Part 2 -- Pappas Discusses Online Poker's Political BattleExecutive Director Talks About the Organization's Future Role |
|
Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas answered questions late last week about the status of online poker’s fight for licensing and regulation. In Part 2 of the two-part interview, Pappas discusses what the PPA’s mindset will be when these poker-related bills are introduced, as well as an update on the court cases the organization is actively involved with around the country.
In Part 1 of the interview, Pappas discussed the specific poker bills the PPA is working on.
Card Player: What will be the PPA’s role once these bills are actually introduced?
John Pappas: The first step is to generate broad and vocal support for the legislation, not only from our members but from other areas and groups unrelated to gaming. We see advocates for responsible gaming, we see advocates for the tax side of things, we see advocates for children and child safety. Those are all groups that we would like to bring into the mix in terms of supporting the effort to license and regulate Internet poker. We’re already working on those angles to make sure those voices are there when the bills are introduced, or shortly thereafter.
Then, of course, our membership. We have over a million members, many — unfortunately, not all of them — take action and write their members of Congress or call their members of Congress; we encourage that. We’re also going to encourage people to contact President Obama and ask him to support legislation for Internet poker. When it comes down to a face-to-face visit, the PPA will be working with all members of Congress to let them know about the new bills. Many members of Congress have already met with us, we have commitments from many of them to co-sponsor bills that we will introduce, so we will follow up on those commitments and we will try to find new supporters, and, at some appropriate point this year, we hope to bring all of our volunteer state directors to Washington, D.C., to directly lobby with members of Congress — a fly-in, if you will. These are kind of the first steps of gathering support.
It’s a grassroots campaign, in the end. The people who members of Congress are going to respond to are their voters. We need to make sure more voters are out there talking about why they support this.
CP: There are many kinds of gaming that are currently regulated thanks to successful lobbying efforts, such as horse racing and lotteries. How can you compare poker’s fight to past lobbying efforts?
JP: We’re not necessarily following other sorts of gaming models, because what we bring to this debate is entirely unique — we bring voters, we bring individuals, so our model is more like the NRA model, Sierra Club, grassroots organizations. Lotteries are about state governments, horseracing brings business and lots of campaign contributions, and let’s keep in mind, these lobbies have been in Washington and in the states for decades. Poker players have been organized for three years. It’s unrealistic for anyone to believe that we’re going to get exactly what we want just because we want it, and that it’s going to happen overnight.
There’s a lot of education that needs to take place before any of these bills become law. The PPA is doing all it can — we have a very substantial lobbying budget, we have what I believe is the best and most diverse lobbying team in Washington, D.C., but lobbying is only one part of it. There’s the grassroots part, there’s the media part, there are the things we’re doing at the state level unrelated to Internet gaming, but in support of poker, like proving that poker is a game of skill. That all comes together in one campaign to influence an outcome that we all want.
CP: Can you give us any kind of update as to the status of the South Carolina appeal?
JP: I can’t comment too much on pending litigation, but we have not been noticed by the court as to the timeline, so we’re waiting for the timeline and we’ll be helping the local attorneys there file an appeal, an appellate brief, and argue the case. The PPA will provide expert witnesses, et cetera.
Pretty much, we’re waiting for the courts to let us know what the timelines are.
CP: What can you tell us about the other cases the PPA is working on?
JP: We are in discussions with Michael Melkerson (a Virginia attorney representing an arrested poker player), and we have decided we will assist in the case. To what degree has not been determined.
In Pennsylvania, there are two cases that we’re involved in, and we’re also in Colorado. In this case, we’re waiting for the state to file their appeal, and once they file their appeal, we’ll be able to respond.
In Pennsylvania, one of them is an appeal and one of them is a trial. The appeal will be for Mr. Buzz Watkins, who the judge ruled independent of any PPA testimony that poker was in fact a game of skill, but again, the commonwealth is appealing it and again we are waiting for the appeal. The other is a new case in Pennsylvania where the defendant organized a poker game and was arrested and found guilty of unlawful gambling; we’re going to assist them in building their case, because poker is a game of skill and therefore not unlawful in the state of Pennsylvania.
CP: Going back to Barney Frank’s upcoming bill, how optimistic are you that the bill will go to a House vote, and when do you think that will happen?
JP: They didn’t give me a crystal ball when they gave me this job (laughing), but let’s take things one step at a time. We need to get the bill introduced, and we need to spend some time earning support for the bill. I think the earliest that we could talk about there being a committee hearing vote on this legislation would be sometime in late May, early June. From there, it would need to go the full House and then to the Senate. There’s a whole process here, it’d be impossible for me to say when I would expect the House to be voting on this bill. I can probably say with more accuracy that there will probably be some committee action in late May, early June.
CP: What happened to Congressman Frank's bill last year?
JP: HR 6870 did go to a vote and was passed out of committee. It died after the committee process…That was passed out of committee, 30-19. It means the financial services committee, Barney Frank’s committee, voted on it — there was what they call a hearing or a markup — and members of Congress had an opportunity to debate the bill, and it passed. Of course, that’s just the first step of the process. It then needs to go to the House floor and then the Senate and then the president.
CP: And why didn’t the bill go to the House floor after getting voted out of committee?
We just ran out of time. We simply ran out of time. It was done late in the legislative session, and the bill was not finalized — again, this bill would’ve just narrowly dealt with the UIGEA regulations. It wasn’t a bill about licensing and regulating, it was a bill that would’ve, in essence, clarified the UIGEA and delayed its implementation until that clarification was final. This is something we would’ve all liked. Unfortunately, even though it passed out of committee, the regulators still did finalize it with their midnight rules the day before President Obama took office.
Card Player will continue to update its readers on the actions of the Poker Players Alliance and any federal legislation that may impact online poker.
Copyright © 2001-2024
CardPlayer.com. All rights reserved.
