian Reservations?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 8.3% | 86.6% | 4.6% | 0.5% |
| 80 | 835 | 44 | 5 |
Question #4: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker for charitable fundraisers?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 8.1% | 86.9% | 4.4% | 0.6% |
| 78 | 838 | 42 | 6 |
-Page 1 of 2-
Question #5: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker on the Internet?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 18% | 74.2% | 7.4% | 0.4% |
| 174 | 715 | 71 | 4 |
Question #6: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in the privacy of your own home?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 3% | 94.7% | 1.8% | 0.5% |
| 29 | 913 | 17 | 5 |
Question #7: "Do you believe the federal government should be managing Americans gambling behaviors on the Internet?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 26.9% | 66.1% | 6.4% | 0.6% |
| 259 | 637 | 62 | 6 |
#####
";s:8:"category";s:4:"news";s:7:"pubdate";s:29:"Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 EDT";s:7:"summary";s:6357:"Poker Players Alliance Renews Objection to Internet Gambling Ban, Points to Survey as Support
Poll Finds Nearly 75% of the Public Opposes Federal Ban
Washington D.C. (April 4, 2006) - At a roundtable panel discussion today, The Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots organization of more than 20,000 American poker players, renewed its objection to online gambling prohibition, highlighting a new survey by ICR market research that finds nearly 75 percent of Americans oppose moves by Congress to ban Internet poker. A more detailed breakdown of poll results follows this release.
"The new poll results are a clear illustration of the public's feelings on this issue. Simply put, people don't want their member of Congress telling them what they can and cannot do in their own home-especially when it comes to a game that's as all-American as jazz or basketball," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance.
Three of the biggest names in poker-Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson and Greg Raymer-and Radley Balko of the Cato Institute joined Bolcerek on the panel, each explaining why efforts to ban online gambling are misguided.
"We are here today to speak about the growing threat to poker as it relates to the online game," said Bolcerek. "We are here to defend the game and express our opposition to Congress' efforts to kill the sport and restrict our civil liberties."
The Poker Players Alliance opposes any effort to limit the rights of poker players to enjoy the game as they do today whether it is online, at a poker club or in the privacy of their own homes.
The Poker Players Alliance www.pokerplayersalliance.org is a non-profit organizations advocating on behalf of American poker players.
#####
The following survey was conducted on March 29, 2006 by ICR, an independent market research supplier located in Media, PA. The results reflect a randomly selected group of 964 adults. Those selected were read a series of questions and asked to respond with "yes," "no," or "I don't know." The results of the survey are listed below.
Question #1: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 5% | 90% | 4.5% | 0.4% |
| 49 | 868 | 43 | 4 |
Question #2: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Las Vegas?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 5.5% | 90.7% | 3.3% | 0.5% |
| 53 | 874 | 32 | 5 |
Question #3: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Casinos on Indian Reservations?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 8.3% | 86.6% | 4.6% | 0.5% |
| 80 | 835 | 44 | 5 |
Question #4: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker for charitable fundraisers?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 8.1% | 86.9% | 4.4% | 0.6% |
| 78 | 838 | 42 | 6 |
-Page 1 of 2-
Question #5: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker on the Internet?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 18% | 74.2% | 7.4% | 0.4% |
| 174 | 715 | 71 | 4 |
Question #6: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in the privacy of your own home?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 3% | 94.7% | 1.8% | 0.5% |
| 29 | 913 | 17 | 5 |
Question #7: "Do you believe the federal government should be managing Americans gambling behaviors on the Internet?"
| YES | NO | DON'T KNOW | REFUSED |
| 26.9% | 66.1% | 6.4% | 0.6% |
| 259 | 637 | 62 | 6 |
#####
";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1144123200;}i:13;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:67:"Poker Players Alliance Denounces Goodlatte's Internet Gambling Bill";s:4:"guid";s:72:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=103";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=103";s:11:"description";s:1967:"Washington D.C. (May 3, 2006) - The Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots organization of more than 25,000 American poker players, expressed opposition to Rep. Bob Goodlatte's legislation, H.R. 4777, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Coinciding with today's House Judiciary Subcommittee mark-up on the legislation, Michael Bolcerek, the president of the Poker Players Alliance, issued the following statement: